Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T15:59:40.609Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Kinematic effects of number of legs in 6-DOF UPS parallel mechanisms

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2017

Mohammad H. Abedinnasab ,
Farzam Farahmand ,
Bahram Tarvirdizadeh ,
Hassan Zohoor  and
Jaime Gallardo-Alvarado
Mohammad H. Abedinnasab*
Affiliation:
Department of Biomedical Engineering, Rowan University, Glassboro, New Jersey 08028, USA
Farzam Farahmand
Affiliation:
School of Mechanical Engineering, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran; RCBTR, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. E-mail: [email protected]
Bahram Tarvirdizadeh
Affiliation:
Faculty of New Sciences and Technologies, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran. E-mail: [email protected]
Hassan Zohoor
Affiliation:
Center of Excellence in Design, Robotics, and Automation, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran; Academy of Sciences of I.R.Iran, Tehran, Iran. E-mail: [email protected]
Jaime Gallardo-Alvarado
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Instituto Tecnológico de Celaya, TNM, 38010 Celaya, GTO, México. E-mail: [email protected]
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

In this paper, we study the kinematic effects of number of legs in 6-DOF UPS parallel manipulators. A group of 3-, 4-, and 6-legged mechanisms are evaluated in terms of the kinematic performance indices, workspace, singular configurations, and forward kinematic solutions. Results show that the optimum number of legs varies due to priorities in kinematic measures in different applications. The non-symmetric Wide-Open mechanism enjoys the largest workspace, while the well-known Gough–Stewart (3–3) platform retains the highest dexterity. Especially, the redundantly actuated 4-legged mechanism has several important advantages over its non-redundant counterparts and different architectures of Gough–Stewart platform. It has dramatically less singular configurations, a higher manipulability, and at the same time less sensitivity. It is also shown that the forward kinematic problem has 40, 16, and 1 solution(s), respectively for the 6-, 3-, and the 4-legged mechanisms. Superior capabilities of the 4-legged mechanism make it a perfect candidate to be used in more challenging 6-DOF applications in assembly, manufacturing, biomedical, and space technologies.

Keywords

Redundant mechanismsGaugh–Stewart platformScrew theoryKinematic indicesSingularity analysisWorkspace
Type
Articles
Information
Robotica , Volume 35 , Issue 12 , December 2017 , pp. 2257 - 2277
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

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. Gao, F., Li, W., Zhao, X., Jin, Z. and Zhao, H., “New kinematic structures for 2-, 3-, 4-, and 5-dof parallel manipulator designs,” Mech. Mach. Theory 37 (11), 1395–1411 (2002).Google Scholar
2. Gough, V. E. and Whitehall, S. G., “Universal Tyre Test Machine,” Proceedings of the 9th International Technical Congress FISITA, Birmingham, England (1962) pp. 117–137.Google Scholar
3. Stewart, D., “A platform with six degrees of freedom,” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. 180, 371–386 (1965).Google Scholar
4. Patel, Y. and George, P. M., “Parallel manipulators applications–a survey,” Mod. Mech. Eng. 2 (03), 57–64 (2012).Google Scholar
5. Gosselin, C. and Angeles, J., “Singularity analysis of closed-loop kinematic chains,” IEEE Trans. Rob. Autom. 6 (3), 281–290 (1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Gosselin, C. and Schreiber, L.-T., “Kinematically redundant spatial parallel mechanisms for singularity avoidance and large orientational workspace,” IEEE Trans. Robot. 32 (2), 286–300 (2016).Google Scholar
7. Shang, W. and Cong, S., “Robust nonlinear control of a planar 2-dof parallel manipulator with redundant actuation,” Robot. Comput.-Integr. Manuf. 30 (6), 597–604 (2014).Google Scholar
8. Wu, J., Li, T., Wang, J. and Wang, L., “Stiffness and natural frequency of a 3-dof parallel manipulator with consideration of additional leg candidates,” Robot. Auton. Syst. 61 (8), 868–875 (2013).Google Scholar
9. Niu, X.-M., Gao, G.-Q., Liu, X.-J. and Bao, Z.-D., “Dynamics and control of a novel 3-dof parallel manipulator with actuation redundancy,” Int. J. Autom. Comput. 10 (6), 552–562 (2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Müller, A., “Internal preload control of redundantly actuated parallel manipulators - its application to backlash avoiding control,” IEEE Trans. Rob. 21 (4), 668–677 (2005).Google Scholar
11. Yi, B.-J., Cox, D. and Tesar, D., “Analysis and Design Criteria for a Redundantly Actuated 4-Legged Six Degree-of-Freedom Parallel Manipulator,” Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, ICRA, vol. 4, Seoul, South Korea, IEEE (2001) pp. 3286–3293.Google Scholar
12. Ropponen, T. and Nakamura, Y., “Singularity-Free Parameterization and Performance Analysis of Actuation Redundancy,” Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, vol. 2, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA, (1990) pp. 806–811.Google Scholar
13. Wang, D., Fan, R. and Chen, W., “Performance enhancement of a three-degree-of-freedom parallel tool head via actuation redundancy,” Mechanism and Machine Theory 71, 142–162 (2014).Google Scholar
14. Shayya, S., Krut, S., Company, O., Baradat, C. and Pierrot, F., “A Novel 4 dofs (3t-1r) Parallel Manipulator with Actuation Redundancy–Workspace Analysis,” In MeTrApp'2013: 2nd Conference on Mechanisms, Transmissions and Applications, vol. 17, no. Mechanisms and Machine Science (Bilbao, Spain, October 2–4, 2013), pp. 317–324.Google Scholar
15. Zhao, Y. and Gao, F., “The joint velocity, torque, and power capability evaluation of a redundant parallel manipulator,” Robotica 29 (03), 483–493 (2011).Google Scholar
16. Yi, B.-J., Freeman, R. A. and Tesar, D., “Open-Loop Stiffness Control of Overconstrained MechanismsRrobotic Linkage Systems,” Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, vol. 3, Scottsdale, Arizona, USA (1989) pp. 1340–1345.Google Scholar
17. Wang, J. and Gosselin, C. M., “Kinematic analysis and design of kinematically redundant parallel mechanisms,” J. Mech. Des. Trans. ASME 126 (1), 109–118 (2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Kotlarski, J., Heimann, B. and Ortmaier, T., “Influence of kinematic redundancy on the singularity-free workspace of parallel kinematic machines,” Frontiers Mech. Eng. 7 (2), 120–134 (2012).Google Scholar
19. Beji, L. and Pascal, M., “Kinematics and the full minimal dynamic model of a 6-dof parallel robot manipulator,” Nonlinear Dyn. 18, 339–356 (1999).Google Scholar
20. Abedinnasab, M. H. and Vossoughi, G. R., “Analysis of a 6-dof redundantly actuated 4-legged parallel mechanism,” Nonlinear Dyn. 58 (4), 611–622 (2009).Google Scholar
21. Mohammad, H. Abedinnasab, Yoon, Yong-Jin and Zohoor, Hassan (2012). “Exploiting Higher Kinematic Performance - Using a 4-Legged Redundant PM Rather than Gough-Stewart Platforms,” in Serial and Parallel Robot Manipulators - Kinematics, Dynamics, Control and Optimization, Dr. Kucuk, Serdar (Ed.), InTech, DOI: 10.5772/32141.Google Scholar
22. Aghababai, O., Design, Kinematic and Dynamic Analysis and Optimization of a 6 DOF Redundantly Actuated Parallel Mechanism for Use in Haptic Systems MSc Thesis (Tehran, Iran: Sharif University of Technology, 2005).Google Scholar
23. Faugère, J.-C. and Lazard, D., “Combinatorial classes of parallel manipulators,” Mech. Mach. Theory 30 (6), 765–776 (1995).Google Scholar
24. Wampler, C. W., “Forward displacement analysis of general six-in-parallel sps (stewart) platform manipulators using soma coordinates,” Mech. Mach. Theory 31 (3), 331–337 (1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25. Gallardo-Alvarado, J., “A simple method to solve the forward displacement analysis of the general six-legged parallel manipulator,” Robot. Comput.-Integrated Manuf. 30 (1), 55–61 (2014).Google Scholar
26. Gao, X.-S., Lei, D., Liao, Q. and Zhang, G.-F., “Generalized stewart-gough platforms and their direct kinematics,” IEEE Trans. Robot. 21 (2), 141–151 (2005).Google Scholar
27. Gallardo-Alvarado, J., Rodríguez-Castro, R. and Islam, M. N., “Analytical solution of the forward position analysis of parallel manipulators that generate 3-rs structures,” Adv. Robot. 22 (2–3), 215–234 (2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28. Zhao, Y., Liu, J. and Huang, Z., “A force analysis of a 3-rps parallel mechanism by using screw theory,” Robotica 29 (07), 959–965 (2011).Google Scholar
29. Gallardo-Alvarado, J., Orozco-Mendoza, H. and Rico-Martínez, J. M., “A novel five-degrees-of-freedom decoupled robot,” Robotica 28 (6), 909–917 (2010).Google Scholar
30. Gallardo-Alvarado, J., Rico-Martínez, J. M. and Alici, G., “Kinematics and singularity analyses of a 4-dof parallel manipulator using screw theory,” Mech. Mach. Theory 41 (9), 1048–1061 (2006).Google Scholar
31. Zhao, J., Li, B., Yang, X. and Yu, H., “Geometrical method to determine the reciprocal screws and applications to parallel manipulators,” Robotica 27 (06), 929–940 (2009).Google Scholar
32. Tsai, L.-W., Robot Analysis: The Mechanics of Serial and Parallel Manipulators (Wiley, New York, New York, USA, 1999).Google Scholar
33. Tsai, L.-W., “The jacobian analysis of a parallel manipulator using reciprocal screws,” In: Advances in Robot Kinematics: Analysis and Control (Lenarcic, J. and Husty, M. L., eds.) (Kluwer Academic, 1998), 327–336.Google Scholar
34. Mansouri, I. and Ouali, M., “The power manipulability a new homogeneous performance index of robot manipulators,” Rob. Comput. Integr. Manuf. 27 (2), 434–449 (2011).Google Scholar
35. Angeles, J. and Lopez-Cajun, C. S., “Kinematic isotropy and the conditioning index of serial robotic manipulators,” Int. J. Rob. Res. 11 (6), 560–571 (1992).Google Scholar
36. Gosselin, C. M., “The optimum design of robotic manipulators using dexterity indices,” Rob. Autom. Syst. 9 (4), 213–226 (1992).Google Scholar
37. Cardou, P., Bouchard, S. and Gosselin, C., “Kinematic-sensitivity indices for dimensionally nonhomogeneous jacobian matrices,” IEEE Trans. Robot. 26 (1), 166–173 (2010).Google Scholar
38. Gosselin, C. and Angeles, J., “Global performance index for the kinematic optimization of robotic manipulators,” J. Mech. Transm. Autom. Des. 113 (3), 220–226 (1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
39. Tavakoli, M., Zakerzadeh, M., Vossoughi, G. and Bagheri, S., “A hybrid pole climbing and manipulating robot with minimum dofs for construction and service applications,” Ind. Robot: Int. J. 32 (2), 171–178 (2005).Google Scholar
40. Tavakoli, M., Marjovi, A., Marques, L. and De Almeida, A. T., “3dclimber: A Climbing Robot for Inspection of 3d Human Made Structures,” Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, IROS, Nice, France (2008) pp. 4130–4135.Google Scholar
41. Tavakoli, M., Marques, L. and de Almeida, A. T., “Development of an industrial pipeline inspection robot,” Ind. Robot: Int. J. 37 (3), 309–322 (2010).Google Scholar
42. Tavakoli, M., Lopes, P., Sgrigna, L. and Viegas, C., “Motion control of an omnidirectional climbing robot based on dead reckoning method,” Mechatronics 30, 94–106 (2015).Google Scholar
43. Clark, J. E., Cham, J. G., Bailey, S., Froehlich, E. M., Nahata, P. K., Full, R. J., Cutkosky, M. R., “Biomimetic Design and Fabrication of a Hexapedal Running Robot,” Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, ICRA, vol. 4, Seoul, South Korea (2001) pp. 3643–3649.Google Scholar
44. Kim, S., Spenko, M., Trujillo, S., B. Heyneman, Santos, D. and Cutkosky, M. R., “Smooth vertical surface climbing with directional adhesion,” IEEE Trans. Robot. 24 (1), 65–74 (2008).Google Scholar
45. Spenko, M., Haynes, G., Saunders, J., Cutkosky, M., Rizzi, A., Full, R. and Koditschek, D., “Biologically inspired climbing with a hexapedal robot,” J. Field Robot. 25 (4–5) (2008) 223–242.Google Scholar
46. Baghani, A., Ahmadabadi, M. N. and Harati, A., “Kinematics Modeling of a Wheel-Based Pole Climbing Robot (ut-pcr),” Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, ICRA, Barcelona, Spain (2005), pp. 2099–2104.Google Scholar
47. Almonacid, M., Saltarén, R. J., Aracil, R. and Reinoso, O., “Motion planning of a climbing parallel robot,” IEEE Trans. Robot. Autom. 19 (3), 485–489 (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
48. Aracil, R., Saltarén, R. and Reinoso, O., “Parallel robots for autonomous climbing along tubular structures,” Robot. Auton. Syst. 42 (2), 125–134 (2003).Google Scholar
49. Zamorano, L., Li, Q., Jain, S. and Kaur, G., “Robotics in neurosurgery: State of the art and future technological challenges,” Int. J. Med. Robot. 1 (1), 7–22 (2004).Google Scholar
50. Mc, P. B.Beth, Louw, D. F., P. Rizun, R. and Sutherland, G. R., “Robotics in neurosurgery,” Am. J. Surg. 188 (4), 68–75 (2004).Google Scholar
51. Nathoo, N., Çavusoglu, M. C., Vogelbaum, M. A. and Barnett, G. H., “In touch with robotics: neurosurgery for the future,” Neurosurgery 56 (3), 421–433 (2005).Google Scholar
52. Eljamel, M. S., Robotic Applications in Neurosurgery (INTECH Open Access Publisher, Rijeka, Croatia, 2008).Google Scholar