Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T08:48:05.576Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Stiffness analysis of the 3SPS+1PS bionic parallel test platform for a hip joint simulator

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2013

Gang Cheng ,
Jingli Yu ,
Peng Xu  and
Houguang Liu
Gang Cheng*
Affiliation:
College of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering, China University of Mining and Technology, Xuzhou 221116, China
Jingli Yu
Affiliation:
College of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering, China University of Mining and Technology, Xuzhou 221116, China
Peng Xu
Affiliation:
College of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering, China University of Mining and Technology, Xuzhou 221116, China
Houguang Liu
Affiliation:
College of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering, China University of Mining and Technology, Xuzhou 221116, China
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

A novel parallel hip joint simulator, called 3SPS+1PS bionic parallel test platform, with 4 degrees of freedom including three rotations and one translation is designed to represent three-dimensional motion and compound friction movement of a human hip joint and to be a better simulator for testing the tribology performance of biomaterials for hip joint prosthesis. Stiffness is one of the most important performances of parallel manipulators, as well as for the 3SPS+1PS parallel manipulator with higher speeds. First, the differential kinematic/static model was derived based on the kinematics model. The relationship between the elastic deformation of each active leg and the variation of position/orientation deformation of the moving platform was described based on the virtual work principle. Then, a 6 × 6 global stiffness matrix of the 3SPS+1PS parallel manipulator was derived. The maximum versus minimum eigenvalues of the global stiffness matrix were obtained as its two evaluation indexes. By letting the 3SPS+1PS bionic parallel test platform represent three rotation motions and the dynamic loading of the human hip joint as described by ISO 14242 Part-1, the forces acted on each active leg and their responding elastic deformations were analyzed. The distributions for maximum and minimum stiffness in different workspace were detected. Finally, the results showed that the minimum stiffness in the whole workspace should be larger than the allowable stiffness of the 3SPS+1PS parallel manipulator.

Keywords

3SPS+1PS bionic parallel test platformHip joint simulatorStiffness analysisISO 1424 Part-1
Type
Articles
Information
Robotica , Volume 31 , Issue 6 , September 2013 , pp. 935 - 944
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

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.Merlet, J. P., Parallel Robots (Kluwer Academic, London, 2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Przemieniecki, J. S., Theory of Matrix Structural Analysis (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1968).Google Scholar
3.Seo, T. W., Kim, H. S., Kang, D. S. and Kim, J. W., “Gain-scheduled robust control of a novel 3-DOF micro parallel positioning platform via a dual stage servo system,” Mechatronics 18 (9), 495–505 (2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Inoue, K., Tanikawa, T. and Arai, T., “Micro-manipulation system with a two-fingered micro-hand and its potential application in bioscience,” J. Biotechnol. 133 (2), 219–224 (2008).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Liang, Q. K., Zhang, D., Chi, Z. Z., Song, Q. J., Ge, Y. J. and Ge, Y., “Six-DOF micro-manipulator based on compliant parallel mechanism,” Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf. 27 (1), 124–134 (2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Lim, W. B., Yang, G., Yeo, S. H. and Mustafa, S. K., “A generic force-closure analysis algorithm for cable-driven parallel manipulators,” Mech. Mach. Theory 46 (9), 1265–1275 (2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Salisbury, J., “Active stiffness control of a manipulator in Cartesian coordinates,” 19th IEEE Conf. Decis. Control 95 (3), 87–97 (1980).Google Scholar
8.Gosselin, C. M., “Stiffness mapping for parallel manipulators,” IEEE Trans. Robot. Autom. 6 (3), 377–382 (1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.Shneor, Y. and Portman, V. T., “Stiffness of 5-axis machines with serial, parallel, and hybrid kinematics: Evaluation and comparison,” CIRP Ann. Manuf. Technol. 59 (1), 409–412 (2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Hu, B., Lu, Y., Tan, Q., Yu, J. P. and Han, J. D., “Analysis of stiffness and elastic deformation of a 2(SP+SPR+SPU) serial–parallel manipulator,” Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf. 27 (2), 418–425 (2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Huang, S. G. and Schimmels, J. M., “The eigenscrew decomposition of spatial stiffness matrices,” IEEE Trans. Robot. Autom. 6 (2), 146–156 (2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12.Li, Y. M. and Xu, Q. S., “Stiffness analysis for a 3-PUU parallel kinematic machine,” Mech. Mach. Theory 43 (2), 186–200 (2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13.Xu, Q. S. and Li, Y. M., “An investigation on mobility and stiffness of a 3-DOF translational parallel manipulator via screw theory,” Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf. 24 (3), 402–414 (2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.Liu, X. J., Jin, Z. L. and Gao, F., “Optimum design of 3-DOF spherical parallel manipulators with respect to the conditioning and stiffness indices,” Mech. Mach. Theory 35 (9), 1257–1267 (2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15.Xi, F. F., Zhang, D., Mechefske, C. M. and Lang, S. Y. T., “Global kinematic modeling of tripod-based parallel kinematic machine,” Mech. Mach. Theory 39 (4), 357–377 (2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16.Ceccarelli, M. and Carbone, G., “A stiffness analysis for CaPaMan (CassinoParallel Manipulator),” Mech. Mach. Theory 37 (5), 427–439 (2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17.Bouzgarrou, B. C., Fauroux, J. C., Gogu, G. and Heerah, Y., “Rigidity Analysis of T3R1 Parallel Robot with Uncoupled Kinematic,” Proceedings of the 35th International Symposium on Robotics, Paris, France, 1–6 (2004).Google Scholar
18.Corradini, C., Fauroux, J. C., Krut, S. and Company, O., “Evaluation of a 4 Degree of Freedom Parallel Manipulator Stiffness,” Proceedings of the 11th Word Congress. In Mechanism & Machine Science (IFTOMM'2004), Tianjin, China (2004).Google Scholar
19.Piras, G., Cleghorn, W. L. and Mills, J. K., “Dynamic finite-element analysis of a planar high-speed, high-precision parallel manipulator with flexible links,” Mech. Mach. Theory 40 (7), 849–862 (2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20.Gonçalves, R. S. and Carvalho, J. C. M., “Stiffness analysis of parallel manipulator using matrix structural analysis,” Proceedings of EUCOMES (8), 255–262 (2009).Google Scholar
21.ISO 14242-1, Implants for surgery – Wear total hip-joint prostheses – Part 1: Loading and displacement parameters for wear testing machine and corresponding environmental conditions for test (2002).Google Scholar
22.Cheng, G., Yu, J. L. and Gu, W., “Kinematic analysis of 3SPS+1PS bionic parallel test platform for hip joint simulator based on unit quaternion,” Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf. 28, 257–264 (2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23.Pashkevich, A., Chablat, D. and Wenger, Ph., “Stiffness analysis of overconstrained parallel manipulators,” Mech. Mach. Theory 44, 966–982 (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar