Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-sxzjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T23:43:01.364Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Kinematic and dynamic performance investigations of asymmetric (U-shape fixed base) planar parallel manipulators

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2018

Jayant Kumar Mohanta ,
Yogesh Singh  and
Santhakumar Mohan Open the ORCID record for Santhakumar Mohan [Opens in a new window]
Jayant Kumar Mohanta
Affiliation:
Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Indore, Indore 453552, India. E-mail: jkmjayant@gmail.com
Yogesh Singh
Affiliation:
Mechanical Engineering, SRM Institute of Science and Technology, Chennai 603203, India. E-mail: yogeshsingh15@gmail.com
Santhakumar Mohan*
Affiliation:
Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Indore, Indore 453552, India. E-mail: jkmjayant@gmail.com
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: santhakumar@iiti.ac.in
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

In this paper, a new family of 3-degree-of-freedom planar parallel manipulators (PPMs), namely U-shape fixed base PPMs starting with an active prismatic joint on each leg, is proposed. In order to identify the best manipulators of this family, comparative kinematic and dynamic performance studies are performed. The kinematic performances are quantified through the local performance index, namely the kinematic isotropy. From the kinematic isotropy analysis results, it is observed that PPR-PRP-PRP, PRP-PRP-PRP and PRR-PRP-PRP configurations have better kinematic design aspects compared to other configurations of this family of U-shape fixed base parallel configurations. Further, from the workspace analysis, it is observed that the PPR-PRP-PRP configuration has a higher value of workspace to the total area required ratio compared to other configurations. This paper also presents a comparative dynamic performance analysis of these top-three U-shape fixed base configurations in terms of dynamic driving performance measures, and energy requirements for three different (fixed base size of the manipulators) aspect ratios under two different loading conditions. From the analyses results, it is perceived that the PRP-PRP-PRP configuration is requiring lower energy and dynamic driving performances than others. These analyses are done with the help of multi-body dynamic software, namely MSC ADAMS, and the results are validated through the help of real-time experiments conducted on in-house fabricated prototypes of these three PPMs. In specific, the energy consumption is measured and compared in this study. Experimental results demonstrated that the PRP-PRP-PRP manipulator displays a considerably better performance in terms of minimum energy requirement.

Keywords

Planar parallel manipulatorKinematic analysisDynamic analysisKinematic isotropyDynamic performance measures
Type
Articles
Information
Robotica , Volume 36 , Issue 8 , August 2018 , pp. 1111 - 1143
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

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. Briot, S. and Bonev, I. A., “Are parallel robots more accurate than serial robots?,” Trans. Can. Soc. Mech. Eng. 31 (4), 445–455 (2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Merlet, J. P., Parallel Robots, 2nd ed. (Springer, The Netherlands, 2006).Google Scholar
3. 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 (1), 57–65 (2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Bonev, I. A., “Planar parallel mechanism and method,” US Patent7707907 B2 (2010).Google Scholar
5. Staicu, S., “Inverse dynamics of the 3-PRR planar parallel robot,” Robot. Auton. Syst. 57 (5), 556–563 (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Choi, K. B., “Kinematic analysis and optimal design of 3-PPR planar parallel manipulator,” KSME Int. J. 17 (4), 528–537 (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Bai, S. and Caro, S., “Design and Analysis of a 3-PPR Planar Robot with U-shape Base,” Proceedings of the ICAR International Conference on Advanced Robotics, Munich, Germany (2009) pp. 1–6.Google Scholar
8. Wu, J., Wang, J., Wang, L. and You, Z., “Performance comparison of three planar 3 DOF parallel manipulators with 4-RRR, 3-RRR and 2-RRR structures,” Mechatronics 20 (4), 510–517 (2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Merlet, J. P., Gosselin, C. M. and Mouly, N., “Workspaces of planar parallel manipulators,” Mech. Mach. Theory 33 (1–2), 7–20 (1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Rezaei, A. and Akbarzadeh, A., “Position and stiffness analysis of a new asymmetric 2PRR-PPR parallel CNC machine,” Adv. Robot. 27 (2), 133–145 (2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Gogu, G., Structural Synthesis of Parallel Robots, Part 1: Methodology, 1st ed. (Springer, The Netherlands, 2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Gogu, G., Structural Synthesis of Parallel Robots, Part 2: Translational Topologies with Two and Three Degrees of Freedom, 1st ed. (Springer, The Netherlands, 2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Gogu, G., Structural Synthesis of Parallel Robots, Part 3: Topologies with Planar Motion of the Moving Platform, 1st ed. (Springer, The Netherlands, 2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Gogu, G., Fully-Isotropic T3R1-Type Parallel Manipulators, on Advances in Robot Kinematics (Springer, The Netherlands, 2004) pp. 265–272.Google Scholar
15. Yu, A., Bonev, I. A. and Murray, P. Z., “Geometric approach to the accuracy analysis of a class of 3 DOF planar parallel robots,” Mech. Mach. Theory 43, 364–375 (2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Arakelian, V. H. and Smith, M. R., “Design of planar 3 DOF 3-RRR reactionless parallel manipulators,” Mechatronics 18, 601–606 (2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Briot, S. and Bonev, I. A., “Accuracy analysis of 3 DOF planar parallel robots,” Mech. Mach. Theory 43, 445–458 (2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Staicu, S., “Dynamics of a 3-RPR planar parallel robot,” UPB Sci. Bull. Ser. D, 70 (3), 3–18 (2008).Google Scholar
19. Caro, S., Binaud, N. and Wenger, P., “Sensitivity analysis of 3-RPR planar parallel manipulators,” J. Mech. Des. 131, 121005-1–13 (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20. Binaud, N., Caro, S. and Wenger, P., “Sensitivity comparison of planar parallel manipulators,” Mech. Mach. Theory 45 (11), 1477–1490 (2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21. Wu, J., Wang, J. and You, Z., “A comparison study on the dynamics of planar 3 DOF 4-RRR, 3-RRR and 2-RRR parallel manipulators,” Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf. 27 (1), 150–156 (2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22. Wu, G., Bai, S., Kepler, J. A. and Caro, S., “Error modelling and experimental validation of a planar 3-PPR parallel manipulator with joint clearance,” J. Mech. Robot. 4, 041008-1–12 (2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23. Wu, J., Li, T., Wang, J. and Wang, L., “Performance analysis and comparison of planar 3 DOF parallel manipulators with one and two additional branches,” J. Intell. Robot. Syst. 72, 73–82 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24. Staicu, S., “Power requirement comparison in the 3-RPR planar parallel robot dynamics,” Mech. Mach. Theory, 44, 1045–1057 (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25. Binaud, N., Caro, S. and Wenger, P., “Comparison of 3-RPR planar parallel manipulators with regard to their kinetostatic performance and sensitivity to geometric uncertainties,” Meccanica 46, 75–88 (2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26. Khatib, O., “Inertial properties in robotic manipulation: An object-level framework,” Int. J. Robot. Res., 14, 19–36 (1995).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27. Wu, J., Gao, Y., Zhang, B. and Wang, L., “Workspace and dynamic performance evaluation of the parallel manipulators in a spray-painting equipment,” Robot. Comput.-Integr. Manuf. 44, 199–207 (2017).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28. Liping, W., Huayang, X. and Liwen, G., “Kinematics and inverse dynamics analysis for a novel 3-PUU parallel mechanism,” Robotica 35 (10), 1–18 (2016).Google Scholar
29. Liang, D., Song, Y., Sun, T. and Dong, G., “Optimum design of a novel redundantly actuated parallel manipulator with multiple actuation modes for high kinematic and dynamic performance,” Nonlinear Dyn. 83 (1), 631–658 (2016).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30. Wu, J., Wang, J., Li, T. and Wang, L., “Dynamic analysis of the 2 DOF planar parallel manipulator of a heavy-duty hybrid machine tool,” Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol., 34, 413–420 (2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31. Patel, S. and Sobh, T., “Manipulator performance measures: A comprehensive literature survey,” J. Intell. Robot. Syst. 77 (3), 547–570 (2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
32. Yongjie, Z. and Feng, G., “Dynamic formulation and performance evaluation of the redundant parallel manipulator,” Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf. 25, 770–781 (2009).Google Scholar
33. Keith, L. D., Eric, M. S. and Claudio, B., “Robot manipulability,” IEEE Trans. Robot. Autom. 11 (3), 462–468 (1994)Google Scholar
34. Park, F. C. and Brockett, R. W., “Kinematic dexterity of robotic mechanisms,” Int. J. Robot. Res. 13 (2), 1–15 (1994).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
35. Graettinger, T. J. and Krogh, B. H., “The acceleration radius: A global performance measure for robotic manipulators,” IEEE J. Robot. Autom. 4, 60–69 (1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
36. Singh, Y., Performance Investigations on Mechanical Design and Motion Control of Planar Parallel Manipulators, Ph.D. Thesis (Indore, Indian Institute of Technology Indore, 2016).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
37. Kucuk, S., “A dexterity comparison for 3 DOF planar parallel manipulators with two kinematic chains using genetic algorithms,” Mechatronics 19 (6), 868–877 (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
38. Kim, J. O. and Khosla, P. K., “Dexterity Measures for Design and Control of Manipulators,” Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International Workshop on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Osaka, Japan (1991) pp. 758–763.Google Scholar
39. Yoshikawa, T., “Manipulability of robotic mechanisms,” Int. J. Robot. Res. 4 (2), 3–9 (1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
40. Kees, D. and Pai, D. K., “Performance measures for robot manipulators: A unified approach,” Int. J. Robot. Res. 15 (1), 92–111 (1996).Google Scholar
41. Kucuk, S. and Bingul, Z., “Comparative study of performance indices for fundamental robot manipulators,” Robot. Auton. Syst. 54 (7), 567–573 (2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
42. Singh, Y. and Mohan, S., “Kinematic Performance Analysis of a New 2PRP-PRR Planar Parallel Robotic Manipulator,” Proceedings of the 4th Joint International Conference on Multibody System Dynamics, Montréal, Québec, Canada (2016).Google Scholar