Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology

, Volume 32, Issue 12, pp 5553–5561 | Cite as

The canonical stewart platform as a six DOF pose sensor for automotive applications

  • Tae Kyung Jang
  • Byeong Soo Lim
  • Moon Ki KimEmail author


The growing demand for prolonged fatigue life of automotive parts and components requires elaboration of their motion in Cartesian space having six degrees of freedom (DOF). Recently, the canonical Steward platform, consisting of six displacement sensors mounted on two parallel platforms, was introduced to comply with this request. In order to apply this pose sensor to automotive applications, the following two important matters are investigated in this study. First, update Jacobian is proposed as a faster and more stable numerical method to solve the forward kinematic problem without any iteration process. Second, the attachment position and initial configuration of the Stewart platform must be adjustable to avoid the interference with other components due to space constraints under the hood of automotive vehicle. In this case, however, the Jacobian matrix which converts six displacement components into a six DOF pose vector is prone to be ill-conditioned so that the converting accuracy becomes worse. The L1-norm of each row in the Jacobian matrix quantifies how much the error would be provoked according to the given kinematic geometry. Hence, it can be used here as a reliable error indicator. Furthermore, several numerical examples are discussed to demonstrate what to consider when designing a six DOF pose sensor for automotive applications.


Stewart platform Pose sensor Update Jacobian L1-norm Sensor nonlinearity and variable kinematic constructions 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    R. Hathaway, Y. L. Lee and J. Pan, Fatigue testing and Analysis: Theory and practice, First Ed., Elsevier. Burlington (2005).Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    W. K. Young and H. Bang, Finite element method using Matlab, CRC Press (2000).zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    A. Mura, Six d.o.f displacement measuring device based on the modified Stewart platform, Mechatronics, 21 (2011) 1309–1316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    H. D. Taghirad, Parallel robots, mechanics and control, CRC Press (2012).Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    C. D. Zhang and S. M. Song, Forward kinematics of a class of parallel Stewart platforms with closed–form solutions. IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Sacramento City, USA (1991) 2676–2681.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    C. Innocenti, Forward kinematics in polynominal form of the general stewart platform, ASME Journal of Mechanical Design, 123 (2) (1998) 254–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    N. X. Chen and S. M. Song, Direct position analysis of the 4–6 stewart platforms, ASME J. of Mechanical Design, 116 (1) (2008) 61–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    L. Baron and J. Angeles, The direct kinematic of parallel manipulators under joint–sensor redundancy, IEEE Transactions on Robotics Automation, 16 (1) (2000) 12–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    I. A. Bonev and J. H. Ryu, A new method for solving the direct kinematics of general 6–6 stewart platforms using three linear extra sensors, Mechanism and Machine Theory, 35 (3) (2000) 423–436.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    Y. J. Chiu and M. H. Perng, Forward kinematics of a general fully parallel manipulator with auxiliary sensors, International Journal of Robotics Research, 20 (5) (2001) 401–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    R. L. Burden and J. D. Faires, Numerical analysis, Ninth Ed., Brooks/cole, Boston (1997).zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    C. Innocenti and V. Parenti–Castelli, A novel numerical approach to the closure of the 6–6 Stewart platform mechanism, IEEE Fifth International Conference Publication, Pisa city, Italy (1991) 851–855.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    Y. Wang, A direct numerical solution to forward kinematics of general stewart–gough platforms, Robotica, 25 (1) (2007) 121–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    T. Kindermann and H. Cruse, MMC–a new numerical approach to the kinematics of complex manipulators, Mechanism and Machine Theory, 37 (4) (2002) 375–394.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    L. W. Tsai, The mechanics of serial and paralle manipulators, John Wiley and Sons, New York (1999).Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    G. Strang, Introduction to linear algebra, Fourth Ed., Cambridge Press (2009).zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    G. H. Golub and L. C. F. Van, Matrix computations, Third Ed., Johns Hopkins Univ. Press (1996).zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    H. D. Taghirad, Parallel robots, CRC Press (2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    S. C. Chapra and R. P. Canale, Numerical methods for engineers, Seventh Ed., Mc Graw Hill Education, New York (2013).Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    D. S. Nyce, Linear position sensors: Theory and application, John Wiley and Sons (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. [21]
    J. S. Wilson, Sensor technology handbook, Elsevier Inc. (2004).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Korean Society of Mechanical Engineers and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tae Kyung Jang
    • 1
  • Byeong Soo Lim
    • 2
  • Moon Ki Kim
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.School of Mechanical EngineeringSungkyunkwan UniversitySuwonKorea
  2. 2.School of Multi-disciplinary EngineeringAddis Ababa Institute of TechnologyAddis AbabaEthiopia

Personalised recommendations