Numerical and experimental evaluation of the dynamic performance of kinematically redundant parallel manipulators

  • João Vitor de Carvalho Fontes
  • João Cavalcanti Santos
  • Maíra Martins da Silva
Technical Paper
  • 40 Downloads

Abstract

Parallel manipulators present high load capacity and rigidity, among other advantages, when compared to the serial manipulators. Due to their kinematic architecture, their parts are lighter. This characteristic may be an asset for designing high dynamic performance manipulators. However, parallel manipulators suffer from singularities in their workspace. This drawback can be circumvented by the use of kinematic redundancies. Due to the presence of these redundancies, the inverse kinematic problem presents an infinite number of solutions. The selection of a single solution among the possible ones is denoted as redundancy resolution. In this manuscript, the impact of several levels of kinematic redundancy on the dynamic performance of a planar parallel manipulator, the 3PRRR, is numerically and experimentally investigated. The kinematic redundancy of this manipulator can be added by the actuation of the active prismatic joints (P). Two redundancy resolution schemes are proposed using a multiobjective optimization problem. Based on the numerical and experimental results, one can conclude that the use of a proper redundancy resolution scheme can considerably reduce the maximum required torque to perform a predefined task.

Keywords

Parallel kinematic machines Kinematic redundancy Redundancy resolution Dynamic performance 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank FAPESP 2014/01809-0, FAPESP 2014/21946-2 and CNPq.

References

  1. 1.
    Gosselin C, Angeles J (1990) Singularity analysis of closed-loop kinematic chains. IEEE Trans Robot Autom 6(3):281–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Merlet JP (1996) Redundant parallel manipulators. Lab Robot Autom 8(1):17–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Shin K, Yi BJ, Kim W (2014) Parallel singularity-free design with actuation redundancy: a case study of three different types of 3-degree-of-freedom parallel mechanisms with redundant actuation. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part C J Mech Eng Sci 228(11):2018–2035CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kotlarski J, Heimann B, Ortmaier T (2012) Influence of kinematic redundancy on the singularity-free workspace of parallel kinematic machines. Front Mech Eng 7:120–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gosselin C, Schreiber LT (2016) Kinematically redundant spatial parallel mechanisms for singularity avoidance and large orientational workspace. IEEE Trans Robot 32(2):286–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Huang G, Guo S, Zhang D, Qu H, Tang H (2018) Kinematic analysis and multi-objective optimization of a new reconfigurable parallel mechanism with high stiffness. Robotica 36(2):1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Simoni R, Simas H, Martins D (2015) Triflex: variable-configuration parallel manipula-tors with self-aligning. J Braz Soc Mech Sci Eng 37(4):1129–1138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nabat V, Rodriguez M, Company O, Krut S, Pierrot F (2005) Par4: very high speed parallel robot for pick-and-place. In: 2005 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems, pp 553–558Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Corbel D, Gouttefarde M, Company O, Pierrot F (2010) Towards 100G with PKM. Is actuation redundancy a good solution for pick-and-place? In: 2010 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation, Anchorage, AK, USA, pp 4675–4682Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Natal SG, Chemori A, Pierrot F (2015) Dual-space control of extremely fast parallel manipulators: payload changes and the 100G experiment. IEEE Trans Control Syst Technol 23(4):1520–1535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fontes JV, da Silva MM (2016) On the dynamic performance of parallel kinematic manipulators with actuation and kinematic redundancies. Mech Mach Theory 103:148–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wu J, Wang J, You Z (2011) 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):150–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ruiz AG, Santos J, Croes J, Desmet W, da Silva MM (2018) On redundancy resolution and energy consumption of kinematically redundant planar parallel manipulators. Robotica.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S026357471800005X Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Siciliano B (1990) Kinematic control of redundant robot manipulators: a tutorial. J lntell Robot Syst 3(3):201–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ahuactzin JM, Gupta KK (1999) The kinematic roadmap: a motion planning based global approach for inverse kinematics of redundant robots. IEEE Trans Robot Autom 15(4):653–669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cha SH, Lasky TA, Velinsky SA (2007) Singularity avoidance for the 3-RRR mechanism using kinematic redundancy. In: Proceedings 2007 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation, Rome, Italy, pp 1195–1200Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Boudreau R, Nokleby S (2012) Force optimization of kinematically-redundant planar parallel manipulators following a desired trajectory. Mech Mach Theory 56:138–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kotlarski J, Abdellatif H, Ortmaier T, Heimann B (2009) Enlarging the useable workspace of planar parallel robots using mechanisms of variable geometry. In: ASME/IFToMM international conference on reconfigurable mechanisms and robots, London, UK, pp 63–72Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kotlarski J, Thanh TD, Heimann B, Ortmaier T (2010) Optimization strategies for additional actuators of kinematically redundant parallel kinematic machines. In: IEEE international conference on robotics and automation, Anchorage, AK, USA, pp 656–661Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Santos JC, da Silva MM (2017) Redundancy resolution of kinematically redundant parallel manipulators via differential dynamic programming. J Mech Robot 9(4):041016–041024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hauser K (2017) Learning the problem-optimum map: analysis and application to global optimization in robotics. IEEE Trans Robot 33(1):141–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cervantes-Sanchez JJ, Rico-Martinez JM, Orozco-Muniz JD (2017) A natural extension of the 4R linkage to the 3-RRR spherical parallel manipulator. J Braz Soc Mech Sci Eng 39(3):895–907CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wu J, Wang J, Wang L, You Z (2010) Performance comparison of three planar 3-DOF parallel manipulators with 4-RRR, 3-RRR and 2-RRR structures. Mechatronics 20:510–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rao SS (2009) Engineering optimization: theory and practice, 4th edn. Wiley, New JerseyCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Alba-Gomez O, Wenger P, Pamanes A (2005) Consistent kinetostatic indices for planar3-DOF parallel manipulators, application to the optimal kinematic inversion. In: 29th ASME mechanisms and robotics conference, parts A and B, pp 765–774Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Reveles R, Pamanes g, Wenger p (2016) Trajectory planning of kinematically redundant parallel manipulators by using multiple working modes. Mech Mach Theory 98:216–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Cervantes-Sanchez JJ, Rico-Martinez JM, Brabata-Zamora IJ, Orozco-Muniz JD (2016) Optimization of the translational velocity for the planar 3-RRR parallel manipulator. J Braz Soc Mech Sci Eng 38(6):1659–1669CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Mechanical Engineering Department, São Carlos School of EngineeringUniversity of São PauloSão CarlosBrazil

Personalised recommendations