Hostname: page-component-5db58dd55d-mhzq2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-08T21:04:26.575Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Systematic Approach for Accuracy Design of Lower-Mobility Parallel Mechanism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2020

Wenjie Tian Open the ORCID record for Wenjie Tian [Opens in a new window] ,
Ziqian Shen ,
Dongpo Lv  and
Fuwen Yin
Wenjie Tian*
Affiliation:
School of Marine Science and Technology, Tianjin University, Tianjin 300072, China. E-mails: 136597810@qq.com, lvdongpo@tju.edu.cn Key Laboratory of Mechanism Theory and Equipment Design of Ministry of Education, Tianjin University, Tianjin 300072, China. E-mail: yinfw@tju.edu.cn
Ziqian Shen
Affiliation:
School of Marine Science and Technology, Tianjin University, Tianjin 300072, China. E-mails: 136597810@qq.com, lvdongpo@tju.edu.cn
Dongpo Lv
Affiliation:
School of Marine Science and Technology, Tianjin University, Tianjin 300072, China. E-mails: 136597810@qq.com, lvdongpo@tju.edu.cn
Fuwen Yin
Affiliation:
Key Laboratory of Mechanism Theory and Equipment Design of Ministry of Education, Tianjin University, Tianjin 300072, China. E-mail: yinfw@tju.edu.cn
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: wenjietian@tju.edu.cn
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Geometric accuracy is a critical performance factor for parallel robots, and regardless of error compensation, accuracy design or tolerance allocation is another way to ensure the pose accuracy of a robot at design stage. A general method of both geometric error modeling and accuracy design of lower-mobility parallel mechanisms is presented. First, a general approach for error modeling of lower-mobility parallel mechanism is proposed based on screw theory, and then the geometric errors affecting the compensatable and uncompensatable accuracy of the end-effector are separated using the properties of dual vector space. The pose error aroused by compensatable geometric errors can be compensated via kinematic calibration, while the uncompensatable geometric errors should be minimized during the manufacturing and assembly processes. Based on that, the tolerance allocation method is presented, giving each uncompensatable geometric error a proper tolerance by the use of reliability theory. Compared with the traditional tolerance allocation method, the advantages of the proposed method are as follows: the number of geometric errors to be allocated is greatly reduced; the results of serialized tolerance allocation can be obtained according to different reliability indices of pose accuracy of end-effector for designers to choose; on the premise of guaranteeing the same pose accuracy of end-effector, the allocated tolerances are loose and easy to realize. Finally, the proposed methods are successfully applied to an R(2-RPS&RP)&UPS lower-mobility parallel robot, and the effectiveness and practicability of the proposed method are verified.

Keywords

Lower-mobility parallel mechanismError modelingAccuracy designTolerance allocationReliability theory

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Robotica , Volume 38 , Issue 12 , December 2020 , pp. 2173 - 2188
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2020

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Uriarte, L., Zatarain, M., Axinte, D., Yagüe-Fabra, J., Ihlenfeldt, S., Eguia, J. and Olarra, A., “Machine tools for large parts,” CIRP Ann.-Manuf. Technol. 62(2), 731–750 (2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hennes, N. and Staimer, D., “Application of PKM in Aerospace Manufacturing-High Performance Machining Centres ECOSPEED, ECOSPEED-F and ECOLINER,” Proceedings of the 4th Chemnitz Parallel Kinematics Seminar, Chemnitz (2004) pp. 557–577.Google Scholar
Siciliano, B., “The Tricept robot: Inverse kinematics, manipulability analysis and closed-loop direct kinematics algorithm,” Robotica 17(17), 437–445 (1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neumann, K. E., “The Key to Aerospace Automation,” SAE Aerospace Manufacturing and Automated Fastening Conference and Exhibition, Detroit (2006) pp. 01–3144.Google Scholar
Weck, M. and Staimer, D., “Parallel kinematic machine tools – current state and future potentials,” CIRP Ann.-Manuf. Technol. 51(2), 671–683 (2002).10.1016/S0007-8506(07)61706-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tian, W., Yin, F., Liu, H., Li, J., Li, Q., Huang, T. and Chetwynd, D. G., “Kinematic calibration of a 3-DOF spindle head using a double ball bar,” Mech. Mach. Theory 102, 167–178 (2016).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hu, Y., Gao, F., Zhao, X., Wei, B., Zhao, D. and Zhao, Y., “Kinematic calibration of a 6-DOF parallel manipulator based on identifiable parameters separation (IPS),” Mech. Mach. Theory 126, 61–78 (2018).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schellekens, P., Rosielle, N., Vermeulen, H., Vermeulen, M., Wetzels, S. and Pril, W., “Design for precision: current status and trends,” CIRP Ann.-Manuf. Technol. 47(2), 557–586 (1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, J. and Zhang, Y., “Improving the positioning accuracy of a neurosurgical robot system,” IEEE/ASME T. Mech. 12(5), 527–533 (2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, C. D., Wang, X. J., Chen, X. D. and Zhang, C. H., “Error analysis of 6-DOF welding robot,” Appl. Mech. Mater. 220–223, 1111–1115 (2012).Google Scholar
Cai, S. L., Peng, L. B. and Huang, W. T., “Error analysis of a 2-PRS/2-UPS 4-DOF parallel platform,” Adv. Mater. Res. 605–607, 1511–1514 (2013).Google Scholar
Huang, P., Wang, J., Wang, L. and Yao, R., “Identification of structure errors of 3-PRS-XY mechanism with regularization method,” Mech. Mach. Theory 46(7), 927–944 (2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, I. M., Yang, G., Tan, C. T. and Yeo, S. H., “Local POE model for robot kinematic calibration,” Mech. Mach. Theory 36, 1215–1239 (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, G., Kong, L., Li, Q., Wang, H. and Lin, Z., “Complete, minimal and continuous error models for the kinematic calibration of parallel manipulators based on POE formula,” Mech. Mach. Theory 121, 844–856 (2018).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xiang, S., Li, H., Deng, M. and Yang, J., “Geometric error analysis and compensation for multi-axis spiral bevel gears milling machine,” Mech. Mach. Theory 121, 59–74 (2018).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhao, Y., Li, T. M. and Tang, X. Q., “Geometric error modeling of machine tools based on screw theory,” Procedia Eng. 24(5), 845–849 (2011).Google Scholar
Yang, J., Mayer, J. R. R. and Altintas, Y., “A position independent geometric errors identification and correction method for five-axis serial machines based on screw theory,” Int. J. Mach. Tools Manu. 95, 52–66 (2015).10.1016/j.ijmachtools.2015.04.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, T., Liu, H. T. and Chetwynd, D. G., “Generalized Jacobian analysis of lower mobility manipulators,” Mech. Mach. Theory 46(6), 831–844 (2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, H., Huang, T. and Chetwynd, D. G., “A general approach for geometric error modeling of lower mobility parallel manipulators,” J. Mech. Robot. 3(2), 021013 (2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prabhaharan, G., Asokan, P., Ramesh, P. and Rajendran, S., “Genetic-algorithm-based optimal tolerance allocation using a least-cost model,” Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Tech. 24(9), 647–660 (2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, T., Chetwynd, D. G., Mei, J. P. and Zhao, X. M., “Tolerance design of a 2-DOF overconstrained translational parallel robot,” IEEE T. Robot. 22(1), 167–172 (2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dumas, A., Gayton, N., Dantan, J. Y. and Sudret, B., “A new system formulation for the tolerance analysis of overconstrained mechanisms,” Probabilistic Eng. Mech. 40(1), 66–74 (2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldsztejn, A., Caro, S. and Chabert, G., “A New Methodology for Tolerance Synthesis of Parallel Manipulators,” Proceedings of the 14th World Congress in Mechanism and Machine Science, Taipei, Taiwan (2015) pp. 132–141.Google Scholar
Caro, S., Bennis, F. and Wenger, P., “Tolerance synthesis of mechanisms: A robust design approach,” ASME J. Mech. Design 127(1), 86–94 (2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chase, K. W., Greenwood, W. H., Loosli, B. G. and Hauglund, L. F., “Least cost tolerance allocation for mechanical assemblies with automated process selection,” Manuf. Rev. 3(1), 49–59 (1990).Google Scholar
Bensoussan, A., Reliability Index, Optimal Control and Dynamic Games (Springer, US, 2005), pp. 311–317.Google Scholar
Huang, T., Dong, C., Liu, H., Qin, X., Mei, J. P., Liu, Q. and Wang, M. X., A novel 5-DOF hybrid robot with rotational supports, PCT/CN 2016/077464, 2016.03.28.Google Scholar
Tsai, J. C., Chen, F. C. and Dai, J. H., “Reduction of tolerance stack-up by grouped random assembly for components with uniform distributions,” Procedia CIRP 27, 260–263 (2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar