00 voturi pozitive00 voturi negative

2 vizualizări12 pagini47806

Dec 24, 2015

47806

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT sau citiți online pe Scribd

47806

© All Rights Reserved

2 vizualizări

00 voturi pozitive00 voturi negative

47806

47806

© All Rights Reserved

Sunteți pe pagina 1din 12

ARTICLE

Compensation

General

On the Numericalfor

Modelling

Gough-Stewart

Platforms

and Error Compensation

for

General Gough-Stewart Platform

Regular Paper

immediate

1 National Polytechnic Institute SEPI ESIME UP Ticoman, Mexico DF, Mexico

2 Center for Research in Mathematics, CIMAT A.C., Guanajuato, Mexico

3 Universidad del Papaloapan, Loma Bonita, Oaxaca, Mexico

* Corresponding author E-mail: euhernandezm@ipn.mx

Received 14 Nov 2013; Accepted 04 Jul 2014

DOI: 10.5772/58849

2014 The Author(s). Licensee InTech. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative

Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use,

distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

high-precision tasks. Nevertheless,

manufacturing,

assembling and control issues can reduce their capacity to

perform adequately. Observing the acquired measurement

data with high-precision devices - such as laser-based

instruments - it is not surprising that the error data follows

patterns or have a structure because, in many cases, the

greatest error comes from a mechanical bias introduced by

manufacturing issues. Even though we cannot determine

with certainty where the error comes from, a pattern in

the measured data suggests that it is feasible that it can

be modelled and corrected - in a significant proportion

- by purely software applications, without the need of

disassembling or re-manufacturing any component. This

work deals with the problem of finding a mathematical

model which adequately fits the error data from the

legs of a general Gough-Stewart platform. Hence, we

obtain an expression which can be subtracted from the

control parameters in order to compensate the inherent

mechanical error in the legs. The purpose of this article is

two-fold: 1) to present numerical results of the beneficial

effects of the error compensation in the legs as well

as in the end-effector, and 2) to introduce a numerical

methodology to find a model for error compensation and

to numerically simulate its effects. Numerical, graphical

according this methodology, is provided.

Keywords Parallel Robots, Modelling, Error Simulation,

Compensation

1. Introduction

Parallel robots have become an excellent solution for

applications where precise positioning and orientation are

needed. Although their workspace is limited as compared

to serial robots, parallel robots take advantage of their

dynamic stability, high stiffness and high pose accuracy.

Therefore, they are suited to very precise applications,

such as machine tools, surgery devices and scientific

instruments, like radio-astronomy telescopes. Due to

their design, there is no one-to-one relationship between

controllable variables and degrees-of-freedom (DOF), and

each controllable variable affects all DOFs (and vice

versa). Therefore, the determination of an end-effector

pose requires special algorithms. Besides the complexity

of the mechanisms kinematics, the pose error depends

mainly on the accuracy of the actuators, the control scheme

and the elastic deformations.

Eusebio Hernandez, Sergio

and Eduardo

Sanchez:

On10.5772/58849

the Numerical

Int Ivvan

J Adv Valdez

Robot Syst,

2014, 11:179

| doi:

Modelling and Error Compensation for General Gough-Stewart Platform

machine tools. In this area, a large number of strategies

for error modelling and compensation have been studied

and can be considered as consolidated [1, 2]. There are a lot

of works dealing with the accuracy of serial manipulators

and conventional machine tools. Error modelling, studies

of manufacturing and assembly errors on pose accuracy

and different calibration approaches are examples of topics

in these areas. In contrast, in order that a parallel robot can

be applied as a machine tool, calibration strategies should

be clearly defined [3]. Conventional machine tools consist

on three mutually orthogonal axes and two perpendicular

rotating axes. Each DOF moves independently, and each

is controlled by a separate driver. Thus, the kinematics

and dynamics models are simpler than in a parallel

robot. For parallel robots, the pose and twist of the

end-effector depend on the simultaneous movement of

every driver, and the kinematic function that relates each

of the individual joints contributes to the accuracy of the

moving platform. The global error of the end-effector

is the main concern. This error could be a function of

many error sources, and there is no unique method for

estimating the actual pose. The most significant error

sources can be classified as manufacturing errors, joint

run-out, ball screw deviations, transmission errors, elastic

and thermal deformations, sensor accuracy, and algorithm

and truncation errors. Manufacturing errors are caused by

geometrical deviations of machined parts and assembly

errors. Joint run-outs are a combination of a joints gaps

and assembly errors and the joint movement. Elastic

deformations are produced by external and gravitational

loads applied to the links. Thus, they are a function of the

posture of the mechanism. They can be compensated only

if the elastic deformation of the robot can be characterized

[4]. Pose and twist sensors usually have a defined accuracy

and, in many cases, the error are small enough so that their

contribution to the pose error is minimal. However, for

very accurate mechanisms, their contribution is significant

and must be taken into consideration. Incidentally, the

kinematic model is one of the main elements of the

control algorithm. It contributes to the pose accuracy with

truncation errors in the kinematic model, control loop and

time response.

geometry of the machine components generate parametric

errors in the moving platform. In [7] it was emphasized

that the kinematic and dynamic behaviour of a parallel

mechanism is strongly influenced by joint geometrical

errors due to manufacturing tolerances and assembly

errors. In [8] it was reported that the spherical joints

distance located at the leg end - which is the leg

length - is fundamental for platform accuracy positioning.

This condition is critical in the actual position of the

moving platform, and it was also found in the present

work. In [9] it was established kinematic modelling

and error modelling using the Jacobian matrix method

for a TAU robot.

In [10] it is described an error

compensation method for parallel mechanisms.

He

identified two types of errors, namely those related to

elastic and thermal deformations, and those related to

manufacturing deviations and backlash. In [11] it is

presented a geometric approach for the computation of

local maximum position and orientation errors. They

used actuator inaccuracies as input errors. In [12] it

is proposed a method for estimating the accuracy of

three-DOF planar parallel robots. In [13] it was predicted

the pose errors that are caused by joint clearances. In

[14] it was proposed a new calibration method. Their

method allows for the identification of joint offsets through

the evaluation of the legs parallelism with respect to

the ground reference plane. In [15] it was developed a

calibration algorithm based on constraining two of the

orientation angles. They measured the orientation of the

moving platform with two precise inclinometers (biaxial

inclinometer) and through the kinematic model they found

the actual overall position. These kinds of measurement

devices are less frequently used, and while they are more

accurate, they are also more expensive. More recently, an

approach for modelling quasi-static errors in a five-axis

Gantry machine tool was presented in [16]. Quasi-static

error is a common classification for geometric, kinematic

and external load-induced errors. In sum, the task of

characterizing and modelling errors and using them in a

software compensation system can be considered to be a

transcendental step in enhancing the accuracy of parallel

robots.

two areas: 1) hardware and mechanical methods, and

2) Software methods. The first class of approaches uses

compensation error procedures through some mechanical

means. Software approaches to compensating errors

become useful when it is difficult to implement the

hardware or mechanical methods. Their main advantage

is that they can be implemented without the need for the

disassembly or re-manufacture of any component of the

robotic system.

leg errors of general Gough-Stewart platforms. It includes

a mathematical error model which adequately fits the

measurement of the displacement errors for the six legs of

a parallel platform. It is well known that the effectiveness

of error compensation approaches relies heavily on the

error model. With this model, the modelled compensation

function can be considered in a control scheme in order

to compensate the inherent mechanical and displacement

errors in the legs. Numerical results of the beneficial effects

of the error compensation in the legs as well as in the

end-effector pose are reported.

[5] it is attributed the source of errors to the uncertainties

of the theoretical model, such as the coordinates of the

base and moving platform joint centres, as well as the link

lengths in the initial position. In [6] it was reported the

measurement and analysis of geometrical errors through

a kinematic model and experimental measurements using

conventional metrology tools. He used variation analysis

2

second section is concerned with the Gough-Stewart

platform and its problems; the third section describes

the measured displacement errors, the process and the

instruments employed to obtain them; the fourth section

explains the proposed modelling error technique; the fifth

the measurement differences; and finally, the last section

provides the conclusions of this paper.

2. The Gough-Stewart platform and its kinematics

the Stewart platform can be easily solved. On the other

hand, the direct kinematics problem of the general Stewart

platform cannot be algebraically solved. In this work, we

employ a method to numerically solve this problem.

mechanisms, the secondary mirror positioner of modern

millimetre radio-telescopes can be employed as an

illustrative example. These radio-telescopes have a large

parabolic mirror (from 30 m to 100 m) that concentrates

radiation into a secondary mirror. The secondary mirror

must keep the focus length within a tolerance of less than

10 m, and an orientation tolerance of less than 1 arc-sec.

Since a positioner mechanism is intended as a highly

precise scientific instrument, the Gough-Stewart platform

architecture can be selected as being suitable (see Figure

1). Its kinematic configuration consists of a fixed plate

connected by six driving legs to a moving platform.

a)

b)

Figure 2. A leg for a Gough-Stewart platform: a) actual leg, b) a

a)

b)

a) actual platform, b) a scheme of the platform

the fixed end, and a universal joint at the moving end. The

fixed and mobile platforms have the same dimensions. In

order to improve the mechanisms stability, the spherical

and universal joints were located as close as possible such

that they form triangular structures, as shown in Figure

1. Each actuator consists of a servo motor connected to

an almost zero-backlash gearbox, and the piston rod is

moved through a zero-backlash ball screw, as shown in

Figure 2. The ball screw is mounted on high-precision

rolling bearings.

In Equation 1, E = [ x, y, z, , , ] represents the position

and the orientation parameters of the mobile platform

in the moving frame. When E is given, the problem of

computing the length of each leg, L = [ L1 , ..., L6 ], is known

as the inverse kinematic problem, as denoted by the next

equation:

L = F(E)

(1)

where F represents the inverse kinematic function of the

general Stewart platform. Notice that the position E is a

function of the location of the mobile platforms joints, Pj ,

and the location of the fixed platform joints, Bj , for ( j =

by having a redundant encoder measurement. The main

encoder is a linear encoder that measures the actual leg

displacement. For each leg, the difference between the

commanded leg length and the actual length has been

measured. The difference was measured with a laser

interferometer with 0.1 m nominal accuracy, [17]. The

calibration equipment is shown in Figure 3. It consists of a

leg, a laser and an interferometer.

The ball screw is the element with the largest displacement

error; it has a linear deviation of 9 m/m.

Figure 3.

Data acquisition with calibration equipment

RENISHAW ML10

obtained. The length of each leg is variable depending

on a ball screw actuator, thus, in order to take the

Eusebio Hernandez, Sergio Ivvan Valdez and Eduardo Sanchez: On the Numerical

Modelling and Error Compensation for General Gough-Stewart Platform

1.5

1.5

1

1

0.5

error

error

0.5

0.5

0

1

1.5

0.5

2

1

2.5

1.5

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

50

100

150

200

measures

250

300

350

400

250

300

350

400

250

300

350

400

measures

Leg 1

Leg 2

0.2

0.2

1

0.4

error

errors

0

0.6

1

0.8

2

1

1.2

1.4

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

50

100

150

200

measures

measures

Leg 3

Leg 4

2.5

3.5

3

1.5

2.5

errors

errors

1

2

1.5

0.5

0

1

0.5

0.5

0.5

1.5

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

50

100

150

200

measures

measures

Leg 5

Leg 6

Figure 4. A set of displacement error measures of the six legs for the Gough-Stewart platform. The units are micrometres.

of the maximum length. Hence, these displacements are

relative to this position. A set of these measured errors is

presented in Figure 4. As can be observed, they seem quite

similar, with small changes in the scale and the y position

(error axis). The lengths of the legs are controlled by using

the ball screw actuator as mentioned before; as a result,

it is logical that a mechanism which has been similarly

manufactured should also share the same mechanical bias.

Fortunately, the error presents a pattern - by graphical

analysis, one can observe that the errors can be seen as

a sum of periodic functions. Hence, the purpose of this

section is to find a explicit mathematical function which

represents the displacement error and can be used to

compensate for it.

The Fourier transform constitutes a well-known approach

to obtaining the frequency components from a given

4

measured displacement errors, the discrete Fourier

transform (DFT) is used (see Equation 2). The DFT

transforms a defined function into a finite discrete interval

of the frequency domain representation.By using Equation

2, a set of N complex numbers is transformed into another

set of N numbers. Only the first half of the vector delivered

by Equation 2 is useful, considering that the second half is

only a reflection of the first:

Fk =

N 1

n =0

f n ei2 N n

(2)

the different sinusoidal components of the input function.

The amplitude of each component in the frequency

domain is computed according Equation 3, the phase

Error Leg 2

0.5

0.0

Error (mm)

1.5

1.0

0.5

Error (mm)

1.0

1.5

Error Leg 1

50

50

50

Length (micrometers)

50

Length (micrometers)

Error Leg 3

0.2

0.0

0.6

0.4

0.2

0

1

Error (mm)

Error (micrometers)

0.4

Error Leg 4

50

50

50

Error Leg 6

1

1

Error (mm)

Error Leg 5

Error (mm)

50

Length (micrometers)

Length (micrometers)

50

50

50

Length (micrometers)

50

Length (micrometers)

Figure 5. Compensation for displacement leg errors of the Gough-Stewart platform: brown lines - set of measured data for each leg; blue

line - error compensation function; red line - mean of compensated displacement errors; green lines - compensated errors for each set of

measures; black lines - plus and minus of the standard deviation for the compensated displacement errors. N.B. The units are micrometres.

Error Leg 3

Re( Fk )2 + Im( Fk )2 ,

(3)

(4)

Error (mm)

Ak = | Fk | =

wk = k,

50

50

Length (micrometers)

k = 0..N 1.

(5)

can be sampled from Equation 6, which uses the attained

parameters:

function and the compensated error

f (t) =

is computed according to Equation 4, and finally, the

matched frequency is obtained with Equation 5:

f or

Ak cos(2k t + k ).

(6)

k =1

Eusebio Hernandez, Sergio Ivvan Valdez and Eduardo Sanchez: On the Numerical

Modelling and Error Compensation for General Gough-Stewart Platform

20

0

Error (micrometers)

20

15

10

0

10

15

Frequency

20

25

Error (micrometers)

0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.0

0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

Error (micrometers)

20

15

5

0

10

15

Frequency

20

25

Error (micrometers)

25

1.0

10

Frequency

15

5

0

25

Frequency

10

Frequency

15

10

0

Frequency

20

25

25

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

Error (micrometers)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

Error (micrometers)

Figure 7. Histogram of the leg errors of the Gough-Stewart platform, Legs 1-3. Left: original displacement error. Right: compensated

error.

it should be noted that: the signal { xn , f n } is the

displacement error data, xn is the length of a given leg

and f n is the corresponding error at that position. As can

be observed, function 6, which is used to rebuild the error

function, does not depend on the legs length xn directly.

Therefore, a transformation must be applied following

Equation 7. It needs the position of the half of the leg

(which is the same as used for measurement differences),

but in its nominal value:

6

t = 2( x 1095.84992501338 + 90)/N.

(7)

most important among them are selected in order to

reduce the model complexity. This is achieved by reducing

the number of involved parameters - in this case, we

use the most important 100 parameters of amplitudes,

frequencies and phases. The resulting model of the sums

of the cosines can then be used to correct or compensate the

20

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

Error (micrometers)

Error (micrometers)

20

15

0

10

Frequency

20

15

10

0

20

15

5

0

10

15

Frequency

20

25

Error (micrometers)

25

Error (micrometers)

10

Frequency

15

5

0

0.0

25

0.2

25

0.4

Frequency

10

Frequency

15

10

0

Frequency

20

25

25

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

Error (micrometers)

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

Error (micrometers)

Figure 8. Histogram of the leg errors of the Gough-Stewart platform, Legs 4-6. Left: original displacement error. Right: compensated

error.

to compute the model using the Fourier transform is

presented in Algorithm 1. It is executed for each leg. The

input is a pair of vectors x and f. x are the displacements

of a given leg and f is the corresponding error for that leg.

In Step 1, we compute the mean of the error; in Step 2,

the mean is used to translate the error to zero. It is to

see that this step removes the average bias of the leg. In

Step 3, the Fourier transform is computed and stored in F.

Using the Fourier transform, we compute the amplitudes

frequencies w in Step 6. The greatest amplitudes are

those which contribute the most to representing the error.

The algorithm returns the amplitudes with the highest

contribution as well as the phases, frequencies and the

average error (this information is actually a mathematical

model of the measured error). If the measured error is

always the same, this model is a perfect representation

and can be used to compensate the error perfectly. Hence,

the difference between the model and the real error

Eusebio Hernandez, Sergio Ivvan Valdez and Eduardo Sanchez: On the Numerical

Modelling and Error Compensation for General Gough-Stewart Platform

20

15

0

10

Frequency

15

10

0

Frequency

20

25

25

Histogram, error of X

Error (micrometers)

25

20

15

10

0

10

15

Frequency

20

25

Frequency

Error (micrometers)

Histogram, error of Y

Error (micrometers)

Error (micrometers)

20

15

10

5

0

10

15

Frequency

20

25

25

Histogram, error of Z

Frequency

1.0

0.5

0.0

0.5

Error (micrometers)

1.0

0.5

0.0

0.5

Error (micrometers)

Figure 9. Histogram of the end-effector position errors for the Gough-Stewart platform. Left: original error. Right: compensated error.

is different (but similar). The more that similar each

measurement is to every other, the more efficient the

proposed methodology will be.

Additionally, graphical evidence of the procedures results

are shown in Figure 5. For each leg, the graphs correspond

to six sets of measured displacement errors, the error

modelling function and the statistical treatment of the

compensated displacement errors. From Leg 4 in Figure

random behaviour, it is difficult to compensate for them.

In contrast, when the displacement errors present a

defined pattern, it is easier to compensate for them, as

can be seen for Legs 2, 3 and 5 in Figure 5. A possible

explanation of such deterministic patterns is the physical

error introduced by the leg screw; hence, it is quite

possible to find this kind of deterministic pattern in the

errors, and in consequence it is an adequate assumption

that this error can be compensated for by a deterministic

20

15

0

10

Frequency

15

10

0

Frequency

20

25

25

0.001

0.000

0.001

0.002

0.003

0.004

0.005

0.001

0.000

Error (radians)

0.002

0.003

0.004

0.005

Error (radians)

20

15

10

5

0

10

15

Frequency

20

25

25

Frequency

0.001

0.002

0.000

0.002

0.004

0.002

Error (radians)

0.000

0.002

0.004

Error (radians)

Figure 10. Histogram of the end-effector orientation errors for the Gough-Stewart platform. Left: original error. Right: compensated

error.

Where x are the displacements of a single leg and f

is the associated error. For each position, xn

corresponds to an error value f n . The algorithm is

executed once for each leg of the parallel robot.

/* Centering the data around 0.

*/

1. f mean mean(f);

2. f f f mean ;

/* Compute the Fourier transform.

*/

3. F f f t(f);

/* Compute the amplitudes.

*/

4. A Mod( F [1 : ( N/2)]);

/* Compute the phases.

*/

5. Arg( F [1 : ( N/2)]);

/* Compute the frequencies.

*/

6. (0 : ( N/2 1)) /* Select the indexes of

the greatest amplitudes.

*/

7. ix sort( A, increasing, return.index );

/* Returns the M data with the greatest

amplitudes and the mean of the original

function.

*/

return A[ix [1 : M ]], [ix [1 : M ]], [ix [1 : M ]], f mean

Algorithm 1: Parameter computation for modelling the

displacement leg errors as a sum of cosines

Table 1. Range and absolute value of the errors for the original

data and for the compensated error. | Error |= Error absolute

value. N.B. The units are micrometres.

Eusebio Hernandez, Sergio Ivvan Valdez and Eduardo Sanchez: On the Numerical

Modelling and Error Compensation for General Gough-Stewart Platform

in this work. The relevance of obtaining such an error

compensation function is that it can be used in a control

scheme.

The Figure 6 shows the original displacement error,

the compensation function and the resulting error

when subtracting the compensation function defined in

Equation 6 from the original error. Notice that the error

compensation function and the measured error are quite

similar. The following section completes the procedure for

the error compensation for the end-effector.

4. Error compensation in the legs and the end-effector

pose

Using the methodology just described, we compute the

compensation function according to Equation 6. The

results of compensating for the displacement leg errors are

described in Table 1.

In order to show the advantages of the methodology

just presented in this article, we perform the following

experiments:

Generate random configurations of the end-effector

by using the inverse kinematics and finding the

corresponding leg lengths.

If the leg lengths are within the range of the measures,

then we use the error data and linear interpolation to

sum the corresponding error for each leg.

Solve the direct kinematics for the new lengths in order

to determine the end-effector coordinates and angles,

and store the values for the comparison presented

below.

Use the compensation function in Equation 6 to

compensate for the displacement error, solve the

inverse kinematics with the compensated lengths, and

store the values for the comparison presented below.

Following the steps given above, we can analyse the

resulting error in the legs by observing the histograms

presented in Figures 7 and 8. The left side shows the

frequencies of the errors before compensation, and the

right side after compensation. As can be seen, very similar

compensation is achieved in the legs as achieved in the

end-effector.

The range of the error is somewhat lower in the

compensated error than in the original.

The compensated error is closer to 0 than the original.

The compensated highest frequencies in the

compensated histogram error are higher than the

highest frequencies in the original error histogram.

This is important if we consider that the compensated

error has the highest frequencies around 0. Hence,

most of the measures are adequately compensated for.

As can be observed, the methodology just presented not

only diminishes the error but in addition it changes the

pattern. We can infer this behaviour by looking at Figure

6, where we can observe that the original error data has a

pattern and the resulting compensated function seems to

be a kind of random function.

and their corrections affect each of the parameters of the

configuration in the end-effector. The improvement in

position, according to our experiments, is reported in Table

2. Notice that these measures can represent a sample of the

workspace. In this vein, it must be remarked upon that not

all of the randomly generated points can be solved with the

desired precision, as it is very possible that many points

cannot be physically realized. We consider that the direct

kinematics are successfully solved if we get an error norm

that is less than 1 104 using the solver presented in [18].

We tackle the direct kinematics problem for general

Gough-Stewart platforms using a hybrid optimizer.

This is based on probabilistic learning (estimation of

distribution algorithms) by taking advantage of the

adequate generation of starting points for the Dogleg

method, without a priori knowledge.

Notice that the error norm guarantees that the numerical

error for each leg is less than or equal to 1 104 ; thus, we

avoid numerical error biases for the results. Nevertheless,

the results could be biased by the random points used,

due to the configurations that can be used to physically

constrain the possible positions of the legs. As can be seen

in Table 2, the range of the error is nonetheless reduced

significantly and the error average is reduced as well.

The explanation for this is the bias that we considered

above. Hence, by considering specific paths or work areas,

we can find the bias in the positions of the end-effector

and compute a more precise compensation. In addition,

notice that the histograms of the end-effector positions in

Figures 7 and 8 can be centred around zero by simply

applying an arithmetic difference to the compensation. As

mentioned, in this case the histogram is not exactly around

zero because only certain positions can be physically

achieved. If we had known a priori which these points

were (for example, if we had known an a priori path

of the end-effector), then a more precise model could

have been computed. Hence, in practice, if we know

a priori the path or work area of the end-effector, more

Measure

Maximum

original error

Minimum

original error

Maximum

compensated

error

Minimum

compensated

error

Percentage of

range

error

reduction

Average

of

original | Error |

Average

of

compensated

| Error |

x

0.8783

y

0.1403

z

Angle 1 Angle 2

0.3828 3.557e-3 2.88e-3

-3.496

-2.318

1.14e-3

85.54 % 78.47 % 78.08% 83.54% 91.043%

1.202

1.109

0.6639

0.4520

end-effector pose: x, y, z in micrometres, and Angle 1 and Angle 2

in radians

within the same range of error but actually centred around

zero. The same behaviour can be observed in Figure 10,

where Angle 3 is zero because it has no practical usage in

radio-telescope applications.

mechanisms, wherever it is possible to obtain measured

differences between nominal and actual values of the

link/joint parameters. Finally, a stochastic version of the

method must be proposed.

pose is reduced to the same scale as the reduction that we

performed in the legs.

6. Acknowledgements

5. Conclusions

This work presents a methodology to compensate

the displacement leg errors of general Gough-Stewart

platforms. The methodology can be applied to any

parallel mechanism taking into account the following

considerations:

The error data must present a pattern.

This

methodology is intended for deterministic errors which

follow a pattern, as can be seen in Figure 4; the

error does not seem to be generated from underlying

stochastic phenomena but rather from a deterministic

issue. Moreover, the errors are quite similar for the

six legs; hence, the hypothesis that the bias is due

to a mechanical, manufacturing or assembly issue is

quite plausible. These reasons are important because:

1) If the error comes from stochastic phenomena, it

must therefore be modelled as a random variable with

some underlying distribution, and the compensation

effectiveness must be tested according to statistical

evidence. 2) If the error comes from deterministic

phenomena (or else in a greatest proportion), then our a

deterministic function must be represented accurately,

not only according to the data we get from physical

experiments, but also within the whole continuous

range of application. Thus, the interpolation used in

this work makes sense. These two assumptions have

been adopted in this work based on the analysis of the

empirical evidence plotted and discussed throughout

the paper.

The direct and inverse kinematics must be solved with

sufficient accuracy (an least an order of magnitude

lower than the physical error) in order to avoid an

erroneous interpretation of the numerical results.

The number of parameters must be chosen according

to the desired error reduction and the simplicity of the

model. Notice that there is a compromise between

the number of parameters and the error compensation.

If the error data present only low frequencies, few

parameters are needed.

According to our results, the range of each legs error is

reduced by between 80 and 90 %. A similar reduction

is achieved in the end-effector. The numerical, graphical

and statistical measures and plots show that the proposal

reduces the error considerably.

Finally, in the future we will contemplate using different

functions which are not directly derived from the Fourier

transform. Notice that the Fourier transform imposes

the frequencies used for representing the function, and

as such perhaps a simpler model could be used if the

basis functions were different to those used in the Fourier

transform.

its financial support, under projects SIP 20121377

and 20144318. The authors are also grateful to

CONACYT-Mexico for supporting part of this project

through grant CB-2011-01-169132.

7. References

[1] V.S.B. Kiridena and P.M. Ferreira. Computational

approaches to compensating quasistatic errors of

three-axis machining centers. International Journal of

Machine Tools and Manufacture, 34(1): 127 145, 1994.

[2] V.S.B. Kiridena and P.M. Ferreira.

Kinematic

modeling of quasistatic errors of three-axis machining

centers. International Journal of Machine Tools and

Manufacture, 34(1): 85 100, 1994.

[3] Jean Pierre Merlet. Parallel robots: Open problems.

In ASME Conference DECT, 2002.

[4] Angeles Jorge. On the nature of the cartesian stiffness

matrix. Ingenieria Mecanica Tecnologia y Desarrollo,

3(5): 163170, 2000.

[5] J. C. Ziegert. Volumetric performance of hexapod

machine tools. Technical Report Internal Report 13,

Hexapod Machine Tool Users Group, 1996.

[6] Soons J. A. Error analysis of a hexapod machine tool.

In 3rd International Conference and Exhibition on Laser

Metrology and Machine Performance, pages 347358,

1997.

[7] Parenti-Castelli V., Di Gregorio R., and Lenarcic J.

Sensitivity to geometric parameter variation of a 3

dof fully-parallel manipulator. In 3rd International

Conference on Advanced Mechatronics JSME, pages

346369, 1998.

[8] Oiwa T. and Tamaki M. Study on abbes principle

in parallel kinematics.

In 2nd Chemnitz Parallel

Kinematics Seminar, pages 354362, 2000.

[9] Hongliang Cui, Zhenqi Zhu, Zhongxue Gan, and

Torgny Brogardh.

Kinematic analysis and error

modeling of tau parallel robot.

Robotics and

Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, 21(6): 497 505,

2005.

[10] Takaaki Oiwa.

Error compensation system for

joints, links and machine frame of parallel kinematics

machines. In The International Journal of Robotics

Research, pages 10871102, 2005.

[11] Alexander Yu, Ilian A. Bonev, and Paul

Zsombor-Murray.

Geometric approach to the

accuracy analysis of a class of 3-dof planar parallel

robots. Mechanism and Machine Theory, 43(3): 364

375, 2008.

[12] Sbastien Briot and Ilian A. Bonev. Accuracy analysis

of 3-dof planar parallel robots.

Mechanism and

Machine Theory, 43(4): 445 458, 2008.

Eusebio Hernandez, Sergio Ivvan Valdez and Eduardo Sanchez: On the Numerical

Modelling and Error Compensation for General Gough-Stewart Platform

11

of the pose errors produced by joints clearance for a

3-upu parallel robot. Mechanism and Machine Theory,

44(9): 1768 1783, 2009.

[14] Anatoly Pashkevich, Damien Chablat, and Philippe

Wenger. Kinematic calibration of orthoglide-type

mechanisms from observation of parallel leg motions.

Mechatronics, abs/0909.3786, 2009.

[15] Xiao-Dong Ren, Zu-Ren Feng, and Cheng-Ping Su. A

new calibration method for parallel kinematics

machine tools using orientation constraint.

International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture,

49(9): 708 721, 2009.

quasi-static errors in a five-axis gantry machine tool.

Applied Mechanics and Materials, 152(154): 781 787,

2012.

[17] Renishawml10. http://www.renishaw.com/en/

ml10-measurement-system--6804. Accessed on 20

May 2014.

[18] E.E. Hernndez-Martnez, S.I. Valdez-Pe na, and

E. Sanchez-Soto. Solucin de la cinemtica directa

de la plataforma gough-stewart general usando

un algoritmo hbrido de optimizacin.

Revista

Internacional de Mtodos Numricos para Clculo y

Diseo en Ingeniera, 29(03), 2013.

## Mult mai mult decât documente.

Descoperiți tot ce are Scribd de oferit, inclusiv cărți și cărți audio de la editori majori.

Anulați oricând.