Optimal Design of Parallel Kinematics Machines with 2 Degrees of Freedom

The mechanical structure of today’s machine tools is based on serial kinematics in the overwhelming majority of cases. Parallel kinematics with closed kinematics chains offer many potential benefits for machine tools but they also cause many drawbacks in the design process and higher efforts for numerical control and calibration. The Parallel Kinematics Machine (PKM) is a new type of machine tool which was firstly showed at the 1994 International Manufacturing Technology in Chicago by two American machine tool companies, Giddings & Lewis and Ingersoll. Parallel Kinematics Machines seem capable of answering the increase needs of industry in terms of automation. The nature of their architecture tends to reduce absolute positioning and orienting errors (Stan et al., 2006). Their closed kinematics structure allows them obtaining high structural stiffness and performing high-speed motions. The inertia of its mobile parts is reduced, since the actuators of a parallel robot are often fixed to its base and the end-effector can perform movements with higher accelerations. One drawback with respect to open-chain manipulators, though, is a typically reduced workspace and a poor ratio of working envelope to robot size. In theory, parallel kinematics offer for example higher stiffness and at the same time higher acceleration performance than serial structures. In reality, these and other properties are highly dependent on the chosen structure, the chosen configuration for a structure and the position of the tool centre point (TCP) within the workspace. There is a strong and complex link between the type of robot’s geometrical parameters and its performance. It’s very difficult to choose the geometrical parameters intuitively in such a way as to optimize the performance. The configuration of parallel kinematics is more complex due to the high sensitivity to variations of design parameters. For this reason the design process is of key importance to the overall performance of a Parallel Kinematics Machines. For the optimization of Parallel Kinematics Machines an application-oriented approach is necessary. In this chapter an approach is presented that includes the definition of specific objective functions as well as an optimization algorithm. The presented algorithm provides the basis for an overall multiobjective optimization of several kinematics structures. An important objective of this chapter is also to propose an optimization method for planar Parallel Kinematics Machines that combines performance evaluation criteria related to the following robot characteristics: workspace, design space and transmission quality index.

[1]  S.-D. Stan,et al.  Optimal Design of a 2 DOF Micro Parallel Robot Using Genetic Algorithms , 2007, 2007 IEEE International Conference on Integration Technology.

[2]  V. Maties,et al.  Optimization of 2 DOF Micro Parallel Robots Using Genetic Algorithms , 2007, 2007 IEEE International Conference on Mechatronics.

[3]  Tatsuo Arai,et al.  A prototype parallel manipulator: kinematics, construction, software, workspace results, and singularity analysis , 1991, Proceedings. 1991 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation.

[4]  J. D. Pryce,et al.  A numerical method for the determination of the Titchmarsh-Weyl m-coefficient , 1991, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical and Physical Sciences.

[5]  Clément Gosselin,et al.  Singularity analysis of closed-loop kinematic chains , 1990, IEEE Trans. Robotics Autom..

[6]  C. Gosselin Determination of the Workspace of 6-DOF Parallel Manipulators , 1990 .

[7]  Ying-Chien Tsai,et al.  Accessible Region and Synthesis of Robot Arms , 1981 .

[8]  Jean-Pierre Merlet,et al.  Determination of the orientation workspace of parallel manipulators , 1995, J. Intell. Robotic Syst..

[9]  K. C. Gupta,et al.  Design Considerations for Manipulator Workspace , 1982 .

[10]  Carlo Ferraresi,et al.  Workspace and dexterity evaluation of 6 d.o.f. spatial mechanisms , 1995 .

[11]  J. Duffy,et al.  An Optimization Approach to the Determination of the Boundaries of Manipulator Workspaces , 2000 .

[12]  Jan A. Snyman,et al.  A numerical method for the determination of dextrous workspaces of Gough–Stewart platforms , 2001 .

[13]  Marco Ceccarelli,et al.  Fundamentals of Mechanics of Robotic Manipulation , 2004, Mechanisms and Machine Science.

[14]  D. C. H. Yang,et al.  On the Workspace of Mechanical Manipulators , 1983 .

[15]  Joseph Duffy,et al.  Special configurations of spatial mechanisms and robot arms , 1982 .

[16]  S. Agrawal Workspace boundaries of in-parallel manipulator systems , 1991, Fifth International Conference on Advanced Robotics 'Robots in Unstructured Environments.

[17]  Manfred Husty,et al.  Rechable Workspace and Manufacturing Errors of Stewart-Gough Manipulators , 2005 .

[18]  S. Stan,et al.  Workspace optimization of a two degree of freedom mini parallel robot , 2006, 2006 IEEE International Conference on Automation, Quality and Testing, Robotics.

[19]  Sergiu-Dan Stan,et al.  Multi-objective Design Optimization of Mini Parallel Robots Using Genetic Algorithms , 2007, 2007 IEEE International Symposium on Industrial Electronics.

[20]  Kenneth J. Waldron,et al.  The Workspaces of a Mechanical Manipulator , 1981 .

[21]  Joseph K. Davidson,et al.  Rigid Body Location and Robot Workspaces: Some Alternative Manipulator Forms , 1987 .

[22]  K. C. Gupta,et al.  On the Nature of Robot Workspace , 1986 .

[23]  Marco Ceccarelli,et al.  A Synthesis Algorithm for Three-Revolute Manipulators by Using an Algebraic Formulation of Workspace Boundary , 1995 .

[24]  G. Gogu Structural synthesis of fully-isotropic translational parallel robots via theory of linear transformations , 2004 .

[25]  Jian Wang,et al.  Workspace evaluation of Stewart platforms , 1994, Adv. Robotics.

[26]  Cecil C. Rousseau,et al.  The Optimization Problem , 2021, Texts in Computer Science.