Stiffness analysis and experimental validation of robotic systems

doi:10.1007/s11465-011-0221-3

Front Mech Eng

0, Vol.

Issue () : 182-196 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11465-011-0221-3

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Stiffness analysis and experimental validation of robotic systems

Giuseppe CARBONE(

)

Laboratory of Robotics and Mechatronics, University of Cassino, 03043 Cassino (Fr), Italy

Download: PDF(529 KB) HTML
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks

Abstract

Stiffness can be considered of primary importance in order to guarantee the successful use of any robotic system for a given task. Therefore, this paper proposes procedures for carrying out both numerical and experimental estimations of stiffness performance for multibody robotic systems. The proposed numerical procedure is based on models with lumped parameters for deriving the Cartesian stiffness matrix. Stiffness performance indices are also proposed for comparing stiffness performance. Then, an experimental procedure for the evaluation stiffness performance is proposed as based on a new measuring system named as Milli-CATRASYS (Milli Cassino Tracking System) and on a trilateration technique. Cases of study are reported to show the soundness and engineering feasibility of both the proposed numerical formulation for stiffness analysis and experimental validation of stiffness performance.

Keywords robotics stiffness performance numerical and experimental estimations

Corresponding Author(s): CARBONE Giuseppe,Email:carbone@unicas.it

Issue Date: 05 June 2011

Cite this article:

Giuseppe CARBONE. Stiffness analysis and experimental validation of robotic systems[J]. Front Mech Eng, 0, (): 182-196.

URL:

https://academic.hep.com.cn/fme/EN/10.1007/s11465-011-0221-3
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fme/EN/Y0/V/I/182

Fig.1 Schemes of elastically compliant multibody robotic systems. (a) 2R serial manipulator; (b) planar parallel manipulator with three RPR legs

Fig.2 A flow-chart for the proposed numerical computation of stiffness performance

Fig.3 Scheme of Milli-CaTraSys. (a) With the reference frame, LVDTs and masses as applied to the wires (=1,…,6); (b) orientation of the end-effector through the angles , and

Tab.1 Sizes of design parameters for CaPaMan 2bis

Fig.4 The CaPaMan 2bis. (a) Kinematic scheme; (b) prototype with Milli-CaTraSys set up at LARM in Cassino

Fig.5 A simplified stiffness model with lumped parameters of one leg of CaPaMan 2bis

Fig.6 Plots of the determinant of . (a) As function of ==; (b) parametrically as function of design parameters = (=1,2,3) when ===60o

Tab.2 Compliant displacements when ===45o

Tab.3 Maximum compliant displacements

Fig.7 Measured compliant displacements for a wrench given by m = m=m=m=m=m=0.03 kg when CaPaMan2bis is in its vertical configuration. (a) Δ; (b) Δ; (c) Δ; (d) Δ; (e) Δ; (f) Δ

Fig.8 WL-16RV biped locomotor. (a) Simplified kinematic scheme; (b) built prototype ascending stairs by carrying a human at Waseda University

Fig.9 Simplified stiffness model of WL-16RV

Fig.10 Displacements of point on right foot of WL-16RII (continuous line theoretical; continuous dotted line no load experiment; dotted line with waist locked). (a) -component; (b) -component; (c) -component

Fig.11 (a) Determinat of the stiffness matrix for WL-16RII biped locomotor versus time during a three steps forward walking motion; (b) a zoomed view

1	Rivin E I. Stiffness and Damping in Mechanical Design. New York: Marcel Dekker Inc., 1999
2	Nof S Y, ed. Handbook of Industrial Robotics, New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1985
3	Ceccarelli M. Fundamentals of Mechanics of Robotic Manipulation. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2004
4	Wikipedia, 2011. Stiffness. Available on-line at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stiffness
5	Pratt G A, Williamson M M, Dillworth P, Pratt J, Ulland K, Wright A. Stiffness isn’t everything. Preprints of the 4th International Symposium on Experimental Robotics ISER’95 , Stanford, 1995. Available on line at http://www.ai.mit.edu/projects/leglab/publications/ sitffness_isnt_everything.pdf
6	Tsumugiwa T, Yokogawa R, Hara K. Variable impedance control with virtual stiffness for human-robot cooperative peg-in-hole task. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots ans Systems IROS’02 , Lausanne, 2002, 1075-1081
7	Schimmels J M. Multidirectional compliance and constraint for improved robotic deburring. Part 1: Improved Positioning. Robotics and Computer-integrated Manufacturing , 2001, 17(4): 277-286 doi: 10.1016/S0736-5845(00)00059-4
8	English C E, Russell D. Mechanics and stiffness limitations of a variable stiffness actuator for use in prosthetic limbs. Mechanism and Machine Theory , 1999, 34(1): 7-25 doi: 10.1016/S0094-114X(98)00026-3
9	Gosselin C. Stiffness mapping for parallel manipulators. IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation , 1990, 6(3): 377-382 doi: 10.1109/70.56657
10	Tahmasebi F, Tsai L W. Jacobian and stiffness analysis of a novel class of six-DOF parallel minimanipulators. In: Proceedings of the ASME 22nd Biennial Mechanism Conference, Scottsdale , 1992, 47: 95-102
11	Kim H Y, Streit D A. Configuration dependent stiffness of the Puma 560 manipulator: analytical and experimental results. Mechanism and Machine Theory , 1995, 30(8): 1269-1277 doi: 10.1016/0094-114X(95)00017-S
12	Duffy J. Statics and Kinematics with Applications to Robotics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996, 153-169 .
13	Pigoski T, Griffis M, Duffy J. Stiffness mappings employing different frames of reference. Mechanism and Machine Theory , 1998, 33(6): 825-838 doi: 10.1016/S0094-114X(97)00083-9
14	Tsai L W. Robot Analysis: the Mechanics of Serial and Parallel Manipulators. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1999, 260-297
15	Ceccarelli M, Carbone G. A stiffness analysis for CaPaMan (Cassino Parallel Manipulator). Mechanism and Machine Theory , 2002, 37(5): 427-439 doi: 10.1016/S0094-114X(02)00006-X
16	Gosselin C M, Zhang D. Stiffness analysis of parallel mechanisms using a lumped model. International Journal of Robotics and Automation , 2002, 17(1): 17-27
17	Yoon W K, Suehiro T, Tsumaki Y, Uchiyama M. A method for analyzing parallel mechanism stiffness including elastic deformations in the structure. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems IROS’02, Lausanne , 2002, 2875-2880
18	Alici G, Shirinzadeh B. (2003). Exact stiffness analysis and mapping for a 3-SPS+S parallel manipulator. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Automation Technology AUTOMATION 2003, F120
19	Simaan N, Shoham M. Stiffness synthesis of a variable geometry six-degrees-of-freedom double planar parallel robot. International Journal of Robotics Research , 2003, 22(9): 757-775 doi: 10.1177/02783649030229005
20	Carbone G, Ceccarelli M. A stiffness analysis for a hybrid parallel-serial manipulator. Robotica. International Journal (Toronto, Ont.) , 2004, 22: 567-576
21	Ceccarelli M, Carbone G. Numerical and experimental analysis of the stiffness performance of parallel manipulators. 2nd International Colloquium Collaborative Research Centre 562, Braunschweig , 2005, 21-35
22	Lim H O, Setiawan S A, Takanishi A. Balance and impedance control for biped humanoid robot locomotion. In: Proceedings of IEEE 7RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems IROS 2001, Maui , 2001, 494-499
23	Svinin M M, Hosoe S, Uchiyama M, Luo Z W. On the stiffness and stiffness control of redundant manipulators. In: Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Robotics & Automation ICRA 2002, Washington DC , 2002, 2393-2399
24	Chakarov D. Optimization synthesis of parallel manipulators with desired stiffness. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics , 1998, 28(4). Avaliable on-line at http://www.imbm.bas.bg/IMBM/LMS/Chakarov/TPM98.pdf
25	Liu X J, Jin Z L, Gao F. Optimum design of 3-DOF spherical parallel manipulators with respect to the conditioning and stiffness indices. Mechanism and Machine Theory , 2000, 35(9): 1257-1267 doi: 10.1016/S0094-114X(99)00072-5
26	Carbone G, Ceccarelli M, Ogura Y, Lim H O, Takanishi A. Numerical simulation for an optimum design of a humanoid leg through stiffness analysis. 3rd IEEE International Conference on Humanoid Robots HUMANOIDS, München and Karlsruhe , 2003, 3bWalking03
27	Carbone G, Ottaviano E, Ceccarelli M. An optimum design procedure for both serial and parallel manipulators. Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science , 2007, 221(7): 829-843
28	Huang S, Schimmels J M. The bounds and realization of spatial compliances achieved with simple springs connected in parallel. IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation , 2000, 14(3): 466-475 doi: 10.1109/70.678455
29	Zefran M, Kumar V. Affine connections for the cartesian stiffness matrix. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation ICRA’97, Albuquerque , 1997, 2:1376-1381
30	Howard S, Zefran M, Kumar V. On the 6×6 cartesian stiffness matrix for three-dimensional motions. Mechanism and Machine Theory , 1998, 33(4): 389-408 doi: 10.1016/S0094-114X(97)00040-2
31	Chen S F, Kao I. Geometrical method for modeling of asymmetric 6×6 cartesian stiffness matrix. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems IROS2000, Takamatsu , 2000, 1217-1222
32	Vaishnav R N, Magrab E B. A general procedure to evaluate robot positioning errors. International Journal of Robotics Research , 1987, 6(1): 59-74 doi: 10.1177/027836498700600105
33	American National Standards Institute. American National Standard for Industrial Robots and Robot Systems: Point-to-Point and Static Performance Characteristics - Evaluation. New York, 1990, 15.05-1-1990
34	UNI, Italian National Institute for Standards. Manipulating Industrial Robots: Performance Criteria and Related Test Methods. Milan, UNI EN , 1995, 29283 (= ISO 9283)
35	Kardestuncer H. Elementary Matrix Analysis of Structures. Tokyo: McGraw-Hill Kogakusha, 1974
36	Carbone G, Ceccarelli M. A comparison of indices for stiffness performance evaluation. Frontiers of Mechanical Engineering in China , 2010, 5(3): 270-278 doi: 10.1007/s11465-010-0023-z
37	Merlet J P. Parallel Robots. Dordrecht: Springer Verlag, 2006
38	Patterson T, Lipkin H. A classification of robot compliance. ASME Journal of Mechanical Design. , 1993, 115(3): 581-584 doi: 10.1115/1.2919229
39	Gosselin C, Angeles J. A global performance index for the kinematic optimization of robotic manipulators. Transaction of the ASME Journal of Mechanical Design. , 1991, 113(3): 220-226 doi: 10.1115/1.2912772

[1]	Wuxiang ZHANG, Zhi WANG, Ke MA, Fei LIU, Pengzhi CHENG, Xilun DING. State of the art in movement around a remote point: a review of remote center of motion in robotics[J]. Front. Mech. Eng., 2024, 19(2): 14-.
[2]	Giuseppe QUAGLIA,Zhe YIN. Static balancing of planar articulated robots[J]. Front. Mech. Eng., 2015, 10(4): 326-343.
[3]	Yang LIU, Jing LIU. Surgical robotics: A look-back of latest advancement and bio-inspired ways to tackle existing challenges[J]. Front Mech Eng, 2012, 7(4): 376-384.
[4]	Fabrizio SERGI, Dino ACCOTO, Nevio L. TAGLIAMONTE, Giorgio CARPINO, Eugenio GUGLIELMELLI. A systematic graph-based method for the kinematic synthesis of non-anthropomorphic wearable robots for the lower limbs[J]. Front Mech Eng, 2011, 6(1): 61-70.
[5]	Giuseppe CARBONE, Marco CECCARELLI, . Comparison of indices for stiffness performance evaluation[J]. Front. Mech. Eng., 2010, 5(3): 270-278.

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed