Virtual Prototyping of a New Parallel Robot for Milling

Maciej Petkol, Grzegorz Karpiel 2, Daniel Prusak 3 and Tadeusz Uhl 4

1 AGH University of Science and Technology, Krak6w, Poland, e-mail: petko@agh.edu.pl

2 AGH University of Science and Technology, Krak6w, Poland, e-mail: gkarpiel@agh.edu.pl
3 AGH University of Science and Technology, Krak6w, Poland, e-mail: daniel.prusak@agh.edu.pl
4 AGH University of Science and Technology, Krakrw, Poland, e-mail: tuhl@agh.edu.pl

Abstract. In the paper, the mechatronic procedure toward parallel robots development with
special emphasis placed on the virtual prototyping stage was described on the example of a
new 3-DOF parallel manipulator design. For this manipulator, two dynamic models were
created and verified: multibody model for simulating the manipulator's dynamic behaviour
and the analytical, structural one, for designing of a controller. An initial controller was
virtually designed and experimentally tested with physical prototype of the manipulator.
The performance of this initial controller is sufficient for conducting identification
experiment, which is needed for more advanced nonlinear control strategies.

1 Introduction
One of the development tendencies of the construction of support structures for milling machines
is to replace them with parallel manipulators. Milling electrospindles are also attached to parallel
manipulators, creating a machine of the HSM (High Speed Machining) class, able to perform
complex spatial movements. But kinematic structure of such manipulators is very complex,
increasing their cost and restricting applications. Additionally, their stiffness depends on position.
A solution to this problem can be a control that allows for shaping of dynamic properties,
including stiffness, of the manipulator to ensure vibrostability in a wide range of tool positions.
Such a solution can be rated among intelligent constructions, reacting to external influence of a
cutting process.
Robots of parallel kinematics possess features that give them certain advantages (Tsai 1999)
over serial manipulators: higher rigidity, due to the existence of multiple closed kinematic chains,
and, as a result, higher natural frequencies, a high payload capacity, owed to the fact that the load
is distributed among the actuators, fast movements, and good accuracy. However, industry has
shown more interest in serial manipulators, which has its reasons (Merlet 2000): it is difficult to
establish equations for the direct kinematics problem of parallel manipulators, the workspace is
limited and very often filled with singularities, at which the manipulator gains or looses a degree
of freedom, becoming uncontrollable (Lisowski, 2000).
Development of parallel manipulators appears to be a classical problem of mechatronic
design, performed with an integrated, multidisciplinary, iterative approach as a closed kinematic
chain complicates control synthesis and kinematic equations. Additionally, actuators usually play
also a role of structural members of a manipulator. Therefore, during design of parallel
manipulators, all aspects of various physical nature, together with control and its implementation

39
40 M.Petko, G.Karpiel, D.Prusak, T. Uhl

related problems must be taken into account and treated with equal importance from the very
beginning of the development process.

2 Design of Parallel Robots

The iterative procedure (Figure 1) starts with the specification, which also serves as a reference
for further verification. The construction and the control algorithm are developed simultaneously,
and provide models of the manipulator and the controller, which are then simulated together with
external interactions. Modifications are introduced till getting a close conformity with
requirements. This stage is also called virtual prototyping. Only after successful virtual
prototyping, the physical prototype of manipulator is build, and control algorithm is tested in real-
time using fast prototyping technique. During the fast prototyping stage, the models used for
simulations are automatically transferred into a hardware/software system that is functionally
equivalent to the system under test. On this stage, the model of manipulator is improved by
identification of manufacturing imperfections, and parameters hard to asses on purely theoretical
way, such as friction coefficients. When overall system performance meets specification, control
algorithm is implemented on a target hardware platform. The remaining part of the paper
concentrates on the virtual prototyping stage of the robot development process.
Virtual prototyping is becoming increasingly important in mechatronic product development
(Iserman 2003, Zaeh & Baudisch 2003), as it allows for fast and cheap testing of multiple design
variants on a suitable detail level. However it is complicated by the fact that for modelling of
features from various physical domains coexisting in the system, and for various purposes,
different software tools are deployed. They are usually incompatible and hard to integrate, though
recently, a substantial progress can be observed in this area. There exists several approaches
toward the realization of a virtual prototyping idea, and three of them seem being useful in
practice:
- bond graphs modelling for systems of complex physical nature,
- block diagram approach,
- UML based, for high-level architecture modelling and verification.
Throughout the work, described in this paper, the block diagram approach was used in a form
of an integrated software framework built around Simulink environment.
During virtual prototyping, based on the detailed design of mechanical parts, completed in
CAD software, multibody model of high accuracy is created. Such a model, due to its size, is
inappropriate for control design. Hence, another simpler one is formulated on a standard
theoretical way. Parameters of this less accurate model can be tuned to obtain greater conformity
with multibody model. Results of simulation of entire system in integrated computational
environment provide data for enhancement of the construction and control algorithm. This
process is iteratively repeated until obtaining satisfactory performance of the system.
Virtual Prototyping of a New Parallel Manipulator for Milling 41

construction
o')
i::1.

>
control

IMPLEMENTATION

[ ':xTE,~NAL .....
! INTERACTIONS i

Figure 1. Mechatronics design of parallel robots.

3 Case Study- 3-DOF Spatial Parallel Robot for Milling

The task was to create, using previously presented procedure, a highly robust and versatile, 3-
DOF construction for high-speed machining applications, which would exhibit comparatively
large working volume (roughly 50 dm3), high payload capacity to carry an electrospindle and
exert sufficient milling forces (several tens of N for aluminium) and good dynamic characteristics
(max. velocity ca. 1 m/s, acceleration ca. 1 g) for fast tool return path. An additional requirement
was to avoid elements that are expensive and troublesome in manufacturing, as spherical joints or
parallelograms.
Several constructions were investigated and virtually prototyped, then one of them was
selected for further development. Optimisation of its dimension/workspace was done using
heuristic approach based on results of simulations. The final construction combines advantages of
Steward-Gough platform and Delta based approaches. The developed construction, shown on
Figure 2, is a spatial fully-parallel manipulator with three translational degrees of freedom. The
manipulator consists of a steady base, which takes the shape of an equilateral triangle, and a
moving platform to which an electric spindle is attached. The base is connected with the moving
platform by three limbs that consist of two links connected with each other by prismatic joints.
These prismatic joints are actuated with LinMot direct drive linear motors, which allow
controlling the limb lengths. The limbs are connected to the base platform with the help of
42 M.Petko, G.Karpiel, D.Prusak, T. Uhl

universal joints. Each universal joint consists of two revolute joints whose axes of rotation
intersect and are orthogonal. The connection of the limbs to the moving platform is facilitated by
revolute joints. The moving platform is based on a special construction, which allows the limbs to
rotate freely about its centre around an instantaneous axis of rotation that always remains
orthogonal to the base platform. This rotation is enabled by a specially designed bearing
assembly. The moving platform is provided with a socket for attaching milling spindles equipped
with standard taper shank.

Figure 2. Developed 3-DOF 3-RRPRR manipulator for milling.

The workspace of the manipulator has a shape of cylinder with diameter of 600 mm and
height of 300 mm. Inside, with a HFK 95 S 40 spindle from IBAG, maximum attainable speed is
ca. 2 m/s and acceleration 2 g. Maximum achievable milling force is over 100 N, which is enough
for high speed machining of aluminium.

3.1 The Model of the Manipulator

For the accurate simulation of its dynamics, the multibody model of the manipulator was created
in VisualNastran on the basis of the detailed mechanical part drawing, made in CAD software.
Some parameters, hard to establish on a theoretical way, as friction coefficients, initially were
roughly estimated and corrected later, when experimental data became available. VisualNastran
was selected because it allowed for integration with Simulink, where models of the remaining
elements of the manipulator, such as sensors or actuators were modelled and all simulations took
place.
For control design, another, structural analytical model of the manipulator's dynamic was
created based on laws of physics. The dominant source of nonlinearity in the manipulator is its
Virtual Prototyping of a New Parallel Manipulator for Milling 43

geometry, which entails high variations of inertia and forces caused by gravity inside the working
space. Neglecting other nonlinearities, the simplified dynamics takes the general form:

M(x)l" + G ( x ) - F, (1)

where x=[x, y, Z]T is a position of the moving platform in (x, y, z) Cartesian coordinate system
and l=[ll, /2, /3]T is a position of the moving platform in the joint coordinate system, as depicted
on Figure 3, M is an inertia matrix, G is a gravity forces (as seen by actuators) matrix, and F is a
vector of forces exerted by actuators.
Inertia of manipulator can be expressed as function of only prismatic joints lengths, which are
measured directly. However, for calculating gravitational part, the position of end effector in
Cartesian space is needed. This can be obtained by solving the forward kinematics problem.
Denoting by R the radius of the circle circumscribed about the base triangle, the equations of
manipulator's inverse kinematics take the form (Petko et al. 2004):

ll=~x2+(y-R)2+z 2

12= x- ,f3R + +~-R +z 2 (2)

1 2 1 2
/3= x+-~ + y+-~R +z 2

It is worth noting that these equations are analytically differentiable, so finding the link
velocities and accelerations does not pose a problem. It is possible to find close analytical form of
forward kinematics:

/
5+ 13

II

It /

Figure 3. Kinematic structure of the manipulator.

44 M.Petko,G.Karpiel,D.Prusak,T.Uhl

X-"~
6R
2l 2 _ l 2 _ l 2
y=- (3)
6R

z=l12-(12-12~12R2
/ /2
6R

Simulations have shown discrepancy of up to 10% between the analytical and the multibody
models. It can be explained mainly by too much simplified mass distribution in the analytical
model. An accurate description would have to be much more complicated due to the complex
limbs geometry and necessity of taking into account other, now neglected, sources of
nonlinearities, as friction, backlashes or elasticity. Such further extending of the model would
make it useless for control purposes because of too large calculation overheads for real-time
execution. Therefore, it is planned to use a black-box model, e.g. neural-network based, for
designing of a final, precise controller. Such a model requires an experimental identification of its
parameters, and this, in turn, requires an initial, stabilizing controller that is described in the next
subsection.

3.2 The Controller

To control the position of the parallel manipulator 1, to track a desired trajectory ld, the following
feed-forward linearizing (computed torque) control law is utilised (Craig, 1989):

F = M(I '/l'd + Kpe + Kve v + K, !°' /~')dir + G(x), (4)

where e = ld -1, e v = Jd - J and Kp, Kv, Ki are constants. The structure of the position controller
is shown on Figure 4, together with the remaining parts of the robot used during virtual
prototyping, performed in Simulink: the trajectory generator, multibody model of the
manipulator, and models of power electronics, sensors and sensor interfaces.

Trajectory KIt~n'mU. I
~..r.,o~ I • ~--~~.
I InverseDynamics Manipulator
% .ode, ".~
N

Figure 4. Simulink model used for virtual prototyping of the robot.

Virtual Prototyping of a New Parallel Manipulator for Milling 45

Cartesian Trajectory

..............................................
i............................
...........................

-o.33 .......................~................ ~ ".......................................................

i.................. " .....................................

-0.34............~....... ................

( .......i.............
................................ ......... ................... ...........................................
] ......................
I

33:05.................
:::: ...... .......

y[ml -o.os
x[ml

Figure 5. Trajectory used for simulations and experiment.

3.3 Experimental Verification

After controller's parameters tuning, its performance was investigated, using fast prototyping
technique on the physical prototype of the manipulator. During experiments, the execution time
of the control algorithm, running on a floating-point digital signal processor (DSP), allowed for
sampling frequency up to 1 kHz. Having in mind one of the target applications - active control of
vibrations emerging during machining, which would require more advanced and complex control
strategy- some different approach towards control execution had to be tried. Therefore, the
control law was implemented in Altera Stratix family FPGA chip in fixed-point form, using the
procedure described in Petko & Karpiel (2003). Such an approach allows, among others, for
straightforward bit- and cycle-accurate simulation in Simulink of a hardware-implemented
controller, together with the remaining, multidisciplinary part of a mechatronic system.
During experiments, the task was to track a specially prepared trajectory in the Cartesian
space. The chosen trajectory was a three-dimensional Lissajoux curve (Figure 5), because it is
closed and smooth, both in the Cartesian- and the joint-coordinates, with various speeds and
accelerations, effectively exploring a large part of the workspace. Then results (actual platform
trajectories) from experiment and virtual prototyping were compared (Figure 6a). Good
conformity, obtained between simulation and experiment, indicates high accuracy of multibody
model of the manipulator. It is especially visible on the plot of the position errors in the Cartesian
coordinate y (Figure 6b). Errors in the two other axes were in the same range (0.5 mm max.).
Trajectory tracking performance, though quite fair, can be further improved after experimental
identification of more accurate manipulator model used for feedback linearization in control law.
Having a good model available, also other approaches to nonlinear control problem can be tried.

4 Conclusions
In the paper, the mechatronic procedure toward parallel robots development was described and
justified with special emphasis placed on the virtual prototyping stage. The procedure was
46 M.Petko, G.Karpiel, D.Prusak, T. Uhl

successfully applied to the problem of design of a new 3-DOF parallel robot construction. The
result fulfils specification and accepted assumptions, has a structure that is simple and
inexpensive for manufacturing, comparatively large working space, high payload capacity and
fast dynamics with close analytical form of forward kinematics. For this manipulator, two
dynamic models were created and verified: multibody model for simulating the manipulator's
dynamic behaviour and the analytical, structural one, for designing of a controller. The latter was
analysed and conclusions regarding possibilities of its improvements and usefulness for final
controller design were presented. An initial controller was designed and experimentally tested
with physical prototype of the manipulator. The results confirmed high accuracy of the multibody
model. The methodology used, lowered costs and the duration time of the development process
and made it possible at all. The performance of this initial controller is sufficient for conducting
identification experiment, which is needed for more advanced nonlinear control strategies.

a) 0.,8 Prismatic Joint No.2 b) 6x 10~ , ,

Y-axis
,
I~ Experiment
0.45
i'~". ~ ~"~
~""""~" Simulation
I ...... Desired ]
0.44
"~ i~ \
0.43

E
~ 0.42
°- ~o
~ 0.41 g
0
I1.
0.4
/
0.39 .i
-4 ,.J
0.38
Y
0.37
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
T i m e [s] Time [s]

Figure 6. Comparison of manipulator performance during simulation and experiment: a) position in the
prismatic joint no. 2; b) trajectory tracking error along y-axis.

Bibliography
Craig, J.J. (1989), Introduction to Robotics: Mechanics and Control. Addison-Wesley.
Iserman R. (2003), Mechatronic Systems: Fundamentals, Springer.
Lisowski, W. (2000), Problems of Robots' Manipulators modelling, Wyd. KRiDM AGH, (in Polish).
Merlet, J.-P. (2000), Parallel Robots, Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Petko, M. & Karpiel, G. (2003), Semi-Automatic Implementation of Control Algorithms in ASIC/FPGA,
2003 IEEE Conference on Emerging Technologies and Factory Automation: Proceedings, vol. 1, pp.
427-433, IEEE.
Petko, M., Karpiel, G., Prusak, D. & Martowicz, A. (2004), Kinematics of the new type 3-DOF parallel
manipulator, PAK, 5/2004, pp. 25-28 (in Polish).
Tsai, L.-W. (1999), Robot Analysis: the Mechanics of Serial and Parallel Manipulators, John Wiley &
Sons.
Zaeh, M.F. & Baudisch, T. (2003) Simulation environment for designing the dynamic motion behaviour of
the mechatronic system machine tool, Proc. Instn Mech. Engrs, 217:1031-1035.