0
Research Papers

Error Modeling and Experimental Validation of a Planar 3-P PR Parallel Manipulator With Joint Clearances

[+] Author and Article Information
Guanglei Wu1

Shaoping Bai

Jørgen A. Kepler

Department of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering,  Aalborg University, Fibigerstræde 16, DK-9220 Aalborg East, Denmarkjk@m-tech.aau.dk

Stéphane Caro

 Institut de Recherche en Communications et Cybernétique de Nantes, Francestephane.caro@irccyn.ec-nantes.fr

1

Corresponding author.

J. Mechanisms Robotics 4(4), 041008 (Sep 17, 2012) (12 pages) doi:10.1115/1.4007487 History: Received August 15, 2011; Revised August 06, 2012; Published September 17, 2012; Online September 17, 2012

This paper deals with the error modeling and analysis of a 3-P PR planar parallel manipulator with joint clearances. The kinematics and the Cartesian workspace of the manipulator are analyzed. An error model is established with considerations of both configuration errors and joint clearances. Using this model, the upper bounds and distributions of the pose errors for this manipulator are established. The results are compared with experimental measurements and show the effectiveness of the error prediction model.

Copyright © 2012 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

CAD model of a 3-P PR PPM

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Parameterization of the 3-P PR PPM

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Constant-orientation workspaces

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Parameterization of the ith leg

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Geometric errors and joint clearances related to the ith leg: (a) prismatic joint and (b) revolute joint

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

A vision-based system for the moving platform pose measurement: (a) experimental setup and (b) measurement interface

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Measurement of the assembly errors

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Measurement of the angular clearance in the linear bearing

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Comparison of error distributions for case 1 with a constant orientation φ=0: The solid surface is obtained from simulation while dot points from measurements

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

Comparison of error distributions for case 1 with a constant orientation φ=π/6

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

Comparison of error distributions for case 2 with a constant orientation φ=0

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 12

Comparison of error distributions for case 2 with a constant orientation φ=π/6

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 13

Boxplot of the measurements for cases 1 and 2. Nos. 1 and 2 of horizontal axes stand for the measurements with constant orientations φ=0 and φ=π/6, respectively.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 14

Position and orientation accuracies at five poses

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 15

Comparison between the measurements and simulation results for case 2 with a constant orientation φ=π/6

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In