1: %---------------------------------------------------------------------
2: \section{Sensitivity Analysis}
3: \label{chapitre:sensitivity-Fan}
4: %---------------------------------------------------------------------
5: Two complementary methods are used to study the sensitivity of the
6: Orthoglide. First, a linkage kinematic analysis is used to have a
7: rough idea of the influence of the dimensional variations to its
8: end-effector. Although this method is compact, it cannot be used
9: to know the influence of the variations in the parallelograms.
10: Thus, a differential vector method is used to study the influence
11: of the dimensional and angular variations in the parts of the
12: manipulator, and particularly variations in the parallelograms, on
13: the position and the orientation of its end-effector.
14:
15: %---------------------------------------------------------------------
16: \subsection{Linkage Kinematic
17: Analysis} \label{section:linkage-kinematic-analysis}
18: %---------------------------------------------------------------------
19: This method aims at computing the sensitivity coefficients of the
20: position of the end-effector, $P$, to the design parameters of the
21: manipulator. First, three implicit functions depicting the
22: kinematic of the manipulator are obtained. A relation between the
23: variations in the position of $P$ and the variations in the design
24: parameters follows from these functions. Finally a sensitivity
25: matrix, which gathers the sensitivity coefficients of $P$, follows
26: from the previous relation written in matrix form.
27:
28: %---------------------------------------------------------------------
29: \subsubsection{Formulation}
30: \label{section:linkage-kinematic-analysis-theory}
31: %---------------------------------------------------------------------
32: Figure \ref{fig:orthoglide} depicts the design parameters taken
33: into account. Points $A_1$, $A_2$, and $A_3$ are the bases of the
34: prismatic joints and their Cartesian coordinates, expressed in
35: ${\cal R}_b$, are ${\bf a}_1$, ${\bf a}_2$, and ${\bf a}_3$,
36: respectively.
37:
38: \[ {\bf a}_1 = \mat{ccc}{-a_1 & 0 & 0}^{T} ; \ {\bf a}_2 = \mat{ccc}{0 & -a_2 & 0}^{T} ;
39: \ {\bf a}_3 = \mat{ccc}{0 & 0 & -a_3}^{T} \] where $a_i$ is the
40: distance between points $A_i$ and $O$, the origin of ${\cal R}_b$.
41: Points $B_1$, $B_2$ and $B_3$ are the links between the prismatic
42: and parallelogram joints. Their Cartesian coordinates, expressed
43: in ${\cal R}_b$ are:
44: \[ {\bf b}_1 = \mat{c}{-a_1 + \rho_1 \\ b_{1y} \\ b_{1z}},
45: {\bf b}_2 = \mat{c}{ b_{2x} \\ -a_2 + \rho_2 \\ b_{2z}},
46: {\bf b}_3 = \mat{c}{ b_{3x} \\ b_{3y} \\ -a_3 + \rho_3 } \]
47: where $\rho_i$ is the displacement of the $i^{th}$ prismatic
48: joint. $b_{1y}$, $b_{1z}$, $b_{2x}$, $b_{2z}$, $b_{3x}$, and
49: $b_{3y}$, depict the maximal displacements of points $B_1$, $B_2$
50: and $B_3$, respectively, which result from the orientation errors
51: of the directions of the prismatic actuated joints.
52:
53: The Cartesian coordinates of $C_1$, $C_2$, and $C_ 3$, expressed
54: in ${\cal R}_b$, are the following: \[ {\bf c}_1 =
55: \mat{ccc}{p_x-r_1 & 0 & 0}^{T} ; {\bf c}_2 = \mat{ccc}{0 & p_y-r_2
56: & 0}^{T} ; {\bf c}_3 = \mat{ccc}{0 & 0 & p_z-r_3}^{T} \] with
57: ${\bf p} = {\mat{ccc}{p_x & p_y & p_z}}^{T}$ is the vector of the
58: Cartesian coordinates of the end-effector $P$, expressed in ${\cal
59: R}_b$.
60:
61: The expressions of the nominal lengths of the parallelograms
62: follow from eq.(\ref{eq:Li}).
63: \begin{equation}\label{eq:Li}
64: L_i = \| {\bf c}_i - {\bf b}_i \|_2 \ , \ i = 1,2,3
65: \end{equation} where $L_i$ is the nominal length of the $i^{th}$ parallelogram and $\|.\|_2$ is the Euclidean norm.
66:
67: Three implicit functions follow from eq.(\ref{eq:Li}) and are
68: given by the following equations:
69: \begin{eqnarray*}\label{eq:fonctions-implicites}
70: F_1 & = & (-r_1 + p_x + a_1 - \rho_1)^2 + (p_y - b_{1y})^2+(p_z -
71: b_{1z})^2 - L_1^2 = 0 \\
72: F_2 & = & (p_x - b_{2x})^2+( -r_2 + p_y + a_2 - \rho_2)^2+(p_z -
73: b_{2z})^2 - L_2^2 = 0 \\
74: F_3 & = & (p_x - b_{3x})^2+(p_y - b_{3y})^2+(-r_3 + p_z + a_3 -
75: \rho_3)^2 - L_3^2 = 0
76: \end{eqnarray*}
77:
78:
79: By differentiating functions $F_1$, $F_2$, and $F_3$, with respect
80: to the design parameters of the manipulator and the position of
81: the end-effector, we obtain a relation between the positioning
82: error of the end-effector, $\delta {\bf p}$, and the variations in
83: the design parameters, $\delta {\bf q}_i$.
84: \begin{equation}\label{eq:differenciation-fct-implicite}
85: {\delta F}_i = {\bf A}_i \delta {\bf p} + {\bf B}_i \delta {\bf
86: q}_i = 0 \ , \ i = 1,2,3
87: \end{equation}
88: with
89: \begin{eqnarray*}\label{eq:matrices-expression}
90: {\bf A}_i &=& \mat{ccc}{{\partial F_i}/{\partial p_x} & {\partial
91: F_i}/{\partial p_y} & {\partial F_i}/{\partial p_z}} \\
92: {\bf B}_i &=& \mat{cccccc}{ {\partial F_i}/{\partial a_i} &
93: {\partial F_i}/{\partial b_{iy}} & {\partial F_i}/{\partial
94: b_{iz}} & {\partial F_i}/{\partial \rho_i} & {\partial
95: F_i}/{\partial L_i} & {\partial F_i}/{\partial r_i} } \\
96: \delta {\bf p} &=& {\mat{ccc}{\delta p_x & \delta p_y & \delta
97: p_z}}^{T} \\
98: \delta {\bf q}_i &=& \mat{cccccc}{ {\delta a_i} & {\delta b_{iy}}
99: & {\delta b_{iz}} & {\delta \rho_i} & {\delta L_i} & {\delta r_i}
100: }^T
101: \end{eqnarray*}
102: where ${\delta a_i}, {\delta b_{iy}}, {\delta b_{iz}}, {\delta
103: \rho_i}, {\delta L_i}$, and ${\delta r_i}$, depict the variations
104: in $a_i$, $b_{iy}$, $b_{iz}$, $\rho_i$, $L_i$, and $r_i$,
105: respectively.
106:
107: Integrating the three loops of
108: eq.(\ref{eq:differenciation-fct-implicite}) together and
109: separating the position parameters and design parameters to
110: different sides yields the following simplified matrix form:
111: \begin{equation}\label{eq:forme-matricielle}
112: {\bf A} \delta {\bf p} + {\bf B} \delta {\bf q} = 0
113: \end{equation}
114: \noindent with
115: \begin{eqnarray*}\label{eq:matrices-expression}
116: {\bf A} & = & {\mat{ccc}{{\bf A}_1^T {\bf A}_2^T {\bf A}_3^T}}^T \in {\field{R}}^{3 \times 3} \\
117: {\bf B} & = & \mat{ccc}{ {\bf B}_1 & 0 & 0 \\
118: 0 & {\bf B}_2 & 0 \\
119: 0 & 0 & {\bf B}_3} \in {\field{R}}^{3 \times 18} \\
120: \delta {\bf q} & = & \mat{ccc}{ \delta {\bf q}_1^T & \delta {\bf q}_2^T & \delta {\bf q}_3^T }^T \in {\field{R}}^{18 \times 1}
121: \end{eqnarray*}
122: Eq.(\ref{eq:forme-matricielle}) takes into account the coupling
123: effect of the three independent structure loops.
124:
125: According to \cite{CHABLAT03}, {\bf A} is the parallel Jacobian
126: kinematic matrix of the Orthoglide, which does not meet parallel
127: kinematic singularities when its end-effector covers $C_u$.
128: Therefore, {\bf A} is not singular and its inverse, ${\bf
129: A}^{-1}$, exists. Thus, the positioning error of the end-effector
130: can be computed using eq.(\ref{eq:matriceC}).
131: \begin{equation}\label{eq:matriceC}
132: \delta {\bf p} = {\bf C} \ \delta {\bf q}
133: \end{equation}
134: where
135: \begin{equation}\label{eq:matriceC-2}
136: {\bf C} = -{\bf A}^{-1} {\bf B} = \mat{ccccc}{\partial p_x / \partial a_1 & \partial p_x / \partial b_{1y} & \cdots & \partial p_x / \partial r_{3} \\
137: \partial p_y / \partial a_1 & \partial p_y / \partial b_{1y} & \cdots & \partial p_y / \partial r_{3}\\
138: \partial p_z / \partial a_1 & \partial p_z / \partial b_{1y} & \cdots & \partial p_z / \partial r_{3}
139: } \in {\field{R}}^{3 \times 18}
140: \end{equation}
141: represents the sensitivity matrix of the manipulator. The terms of
142: ${\bf C}$ are the sensitivity coefficients of the position
143: parameters to the design parameters and are used to analyze the
144: sensitivity of the Orthoglide, whose results are given in the
145: following section.
146:
147: %---------------------------------------------------------------------
148: \subsubsection{Results of the Linkage Kinematic Analysis}
149: \label{section:linkage-kinematic-analysis-results}
150: %---------------------------------------------------------------------
151: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
152: \begin{figure}[!htbp]
153: \begin{center}
154: \begin{tabular}{cc}
155:
156: \begin{minipage}[t]{40 mm}
157: \begin{center}
158: \centering\includegraphics[width=44mm]{robQ1Q2_sensi_px}
159: \caption{Mean of sensitivity of $p_x$ throughout $C_u$}
160: \label{fig:sensi-px-Cu}\end{center}
161: \end{minipage} &
162: \begin{minipage}[t]{40 mm}
163: \begin{center}
164: \centering\includegraphics[width=44mm]{robQ1Q2_sensi_py}
165: \caption{Mean of sensitivity of $p_y$ throughout $C_u$}
166: \label{fig:sensi-py-Cu}
167: \end{center}
168: \end{minipage}\\
169:
170: \begin{minipage}[t]{40 mm}
171: \begin{center}
172: \centering\includegraphics[width=44mm]{robQ1Q2_sensi_pz}
173: \caption{Mean of sensitivity of $p_z$ throughout $C_u$}
174: \label{fig:sensi-pz-Cu}\end{center}
175: \end{minipage} &
176: \begin{minipage}[t]{40 mm}
177: \begin{center}
178: \centering\includegraphics[width=44mm]{robQ1Q2_sensi_p}
179: \caption{Mean of sensitivity of {\bf p} throughout $C_u$}
180: \label{fig:sensi-p-Cu}
181: \end{center}
182: \end{minipage}
183:
184: \end{tabular}
185: \end{center}
186: \end{figure}
187:
188: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
189:
190: The sensitivity matrix ${\bf C}$ of the manipulator depends on the
191: position of its end-effector.
192:
193: Figures \ref{fig:sensi-px-Cu}, \ref{fig:sensi-py-Cu},
194: \ref{fig:sensi-pz-Cu} and \ref{fig:sensi-p-Cu} depict the mean of
195: the sensitivity coefficients of $p_x$, $p_y$, $p_z$, and ${\bf
196: p}$, when the end-effector covers $C_u$. It appears that the
197: position of the end-effector is very sensitive to variations in
198: the position of points $A_i$, variations in the lengths of the
199: parallelograms, $L_i$, variations in the lengths of prismatic
200: joints, $\rho_i$, and variations in the position of points $C_i$
201: defined by $r_i$ (see Fig.\ref{fig:schema-cinematique-jambe}).
202: However, it is little sensitive to the orientation errors of the
203: direction of the prismatic joints, defined by parameters
204: $b_{1y},b_{1z},b_{2x},b_{2z},b_{3x},b_{3y}$. Besides, it is
205: noteworthy that $p_x$ ($p_y$ , $p_z$, respectively) is very
206: sensitive to the design parameters which make up the $1^{st}$
207: ($2^{nd}$, $3^{rd}$, respectively) leg of the manipulator,
208: contrary to the others. That is due to the symmetry of the
209: architecture of the manipulator. Henceforth, only the sensitivity
210: coefficients of $p_x$, and ${\bf p}$, are depicted because the
211: $p_y$ and $p_z$ ones can be deduced from the $p_x$ one.
212:
213: Chablat et al. \cite{CHABLAT03} showed that if the prescribed
214: bounds of the velocity transmission factors (the kinematic
215: criteria used to dimension the manipulator) are satisfied at $Q_1$
216: and $Q_2$, then these bounds are satisfied throughout the
217: prescribed cubic Cartesian workspace $C_u$. $Q_1$ and $Q_2$ are
218: then the most critical points of $C_u$, whereas $O$ is the most
219: interesting point because it corresponds to the isotropic
220: configuration of the manipulator. Here, we postulate the intuitive
221: result that if the prescribed bounds of the sensitivity
222: coefficients are satisfied at $Q_1$ and $Q_2$, then these bounds
223: are satisfied throughout $C_u$.
224:
225: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
226: \begin{figure}[!htbp]
227: \begin{center}
228: \begin{tabular}{cc}
229:
230: \begin{minipage}[t]{40 mm}
231: \begin{center}
232: \centering\includegraphics[width=44mm]{influence_vardim_px}
233: \caption{Sensitivity of $p_x$ to the variations in the $1^{st}$
234: leg} \label{fig:influence-vardim-px}
235: \end{center}
236: \end{minipage} &
237: \begin{minipage}[t]{40 mm}
238: \begin{center}
239: \centering\includegraphics[width=44mm]{influence_vardim_py}
240: \caption{Sensitivity of $p_y$ to the variations in the $1^{st}$
241: leg} \label{fig:influence-vardim-py}
242: \end{center}
243: \end{minipage} \\
244:
245: \begin{minipage}[t]{40 mm}
246: \begin{center}
247: \centering\includegraphics[width=44mm]{influence_vardim_p}
248: \caption{Sensitivity of ${\bf p}$ to the variations in the
249: $1^{st}$ leg} \label{fig:influence-vardim-p}
250: \end{center}
251: \end{minipage} &
252: \begin{minipage}[t]{40 mm}
253: \begin{center}
254: \centering\includegraphics[width=44mm]{influence_pxpypzp}
255: \caption{Global sensitivity of ${\bf p}$, $p_x$, $p_y$, and $p_z$}
256: \label{fig:influence_pxpypzp}
257: \end{center}
258: \end{minipage}
259:
260: \end{tabular}
261: \end{center}
262: \end{figure}
263: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
264:
265: Figs.\ref{fig:influence-vardim-px} and
266: \ref{fig:influence-vardim-py} depict the sensitivity coefficients
267: of $p_x$ and $p_y$ to the geometrical variations of the $1^{st}$
268: leg, {\it i.e.}: $a_1,b_{1y},b_{1z},\rho_1,L_1,r_1$, along
269: $Q_1Q_2$. It appears that these coefficients are a minimum in the
270: isotropic configuration, {\it i.e.}: $P \equiv O$, and is a
271: maximum when $P \equiv Q_2$, {\it i.e.}: the closest configuration
272: to the singular one. Fig.\ref{fig:influence-vardim-p} depicts the
273: sensitivity coefficients of ${\bf p}$ along the diagonal $Q_1Q_2$.
274: It is noteworthy that all the sensitivity coefficients are a
275: minimum when $P \equiv O$ and a maximum when $P \equiv Q_2$.
276: Finally, fig.\ref{fig:influence_pxpypzp} depicts the global
277: sensitivities of $\bf p$, $p_x$, $p_y$, and $p_z$ to the
278: dimensional variations. It appears that they are a minimum when $P
279: \equiv O$, and a maximum when $P \equiv Q_2$.
280:
281: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%1%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
282:
283: \begin{figure}[!htbp]
284: \begin{center}
285: \begin{tabular}{cc}
286:
287: \begin{minipage}[t]{40 mm}
288: \begin{center}
289: \centering\includegraphics[width=44mm]{rob_iso_sensi_px}
290: \caption{Sensitivity of $p_x$ in the isotropic configuration}
291: \label{fig:rob-iso-sensi-px}\end{center}
292: \end{minipage} &
293: \begin{minipage}[t]{40 mm}
294: \begin{center}
295: \centering\includegraphics[width=44mm]{rob_iso_sensi_p}
296: \caption{Sensitivity of $\bf p$ in the isotropic configuration}
297: \label{fig:rob-iso-sensi-p}
298: \end{center}
299: \end{minipage}
300:
301: \end{tabular}
302: \end{center}
303: \end{figure}
304: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
305: Figs.\ref{fig:rob-iso-sensi-px} and \ref{fig:rob-iso-sensi-p}
306: depict the sensitivity coefficients of $p_x$ and $\bf p$ in the
307: isotropic configuration. In this configuration, the position error
308: of the end-effector does not depend on the orientation errors of
309: the directions of the prismatic joints because the sensitivity of
310: the position of $P$ to variations in
311: $b_{1y},b_{1z},b_{2x},b_{2z},b_{3x},b_{3y}$ is null in this
312: configuration. Besides, variations in $p_x$, $p_y$, and $p_z$ are
313: decoupled in this configuration. Indeed, variarions in $p_x$,
314: ($p_y$, $p_z$, respectively) are only due to dimensional
315: variations in the $1^{st}$, ($2^{nd}$, $3^{rd}$, respectively) leg
316: of the manipulator. The corresponding sensitivity coefficients are
317: equal to 1. It means that the dimensional variations are neither
318: amplified nor compensated in the isotropic configuration.
319:
320: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
321: \begin{figure}[!htbp]
322: \begin{center}
323: \begin{tabular}{cc}
324:
325: \begin{minipage}[t]{40 mm}
326: \begin{center}
327: \centering\includegraphics[width=44mm]{rob_Q2_sensi_px}
328: \caption{$Q_2$ configuration, sensitivity of $p_x$}
329: \label{fig:rob-Q2-sensi-px}
330: \end{center}
331: \end{minipage} &
332: \begin{minipage}[t]{40 mm}
333: \begin{center}
334: \centering\includegraphics[width=44mm]{rob_Q2_sensi_p}
335: \caption{$Q_2$ configuration, sensitivity of ${\bf p}$}
336: \label{fig:rob-Q2-sensi-p}
337: \end{center}
338:
339: \end{minipage}
340: \end{tabular}
341: \end{center}
342: \end{figure}
343: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
344:
345: Figs. \ref{fig:rob-Q2-sensi-px} and \ref{fig:rob-Q2-sensi-p}
346: depict the sensitivity coefficients of $p_x$ and $\bf p$ when the
347: end-effector hits $Q_2$ ($P \equiv Q_2$). In this case, variations
348: in $p_x$, $p_y$, and $p_z$ are coupled. For example, variations in
349: $p_x$ are due to both dimensional variations in the $1^{st}$ leg
350: and variations in the $2^{nd}$ and the $3^{rd}$ legs. Besides, the
351: amplification of the dimensional variations is important. Indeed,
352: the sensitivity coefficient of $\bf p$ is close to 2 in this
353: configuration. For example, as the sensitivity coefficient
354: relating to $L_1$ is equal to 1.9, the position error of the
355: end-effector will be equal to $19 \mu m$ if $\delta L_1 = 10\mu
356: m$. Moreover, it is noticed numerically that $Q_2$ configuration
357: is the most sensitive configuration to the dimensional variations
358: in the parts of the manipulator.
359:
360: According to Figs. \ref{fig:sensi-px-Cu} - \ref{fig:sensi-p-Cu},
361: \ref{fig:rob-iso-sensi-px} - \ref{fig:rob-Q2-sensi-p}, it is
362: noteworthy that the variations in design parameters of the same
363: type from one leg to another one have the same influence on the
364: location of the end-effector.
365:
366: The linkage kinematic method does not take into account variations
367: in the parallelograms, except the variations of their lengths.
368: Thus, a differential vector method is used to analyze the
369: sensitivity of the position and the orientation of the
370: end-effector to dimensional variations, and particularly to the
371: variations in the parallelograms.
372:
373: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
374: %---------------------------------------------------------------------
375: \subsection{Differential Vector Method}
376: \label{section:differential-vector-method}
377: %---------------------------------------------------------------------
378: A differential vector method, proposed by Huang et al.
379: \cite{HUANG03}, is used in this section to analyze the sensitivity
380: of the position and the orientation of the end-effector to the
381: variations in the design parameters and particularly to the
382: variations in the parallelograms.
383:
384: \begin{figure}[!h]
385: \begin{center}
386: \psfrag{o}{$O$} \psfrag{x}{$x$} \psfrag{y}{$y$} \psfrag{z}{$z$}
387: \psfrag{Rb}{${\cal R}_b$} \psfrag{ao}{${\bf a}_0$}
388: \psfrag{dai}{$\delta{\bf a}_i$} \psfrag{Ai}{$A_i$}
389: \psfrag{xi}{$x_i$} \psfrag{yi}{$y_i$} \psfrag{zi}{$z_i$}
390: \psfrag{Ri}{${\cal R}_i$}
391: %\psfrag{piston}{piston}
392: \includegraphics[width=65mm]{OAi3}
393: \caption{Variations in $O-A_i$ chain} \label{fig:OAi}
394: \end{center}
395: \end{figure}
396:
397:
398: %---------------------------------------------------------------------
399: \subsubsection{Formulation}
400: \label{section:differential-vector-method-theory}
401: %---------------------------------------------------------------------
402: The schematic drawing of the $i^{th}$ leg of the Orthoglide
403: depicted in Fig.\ref{fig:schema-cinematique-jambe} is split in
404: order to depict the variations in design parameters by a vectoriel
405: form. The closed-loop kinematic chains
406: $O-A_i-B_i-B_{ij}-C_{ij}-C_{i}-P$, $i=1,2,3$, $j=1,2$, are
407: depicted by Figs.\ref{fig:OAi}-\ref{fig:CijCiP}. ${\cal R}_i$ is
408: the coordinate frame attached to the $i^{th}$ prismatic joint.
409: ${\bf o}, {\bf a}_i, {\bf b}_i, {\bf b}_{ij}, {\bf c}_{ij}, {\bf
410: c}_{i}, {\bf p}$, are the Cartesian coordinates of points $O, A_i,
411: B_i, B_{ij}, C_{ij}, C_{i}, P$, respectively, expressed in ${\cal
412: R}_i$ and depicted in Fig.\ref{fig:schema-cinematique-jambe}.
413:
414: According to Fig.\ref{fig:OAi},
415: \begin{equation}\label{eq:OAi}
416: {\bf a}_i - {\bf o} = {\bf R}_i ({\bf a}_0 + \delta{\bf a}_i)
417: \end{equation}
418: where ${\bf a}_0$ is the nominal position vector of $A_i$ with
419: respect to $O$ expressed in ${\cal R}_i$, $\delta{\bf a}_i$ is the
420: positioning error of $A_i$. ${\bf R}_i$ is the transformation
421: matrix from ${\cal R}_i$ to ${\cal R}_b$. ${\bf I}_3$ is the
422: ($3\times3$) identity matrix and
423: \begin{displaymath} \left.
424: \begin{array}{l} {\bf R}_1 = {\bf I}_3 \quad ; \quad {\bf R}_2 = \mat{ccc}{0 & 0 &
425: -1 \\ 1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & -1 & 0} \quad ; \quad {\bf R}_3 =
426: \mat{ccc}{0 & 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 \\ 1 & 0 &
427: 0}
428: \end{array}
429: \right.
430: \end{displaymath}
431:
432: \begin{figure}[!h]
433: \begin{center}
434: \psfrag{Ai}{$A_i$} \psfrag{Bi}{$B_i$} \psfrag{ri}{$\rho_i + \delta
435: \rho_i$} \psfrag{xi}{$x_i$} \psfrag{yi}{$y_i$} \psfrag{zi}{$z_i$}
436: \psfrag{e1}{${\bf e}_1$} \psfrag{thaix}{${\theta}_{Aix}$}
437: \psfrag{thaiy}{${\theta}_{Aiy}$} \psfrag{thaiz}{${\theta}_{Aiz}$}
438: \includegraphics[width=65mm]{AiBi3}
439: \caption{Variations in $A_i-B_i$ chain} \label{fig:AiBi}
440: \end{center}
441: \end{figure}
442:
443:
444: According to Fig.\ref{fig:AiBi},
445: \begin{equation}\label{eq:AiBi} {\bf b}_i - {\bf a}_i = {\bf R}_i
446: ( \rho_i + \delta \rho_i ) {\bf e}_1 + {\bf R}_i {\gbf
447: \theta}_{Ai} \times ( \rho_i + \delta \rho_i ) {\bf e}_1
448: \end{equation}
449: where $\rho_i$ is the displacement of the $i^{th}$ prismatic
450: joint, $\delta \rho_i$ is its displacement error, ${\gbf
451: \theta}_{Ai} = [{\theta}_{Aix}, {\theta}_{Aiy}, {\theta}_{Aiz}]^T$
452: is the angular variation of its direction, and
453: \begin{displaymath}
454: \left.
455: \begin{array}{l}
456: {\bf e}_1 = \mat{c}{1 \\ 0 \\ 0} \quad ; \quad {\bf e}_2 = \mat{c}{0 \\ 0 \\ 1} ;
457: \quad \xi(j) = \left\{\begin{array}{cc} 1 & \textrm{if } j=1 \\ -1 & \textrm{if } j=2
458: \end{array}\right.
459: \end{array}
460: \right.
461: \end{displaymath}
462:
463: \begin{figure}[!h]
464: \begin{center}
465: \psfrag{Bi}{$B_{i}$} \psfrag{Bij}{$B_{ij}$} \psfrag{Cij}{$C_{ij}$}
466: \psfrag{ri}{$\rho_i + \delta \rho_i$} \psfrag{xi}{$x_i$}
467: \psfrag{yi}{$y_i$} \psfrag{zi}{$z_i$} \psfrag{to}{$L_i + \delta
468: L_{ij}$} \psfrag{thbix}{${\theta}_{Bix}$}
469: \psfrag{thbiy}{${\theta}_{Biy}$} \psfrag{thbiz}{${\theta}_{Biz}$}
470: \psfrag{e2}{${\bf e}_2$} \psfrag{wi}{${\bf w}_i$}
471: \psfrag{liwi}{$L_i \delta{\bf w}_i$} \psfrag{d2deltabi2}{$d/2 +
472: \delta b_i/2$}
473: \includegraphics[width=65mm]{BiBijCij3}
474: \caption{Variations in $B_i-B_{ij}-C_{ij}$ chain}
475: \label{fig:BiBijCij}
476: \end{center}
477: \end{figure}
478:
479: According to Fig.\ref{fig:BiBijCij},
480: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:BiBijCij}
481: {\bf b}_{ij} - {\bf b}_i &=& {\bf R}_i [{\bf I}_3 + {\gbf
482: \theta}_{Ai} \times] \big( \xi(j) (d/2 + \delta {b}_i /2)[{\bf
483: I}_3 + {\gbf \theta}_{Bi} \times] {\bf e}_2 \big)\\ {\bf c}_{ij} -
484: {\bf b}_{ij} &=& L_i {\bf w}_i + \delta L_{ij} {\bf w}_i + L_i
485: \delta {\bf w}_i
486: \end{eqnarray} where $d$ is the nominal width of the parallelogram, $\delta {b}_i$ is the variation in the length of link
487: $\overline{B_{i1}B_{i2}}$ and is supposed to be equally shared by
488: each side of $B_i$. ${\gbf \theta}_{Bi} = [{\theta}_{Bix},
489: {\theta}_{Biy}, {\theta}_{Biz}]^T$ is the orientation error of
490: link $\overline{B_{i1}B_{i2}}$ with respect to the direction of
491: the $i^{th}$ prismatic joint, $L_i$ is the length of the $i^{th}$
492: parallelogram, $\delta L_{ij}$ is the variation in the length of
493: link $\overline{B_{ij}C_{ij}}$, of which ${\bf w}_i$ is the
494: direction, and $\delta {\bf w}_i$ is the variation in this
495: direction, orthogonal to ${\bf w}_i$.
496:
497: \begin{figure}[!h]
498: \begin{center}
499: \psfrag{Cij}{$C_{ij}$} \psfrag{Ci}{$C_{i}$} \psfrag{P}{$P$}
500: \psfrag{d2deltaci2}{$d/2 + \delta c_i/2$}
501: \psfrag{thcix}{${\theta}_{Cix}$} \psfrag{thciy}{${\theta}_{Ciy}$}
502: \psfrag{thciz}{${\theta}_{Ciz}$} \psfrag{dci}{${\delta}{\bf c}_i$}
503: \psfrag{c0}{${\bf c}_0$} \psfrag{thx}{${\theta}_{x}$}
504: \psfrag{thy}{${\theta}_{y}$} \psfrag{thz}{${\theta}_{z}$}
505: \psfrag{x}{$x$} \psfrag{y}{$y$} \psfrag{z}{$z$} \psfrag{X}{$X$}
506: \psfrag{Y}{$Y$} \psfrag{Z}{$Z$} \psfrag{Rp}{${\cal R}_P$}
507: \includegraphics[width=65mm]{CijCiP3}
508: \caption{Variations in $C_{ij}-C_i-P$ chain} \label{fig:CijCiP}
509: \end{center}
510: \end{figure}
511: According to Fig.\ref{fig:CijCiP},
512: \begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:PCij} {\bf c}_{ij}
513: - {\bf c}_{i} & = & {\bf R}_i [{\bf I}_3 + \gbf{\theta} \times]
514: \big( \xi(j)(d/2 + \delta{c}_i /2)[{\bf I}_3 + {\gbf \theta}_{Ci}
515: \times]{\bf e}_2 \big)\\ {\bf c}_{i} - {\bf p} & = & [{\bf I}_3 +
516: \gbf{\theta} \times] {\bf R}_i ({\bf c}_0 + \delta{\bf c}_i)
517: \end{eqnarray} where $\delta {c}_i$ is the variation in the
518: length of link $\overline{C_{i1}C_{i2}}$, which is supposed to be
519: equally shared by each side of $C_i$. ${\gbf \theta}_{Ci} =
520: [{\theta}_{Cix}, {\theta}_{Ciy}, {\theta}_{Ciz}]^T$ is the
521: orientation error of link $\overline{C_{i1}C_{i2}}$ with respect
522: to link $\overline{C_iP}$. ${\bf c}_0$ is the nominal position
523: vector of $C_i$ with respect to end-effector $P$, expressed in
524: ${\cal R}_i$, $\delta{\bf c}_i$ is the position error of $C_i$
525: expressed in ${\cal R}_i$, and ${\gbf \theta} = [{\theta}_{x},
526: {\theta}_{y}, {\theta}_{z}]^T$ is the orientation error of the
527: end-effector, expressed in ${\cal R}_b$.
528:
529:
530: Implementing linearization of eqs.(\ref{eq:OAi}-\ref{eq:PCij}) and
531: removing the components associated with the nominal constrained
532: equation ${\bf p}_0 = {\bf R}_i ({\bf a}_0 + \rho_i {\bf e}_1 -
533: {\bf c}_0) + L_i {\bf w}_i$, yields
534: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:delta-r} \delta {\bf p} & = & {\bf p} - {\bf p}_0 \nonumber\\ & = & {\bf R}_i
535: \big( \delta {\bf e}_i + \rho_i (\gbf \theta_{Ai} \times {\bf
536: e}_1) + \xi(j) \ d/2 \ ({\gbf \theta_{Ai}} \times {\bf e}_2) + \\
537: & & \xi(j) \ d/2 \
538: ({\gbf \gamma_i} \times {\bf e}_2) + \xi(j) \ \delta{m_i}/2 \ {\bf e}_2 \big) + \nonumber\\
539: & & \delta L_{ij} {\bf w}_i + L_{i} \delta {\bf w}_i - {\gbf
540: \theta} \times {\bf R}_i \big( {\bf c}_0 + d/2 \xi(j) \ {\bf e}_2
541: \big) \nonumber
542: \end{eqnarray} where
543: \begin{description}
544: \item $\delta {\bf p}$ is the position error of the end-effector
545: of the manipulator.
546: \item $\delta {\bf e}_i = \delta {\bf a}_i + \delta{\rho}_i {\bf e}_1 - \delta {\bf
547: c}_i$ is the sum of the position error of points $A_i$, $B_i$, and
548: $C_i$ expressed in ${\cal R}_i$.
549: \item ${\gbf \gamma_i} = {\theta_{Bi}} - {\theta_{Ci}}$ is the sum of the orientation errors of the $i^{th}$ parallelogram with respect to the $i^{th}$ prismatic joint and the end-effector.
550: \item $\delta{m_i} = \delta{b}_i - \delta{c}_i $ corresponds to the parallelism error between links $\overline{B_{i1}C_{i1}}$ and
551: $\overline{B_{i2}C_{i2}}$, which is depicted by
552: Fig.\ref{fig:parallelogramme}.
553: \end{description}
554:
555: %\begin{figure}[!h]
556: %\begin{center}
557: %\psfrag{Cij}{$C_{ij}$} \psfrag{Ci}{$C_{i}$} \psfrag{P}{$P$}
558: %\psfrag{d2deltaci2}{$d/2 + \delta c_i/2$}
559: %\psfrag{thcix}{${\theta}_{Cix}$} \psfrag{thciy}{${\theta}_{Ciy}$}
560: %\psfrag{thciz}{${\theta}_{Ciz}$} \psfrag{dci}{${\delta}{\bf c}_i$}
561: %\psfrag{c0}{${\bf c}_0$} \psfrag{thx}{${\theta}_{x}$}
562: %\psfrag{thy}{${\theta}_{y}$} \psfrag{thz}{${\theta}_{z}$}
563: %\psfrag{x}{$x$} \psfrag{y}{$y$} \psfrag{z}{$z$} \psfrag{X}{$X$}
564: %\psfrag{Y}{$Y$} \psfrag{Z}{$Z$} \psfrag{Rp}{${\cal R}_P$}
565: %\includegraphics[width=65mm]{CijCiP3}
566: %\caption{Variations in $C_{ij}-C_i-P$ chain} \label{fig:CijCiP}
567: %\end{center}
568: %\end{figure}
569: %
570: %
571: %\begin{figure}[!htbp]
572: %\begin{center}
573: %\centering\includegraphics[width=65mm]{parallelogramme_variations_corr}
574: %\caption{Variations in the $i^{th}$ parallelogram}
575: %\label{fig:parallelogramme}
576: %\end{center}
577: %\end{figure}
578:
579: \begin{figure}[!htbp]
580: \begin{center}
581: \psfrag{Bi1}{$B_{i1}$} \psfrag{Bi2}{$B_{i2}$}
582: \psfrag{Ci1}{$C_{i1}$} \psfrag{Ci2}{$C_{i2}$}
583: \psfrag{Li1}{$L_i+\delta L_{i1}$} \psfrag{Li2}{$L_i+\delta
584: L_{i2}$} \psfrag{Li}{$L_i$} \psfrag{nominpar}{nominal
585: parallelogram} \psfrag{reelpar}{real parallelogram}
586: \psfrag{toto}{$d+\delta b_i$} \psfrag{titi}{$d+\delta c_i$}
587: \psfrag{tata}{$d$} \psfrag{ni}{$\delta l_i$} \psfrag{mi}{$\delta
588: m_i$} \centering\includegraphics[width=65mm]{parall_var_frag}
589: \caption{Variations in the $i^{th}$ parallelogram}
590: \label{fig:parallelogramme}
591: \end{center}
592: \end{figure}
593:
594:
595: Equation (\ref{eq:delta-r}) shows that position and orientation
596: errors of the end-effector are coupled. The position errors can be
597: compensated because the manipulator is a translational 3-DOF PKM,
598: but its orientation errors cannot be compensated. Thus, it will be
599: important to minimize the geometrical variations, which are
600: responsible for the orientation errors of the end-effector.
601:
602: The following equation is obtained by multiplying both sides of
603: eq.(\ref{eq:delta-r}) by ${\bf w}_i^T$ and utilizing the
604: circularity of hybrid product.
605: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:delta-r-2}
606: {\bf w}_i^T \delta {\bf p} & = & {\bf w}_i^T {\bf R}_i {\delta
607: {\bf e}_i} + \rho_i ({\bf R}_i {\bf e}_1 \times {\bf w}_i)^T {\bf
608: R}_i {\gbf \theta_{Ai}} + \xi(j) \ d/2 \nonumber \\ & & ({\bf
609: R}_i {\bf e}_2 \times {\bf w}_i)^T {\bf R}_i ({\gbf \theta_{Ai} +
610: \gbf \gamma_i}) + \xi(j) \ \delta{m_i}/2 \ {\bf w}_i^T {\bf R}_i
611: {\bf e}_2 + \\ & & \delta L_{ij} - \big( {\bf R}_i ({\bf c}_0 +
612: \xi(j) \ d/2 \ {\bf e}_2) \times {\bf w}_i \big)^T {\gbf \theta}
613: \nonumber
614: \end{eqnarray}
615: %---------------------------------------------------------------------
616:
617: {\bf Orientation Error Mapping Function:} By substraction of
618: eqs.(\ref{eq:delta-r-2}) written for $j=1$ and $j=2$, and for the
619: $i^{th}$ kinematic chain, a relation is obtained between the
620: orientation error of the end-effector and the variations in the
621: design parameters, which is independent of the position error of
622: the end-effector.
623: \begin{equation}\label{eq:orientation-error-mapping-function}
624: d({\bf R}_i {\bf e}_2 \times {\bf w}_i)^T {\gbf \theta} = \delta
625: l_i + d({\bf R}_i {\bf e}_2 \times {\bf w}_i)^T {\bf R}_i ({{\gbf \theta_{Ai}} + \gbf
626: \gamma_i}) + \delta{m_i} \ {\bf w}_i^T {\bf R}_i {\bf e}_2
627: \end{equation}
628: \noindent where $\delta l_i = \delta L_{i1} - \delta L_{i2}$, the
629: relative length error of links $\overline{B_{i1}C_{i1}}$ and
630: $\overline{B_{i2}C_{i2}}$, depicts the parallelism error between
631: links $\overline{B_{i1}B_{i2}}$ and $\overline{C_{i1}C_{i2}}$ as
632: shown in Fig.\ref{fig:parallelogramme}. Equation
633: (\ref{eq:orientation-error-mapping-function}) can be written in
634: matrix form :
635: \begin{equation}\label{eq:expression-Jtheta-theta}
636: {\gbf \theta} = {\bf J}_{\theta \theta} {\gbf \epsilon}_{\theta}
637: \end{equation} with
638: \begin{eqnarray*}
639: {\bf J}_{\theta \theta} &=& {\bf D}^{-1}{\bf E} \\
640: {\bf D} &=& d \mat{c}{({\bf R}_1 {\bf e}_2 \times {\bf w}_1)^T \\ ({\bf R}_2 {\bf e}_2 \times {\bf w}_2)^T \\ ({\bf R}_3 {\bf e}_2 \times {\bf
641: w}_3)^T} \quad ; \quad {\bf E} = \mat{ccc}{{\bf E}_1 & \cdots & \cdots \\ \cdots & {\bf E}_2 & \cdots \\ \cdots & \cdots & {\bf
642: E}_3}\\
643: {\bf E}_i &=& \mat{cccc}{1 & {\bf w}_i^T {\bf R}_i{\bf e}_2 & d({\bf R}_i{\bf e}_2 \times {\bf w}_i)^T{\bf R}_i & d({\bf R}_i{\bf e}_2 \times {\bf w}_i)^T{\bf R}_i}
644: \end{eqnarray*}
645: ${\gbf \theta}$ is the orientation error of the end-effector
646: expressed in ${\cal R}_b$, and ${\gbf \epsilon}_{\theta} = ({\gbf
647: \epsilon}_{\theta1}^T, {\gbf \epsilon}_{\theta2}^T, {\gbf
648: \epsilon}_{\theta3}^T )^T$ such that ${\gbf \epsilon}_{\theta i} =
649: (\delta l_i, \delta m_i, \theta_{Ai}^T, {\gbf \gamma}_i^T)^T$. The determinant of
650: ${\bf D}$ will be null if the normal vectors to the plans, which
651: contain the parallelograms are collinear, or if one parallelogram
652: is flat. Here, this determinant is not null when $P$ covers $C_u$
653: because of the geometry of the manipulator. Therefore, ${\bf D}$
654: is nonsingular and its inverse ${\bf D}^{-1}$ exists.
655:
656: As $({\bf R}_i {\bf e}_2 \times {\bf w}_i)^T \bot {\bf R}_i {\bf
657: e}_2$, $\theta_{Aiz}$ and $\gamma_{iz}$, the third components of $\theta_{Ai}$ and $\gamma_{i}$
658: expressed in ${\cal R}_i$, have no effect on the orientation of the end-effector.
659: Thus, matrix ${\bf J}_{\theta \theta}$ can be simplified by eliminating its columns associated with
660: $\theta_{Aiz}$ and $\gamma_{iz}$, $i=1,2,3$. Finally, eighteen design parameters
661: errors: $\delta l_i, \delta m_i, \theta_{Aix}, \theta_{Aiy}, \gamma_{ix}, \gamma_{iy}$,
662: $i=1,2,3$, should be responsible for the
663: orientation error of the end-effector.\\
664:
665: %---------------------------------------------------------------------
666: {\bf Position Error Mapping Function:} By addition of
667: eqs.(\ref{eq:delta-r-2}) written for $j=1$ and $j=2$, and for the
668: $i^{th}$ kinematic chain, a relation is obtained between the
669: position error of the end-effector and the variations in the
670: design parameters, which does not depend on $\gamma_{i}$.
671: \begin{equation}\label{eq:position-error-mapping-function}
672: {\bf w}_i^T \delta{\bf p} = \delta L_i + {\bf w}_i^T {\bf R}_i
673: \delta {\bf e}_i + \rho_i({\bf R}_i {\bf e}_1 \times {\bf w}_i)^T
674: {\bf R}_i {\gbf \theta_{Ai}} - ({\bf R}_i {\bf c}_0 \times {\bf
675: w}_i)^T {\gbf \theta}
676: \end{equation}
677: Equation (\ref{eq:position-error-mapping-function}) can be written
678: in matrix form:
679: \begin{equation}\label{delta-r}
680: \delta{\bf p} = {\bf J}_{pp} {\gbf \epsilon}_{p} + {\bf J}_{p \theta} {\gbf
681: \epsilon}_{\theta} = [{\bf J}_{pp} {\bf J}_{p \theta}]\left\{\begin{array}{c} {\gbf \epsilon}_{p} \\ {\gbf
682: \epsilon}_{\theta} \end{array} \right\}
683: \end{equation}
684: with
685: \begin{eqnarray*}
686: {\bf J}_{pp} &=& {\bf F}^{-1}{\bf G} \quad ; \quad {\bf J}_{p
687: \theta} = {\bf F}^{-1}{\bf H}{\bf J}_{\theta \theta} \\ {\bf F}
688: &=& [{\bf w}_1 {\bf w}_2 {\bf w}_3]^T \\ {\bf G} &=& \mbox{diag}
689: ({\bf G}_i) \quad ; \quad {\bf G}_i = \mat{ccc}{1 & {\bf w}_i^T
690: {\bf R}_i & \rho_i ({\bf R}_i {\bf e}_1 \times {\bf w}_i )^T {\bf
691: R}_i}
692: \\
693: {\bf H} &=& - \mat{ccc}{{\bf R}_1 {\bf c}_0 \times {\bf w}_1 &
694: {\bf R}_2 {\bf c}_0 \times {\bf w}_2 & {\bf R}_3 {\bf c}_0 \times
695: {\bf w}_3} \\ {\gbf \epsilon}_{p} &=& ({\gbf \epsilon}_{p1}^T,
696: {\gbf \epsilon}_{p2}^T, {\gbf \epsilon}_{p3}^T)^T, \ {\gbf
697: \epsilon}_{pi} = (\delta L_i, \delta {\bf e}_i^T, {\gbf
698: \theta}_{Ai}^T)^T
699: \end{eqnarray*} $\delta L_i = (\delta L_{i1} + \delta L_{i2})/2$ is the mean value
700: of the variations in links $\overline{B_{i1}C_{i1}}$ and
701: $\overline{
702: B_{i2}C_{i2}}$, {\it i.e.}: the variation of the length
703: of the $i^{th}$ parallelogram. ${\gbf \epsilon}_{p}$ is the set of
704: the variations in design parameters, which should be responsible
705: for the position errors of the end-effector, except the ones which
706: should be responsible for its orientation errors, {\it i.e.}:
707: ${\gbf \epsilon}_{\theta}$. ${\gbf \epsilon}_{p}$ is made up of
708: three kinds of errors: the variation in the length of the $i^{th}$
709: parallelogram, {\it i.e.}: $\delta L_i, i=1,2,3$, the position
710: errors of points $A_i$, $B_i$, and $C_i$, {\it i.e.}: $\delta {\bf
711: e}_i, i=1,2,3$, and the orientation errors of the directions of
712: the prismatic joints, {\it i.e.}: ${\gbf \theta}_{Ai}, \ i=1,2,3$.
713: Besides, ${\bf F}$ is nonsingular and its inverse ${\bf F}^{-1}$
714: exists because ${\bf F}$ corresponds to the Jacobian kinematic
715: matrix of the manipulator is not singular when $P$ covers $C_u$,
716: \cite{CHABLAT03}.
717:
718: According to eq.(\ref{eq:position-error-mapping-function}) and as
719: $({\bf R}_i {\bf e}_1 \times {\bf w}_i)^T \bot {\bf R}_i {\bf
720: e}_1$, matrix ${\bf J}_{pp}$ can be simplified by
721: eliminating its columns associated with $\theta_{Aix}, \ i=1,2,3$.
722: Finally, thirty-three design parameters errors: $\delta L_i, \delta
723: e_{ix}, \delta e_{iy}, \delta e_{iz}, {\theta}_{Aix}, {\theta}_{Aiy},
724: {\theta}_{Aiz}, \delta l_i, \delta m_i, \gamma_{ix}, \gamma_{iy},
725: \ i=1,2,3$, should be responsible for the position error of the
726: end-effector.
727:
728: Rearranging matices ${\bf J}_{pp}$ and ${\bf J}_{p \theta}$, the
729: position error of the end-effector can be expressed as:
730: \begin{equation}\label{delra-r2}
731: \delta{\bf p} = {\bf J} {\gbf \epsilon}_q = \mat{ccc}{{\bf J}_1 & {\bf J}_2 & {\bf J}_3}({\gbf \epsilon}_{q1}^T \ {\gbf \epsilon}_{q2}^T
732: \ {\gbf \epsilon}_{q3}^T)^T
733: \end{equation}
734: with ${\gbf \epsilon}_{qi} = (\delta L_i, \delta e_{ix}, \delta
735: e_{iy}, \delta e_{iz}, {\theta}_{Aix}, {\theta}_{Aiy}, {\theta}_{Aiz}, \delta l_i,
736: \delta m_i, \gamma_{ix}, \gamma_{iy})^T$.\\
737:
738: %---------------------------------------------------------------------
739: {\bf Sensitivity Indices:}
740:
741: In order to investigate the influence of the design parameters
742: errors on the position and the orientation of the end-effector,
743: sensitivity indices are required. According to section
744: \ref{section:linkage-kinematic-analysis-results}, the variations in
745: design parameters of the same type from one leg to another one
746: have the same influence on the location of the end-effector. Thus,
747: assuming that variations in design parameters are independent, the
748: sensitivity of the position of the end-effector to the variations
749: in the $k^{th}$ design parameter responsible for its position
750: error, {\it i.e.}: ${\epsilon}_{q(1,2,3)k}$, is called ${\mu}_{k}$
751: and is defined by eq.(\ref{eq:sensi-pos}).
752:
753: \begin{equation}\label{eq:sensi-pos}
754: {\mu}_{k} = \sqrt{\sum_{i=1}^{3} \sum_{m=1}^{3}J_{imk}^{2}} \ ,
755: \ k = 1, \cdots, 11
756: \end{equation}
757:
758: Likewise, the sensitivity of the orientation of the end-effector
759: to the variation in the $r^{th}$ design parameter responsible for
760: its orientation error, {\it i.e.}: ${\epsilon}_{\theta (1,2,3)
761: r}$, is called $\nu_r$ and follows from
762: eq.(\ref{eq:expression-Jtheta-theta}).
763: \begin{equation}\label{eq:sensi-orientation}
764: {\nu}_{r} = \sqrt{\sum_{j=0}^{2} \sum_{i=1}^{3}J_{\theta \theta
765: i(6j+r)}^{2}} \ , \ r = 1, \cdots, 6
766: \end{equation}
767:
768: Finally, ${\mu}_{k}$ can be employed as sensitivity index of the
769: position of the end-effector to the $k^{th}$ design parameter
770: responsible for the position error. Likewise, ${\nu}_{r}$ can be
771: employed as sensitivity index of the orientation of the
772: end-effector to the $r^{th}$ design parameter responsible for the
773: orientation error. It is noteworthy that these sensitivity indices
774: depend on the location of the end-effector.
775:
776: %---------------------------------------------------------------------
777: \subsubsection{Results of the Differential Vector Method}
778: \label{section:differential-vector-analysis-results}
779: %--------------------------------------------------------------------
780: The sensitivity indices defined by eqs.(\ref{eq:sensi-pos}) and
781: (\ref{eq:sensi-orientation}) are used to evaluate the sensitivity
782: of the position and orientation of the end-effector to variations
783: in design parameters, particularly to variations in the
784: parallelograms.
785:
786: \begin{figure}[!h]
787: \psfrag{deix}{$\delta e_{ix}$} \psfrag{dLi}{$\delta L_{i}$}
788: \psfrag{dli}{$\delta l_{i}$}
789: \psfrag{dmi}{$\delta m_{i}$}
790: \psfrag{deiydeiz}{$\delta e_{iy},\delta e_{iz}$}
791: \psfrag{Q1}{$Q_1$} \psfrag{Q2}{$Q_2$}
792: \psfrag{a}{(a)} \psfrag{p}{$p$}
793: \includegraphics[width=44mm]{deltar_vardim2} \hfill
794: \psfrag{thix}{$\gamma_{ix},\theta_{Aix}$} \psfrag{thiy}{$\theta_{Aiy}$}
795: \psfrag{thiz}{$\theta_{Aiz}$}
796: \psfrag{giy}{$\gamma_{iy}$}
797: \psfrag{Q1}{$Q_1$} \psfrag{Q2}{$Q_2$}
798: \psfrag{b}{(b)} \psfrag{p}{$p$}
799: \includegraphics[width=44mm]{deltar_varang4}
800: \caption{Sensitivity of the position of the end-effector along
801: $Q_1Q_2$, (a): to dimensional variations, (b): to angular variations}
802: \label{fig:deltar-vardim-varang}
803: \end{figure}
804:
805: Figures \ref{fig:deltar-vardim-varang}(a-b) depict the sensitivity
806: of the position of the end effector along the diagonal $Q_1Q_2$ of
807: $C_u$, to dimensional variations and angular variations, respectively.
808: According to Fig.\ref{fig:deltar-vardim-varang}(a), the position of the
809: end-effector is very sensitive to variations in the lengths of the
810: parallelograms, $\delta L_i$, and to the position error of points
811: $A_i$, $B_i$, and $C_i$ along axis $x_i$ of ${\cal R}_i$, {\it
812: i.e}: $\delta e_{ix}$. Conversely, the influence of $\delta l_i$
813: and $\delta m_i$, the parallelism errors of the parallelograms, is
814: low and even negligible in the isotropic configuration. According to
815: Fig.\ref{fig:deltar-vardim-varang}(b), the orientation errors of the
816: prismatic joints depicted by $\theta_{Aiy}$ and $\theta_{Aiz}$ are the most influencing
817: angular errors on the position of the end-effector. Besides, the position of the end-effector
818: is not sensitive to angular variations in the isotropic configuration.
819:
820: \begin{figure}[!h]
821: \includegraphics[width=44mm]{deltatheta_vardim} \hfill
822: \includegraphics[width=44mm]{deltatheta_varang}
823: \caption{Sensitivity of the orientation of the end-effector along
824: $Q_1Q_2$, (a): to dimensional variations, (b): to angular
825: variations} \label{fig:deltatheta-vardim-varang}
826: \end{figure}
827:
828: Figures \ref{fig:deltatheta-vardim-varang}(a-b) depict the
829: sensitivity of the orientation of the end effector, along
830: $Q_1Q_2$, to dimensional and angular variations. According to
831: Fig.\ref{fig:deltatheta-vardim-varang}(a), $\delta l_i$ and
832: $\delta m_i$ are the only dimensional variations, which are
833: responsible for the orientation error of the end-effector.
834: However, the influence of the parallelism error of the small sides
835: of the parallelograms, depicted by $\delta l_i$, is more important
836: than the one of the parallelism error of their long sides,
837: depicted by $\delta m_i$.
838:
839: According to Figs.\ref{fig:deltar-vardim-varang} and
840: \ref{fig:deltatheta-vardim-varang}, the sensitivity of the
841: position and the orientation of the end-effector is generally null
842: in the isotropic configuration ($p = 0 $) and is a maximum when
843: the manipulator is close to a kinematic singular configuration,
844: {\it i.e.}: $P \equiv Q_2$. Indeed, only two kinds of design
845: parameters variations are responsible for the variations in the
846: position of the end-effector in the isotropic configuration:
847: $\delta L_i$ and $\delta e_{ix}$. Likewise, two kinds of
848: variations are responsible for the variations in its orientation
849: in this configuration: $\delta l_i$, the parallelism error of the
850: small sides of the parallelograms, $\theta_{Aiy}$ and $\gamma_{iy}$.
851: Moreover, the sensitivities of the pose (position and
852: orientation) of the end-effector to these variations are a minimum
853: in this configuration, except for $\delta l_i$. On the contrary,
854: $Q_2$ configuration, {\it i.e.}: $P \equiv Q_2$, is the most
855: sensitive configuration of the manipulator to variations in its
856: design parameters. Indeed, as depicted by
857: Figs.\ref{fig:deltar-vardim-varang} and
858: \ref{fig:deltatheta-vardim-varang}, variations in the pose of the
859: end-effector depend on all the design parameters variations and
860: are a maximum in this configuration.
861:
862: Moreover, Figs.\ref{fig:deltar-vardim-varang} and
863: \ref{fig:deltatheta-vardim-varang} can be used to compute the
864: variations in the position and orientation of the end-effector
865: with knowledge of the amount of variations in the design
866: parameters. For instance, let us assume that the parallelism error of the
867: small sides of the parallelograms, $\delta l_i$, is equal to $10
868: \mu$m. According to Fig.\ref{fig:deltatheta-vardim-varang}(a), the position error
869: of the end-effector will be equal about to $3\mu$m in $Q_1$ configuration ($P \equiv Q_1$).
870: Likewise, if the orientation error of the direction of the $i^{th}$ prismatic joint round axis $y_i$
871: of ${\cal R}_i$ is equal to 1 degree, {\it i.e.}: $\theta_{Aiy} =
872: 1$ degree, the position error of the end-effector will be equal about to 4.8 mm in
873: $Q_2$ configuration, according to Fig.\ref{fig:deltar-vardim-varang}(b).
874: