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 Analysis} \label{section:linkage-kinematic-analysis}
17: %---------------------------------------------------------------------
18: This method aims at computing the sensitivity coefficients of the
19: position of the end-effector, $P$, to the design parameters of the
20: manipulator. First, three implicit functions depicting the
21: kinematic of the manipulator are obtained. A relation between the
22: variations in the position of $P$ and the variations in the design
23: parameters follows from these functions. Finally a sensitivity
24: matrix, which gathers the sensitivity coefficients of $P$, follows
25: from the previous relation written in matrix form.
26:
27: %---------------------------------------------------------------------
28: \subsubsection{Formulation}
29: \label{section:linkage-kinematic-analysis-theory}
30: %---------------------------------------------------------------------
31: Figure \ref{fig:orthoglide} depicts the design parameters taken
32: into account. Points $A_1$, $A_2$, and $A_3$ are the bases of the
33: prismatic joints. Their Cartesian coordinates, expressed in ${\cal
34: R}_b$, are ${\bf a}_1$, ${\bf a}_2$, and ${\bf a}_3$,
35: respectively.
36: \[ {\bf a}_1 = \mat{ccc}{-a_1 & 0 & 0}^{T} ; \ {\bf a}_2 = \mat{ccc}{0 & -a_2 & 0}^{T} ;
37: \ {\bf a}_3 = \mat{ccc}{0 & 0 & -a_3}^{T} \]
38:
39: \noindent where $a_i$ is the distance between points $A_i$ and
40: $O$, the origin of ${\cal R}_b$. Points $B_1$, $B_2$ and $B_3$ are
41: the links between the prismatic and parallelogram joints. Their
42: Cartesian coordinates, expressed in ${\cal R}_b$ are:
43: \[ {\bf b}_1 = \mat{c}{-a_1 + \rho_1 \\ b_{1y} \\ b_{1z}},
44: {\bf b}_2 = \mat{c}{ b_{2x} \\ -a_2 + \rho_2 \\ b_{2z}},
45: {\bf b}_3 = \mat{c}{ b_{3x} \\ b_{3y} \\ -a_3 + \rho_3 } \]
46:
47: \noindent where $\rho_i$ is the displacement of the $i^{th}$
48: prismatic joint. $b_{1y}$ and $b_{1z}$ are the position errors of
49: point $B_1$ according to $y$ and $z$ axes. $b_{2x}$ and $b_{2z}$
50: are the position errors of point $B_2$ according to $x$ and $z$
51: axes. $b_{3x}$ and $b_{3y}$ are the position errors of point $B_3$
52: according to $x$ and $y$ axes. These errors result from the
53: orientation errors of the directions of the prismatic actuated
54: joints. The Cartesian coordinates of $C_1$, $C_2$, and $C_ 3$,
55: expressed in ${\cal R}_b$, are the following: \[ {\bf c}_1 =
56: \mat{ccc}{p_x-r_1 & 0 & 0}^{T} ; \ {\bf c}_2 = \mat{ccc}{0 &
57: p_y-r_2 & 0}^{T} ; \ {\bf c}_3 = \mat{ccc}{0 & 0 & p_z-r_3}^{T} \]
58:
59: \noindent where ${\bf p} = {\mat{ccc}{p_x & p_y & p_z}}^{T}$ is
60: the vector of the Cartesian coordinates of the end-effector $P$,
61: expressed in ${\cal R}_b$.
62:
63: The expressions of the nominal lengths of the parallelograms
64: follow from eq.(\ref{eq:Li}).
65: \begin{equation}\label{eq:Li}
66: L_i = \| {\bf c}_i - {\bf b}_i \|_2 \ , \ i = 1,2,3
67: \end{equation}
68:
69: \noindent where $L_i$ is the nominal length of the $i^{th}$
70: parallelogram and $\|.\|_2$ is the Euclidean norm. Three implicit
71: functions follow from eq.(\ref{eq:Li}) and are given by the
72: following equations:
73: \begin{eqnarray*}\label{eq:fonctions-implicites}
74: F_1 & = & (-r_1 + p_x + a_1 - \rho_1)^2 + (p_y - b_{1y})^2+(p_z -
75: b_{1z})^2 - L_1^2 = 0 \\
76: F_2 & = & (p_x - b_{2x})^2+( -r_2 + p_y + a_2 - \rho_2)^2+(p_z -
77: b_{2z})^2 - L_2^2 = 0 \\
78: F_3 & = & (p_x - b_{3x})^2+(p_y - b_{3y})^2+(-r_3 + p_z + a_3 -
79: \rho_3)^2 - L_3^2 = 0
80: \end{eqnarray*}
81:
82: By differentiating functions $F_1$, $F_2$, and $F_3$, with respect
83: to the design parameters of the manipulator and the position of
84: the end-effector, we obtain a relation between the positioning
85: error of the end-effector, $\delta {\bf p}$, and the variations in
86: the design parameters, $\delta {\bf q}_i$.
87: \begin{equation}\label{eq:differenciation-fct-implicite}
88: {\delta F}_i = {\bf A}_i \delta {\bf p} + {\bf B}_i \delta {\bf
89: q}_i = 0 \ , \ i = 1,2,3
90: \end{equation}
91:
92: \noindent with
93: \begin{eqnarray*}\label{eq:matrices-expression}
94: {\bf A}_i &=& \mat{ccc}{{\partial F_i}/{\partial p_x} & {\partial
95: F_i}/{\partial p_y} & {\partial F_i}/{\partial p_z}} \\
96: {\bf B}_i &=& \mat{cccccc}{ {\partial F_i}/{\partial a_i} &
97: {\partial F_i}/{\partial b_{iy}} & {\partial F_i}/{\partial
98: b_{iz}} & {\partial F_i}/{\partial \rho_i} & {\partial
99: F_i}/{\partial L_i} & {\partial F_i}/{\partial r_i} } \\
100: \delta {\bf p} &=& {\mat{ccc}{\delta p_x & \delta p_y & \delta
101: p_z}}^{T} \\
102: \delta {\bf q}_i &=& \mat{cccccc}{ {\delta a_i} & {\delta h_{i}} &
103: {\delta k_{i}} & {\delta \rho_i} & {\delta L_i} & {\delta r_i} }^T
104: \end{eqnarray*}
105:
106: \noindent where ${\delta a_i}$, ${\delta h_{i}}$, ${\delta
107: k_{i}}$, ${\delta \rho_i}$, ${\delta L_i}$, and ${\delta r_i}$,
108: depict the variations in $a_i$, $h_{i}$, $k_{i}$, $\rho_i$, $L_i$,
109: and $r_i$, respectively with $h_{1} = b_{1y}$, $k_{1} = b_{1z}$,
110: $h_{2} = b_{2x}$, $k_{2} = b_{2z}$, $h_{3} = b_{3x}$, $k_{3} =
111: b_{3y}$.
112:
113: Integrating the three loops of
114: eq.(\ref{eq:differenciation-fct-implicite}) together and
115: separating the position parameters and design parameters to
116: different sides yields the following simplified matrix form:
117: \begin{equation}\label{eq:forme-matricielle}
118: {\bf A} \delta {\bf p} + {\bf B} \delta {\bf q} = 0
119: \end{equation}
120:
121: \noindent with
122: \begin{eqnarray*}\label{eq:matrices-expression}
123: {\bf A} & = & {\mat{ccc}{{\bf A}_1^T {\bf A}_2^T {\bf A}_3^T}}^T \in {\field{R}}^{3 \times 3} \\
124: {\bf B} & = & \mat{ccc}{ {\bf B}_1 & 0 & 0 \\
125: 0 & {\bf B}_2 & 0 \\
126: 0 & 0 & {\bf B}_3} \in {\field{R}}^{3 \times 18} \\
127: \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}
128: \end{eqnarray*}
129:
130: Equation (\ref{eq:forme-matricielle}) takes into account the
131: coupling effect of the three independent structure loops.
132: According to \cite{CHABLAT03}, {\bf A} is the parallel Jacobian
133: kinematic matrix of the Orthoglide, which does not meet parallel
134: kinematic singularities when its end-effector covers $C_u$.
135: Therefore, {\bf A} is not singular and its inverse, ${\bf
136: A}^{-1}$, exists. Thus, the positioning error of the end-effector
137: can be computed using eq.(\ref{eq:matriceC}).
138: \begin{equation}\label{eq:matriceC}
139: \delta {\bf p} = {\bf C} \ \delta {\bf q}
140: \end{equation}
141:
142: \noindent where
143: \begin{equation}\label{eq:matriceC-2}
144: {\bf C} = -{\bf A}^{-1} {\bf B} = \mat{ccccc}{\partial p_x / \partial a_1 & \partial p_x / \partial h_{1} & \cdots & \partial p_x / \partial r_{3} \\
145: \partial p_y / \partial a_1 & \partial p_y / \partial h_{1} & \cdots & \partial p_y / \partial r_{3}\\
146: \partial p_z / \partial a_1 & \partial p_z / \partial h_{1} & \cdots & \partial p_z / \partial r_{3}
147: } \in {\field{R}}^{3 \times 18}
148: \end{equation}
149:
150: \indent represents the sensitivity matrix of the manipulator. The
151: terms of ${\bf C}$ are the sensitivity coefficients of the
152: Cartesian coordinates of the end-effector to the design parameters
153: and are used to analyze the sensitivity of the Orthoglide.
154:
155: %---------------------------------------------------------------------
156: \subsubsection{Results of the Linkage Kinematic Analysis}
157: \label{section:linkage-kinematic-analysis-results}
158: %---------------------------------------------------------------------
159: The sensitivity matrix ${\bf C}$ of the manipulator depends on the
160: position of its end-effector.
161:
162: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
163: \begin{figure}[!htbp]
164: \begin{center}
165: \begin{tabular}{cc}
166:
167: \begin{minipage}[t]{42 mm}
168: \begin{center}
169: \centering\includegraphics[width=42mm]{F4_robQ1Q2_sensi_px}
170: \caption{Mean of sensitivity of $p_x$ throughout $C_u$}
171: \label{fig:sensi-px-Cu}\end{center}
172: \end{minipage} &
173: \begin{minipage}[t]{42 mm}
174: \begin{center}
175: \centering\includegraphics[width=42mm]{F5_robQ1Q2_sensi_py}
176: \caption{Mean of sensitivity of $p_y$ throughout $C_u$}
177: \label{fig:sensi-py-Cu}
178: \end{center}
179: \end{minipage}\\
180:
181: \begin{minipage}[t]{42 mm}
182: \begin{center}
183: \centering\includegraphics[width=42mm]{F6_robQ1Q2_sensi_pz}
184: \caption{Mean of sensitivity of $p_z$ throughout $C_u$}
185: \label{fig:sensi-pz-Cu}\end{center}
186: \end{minipage} &
187: \begin{minipage}[t]{42 mm}
188: \begin{center}
189: \centering\includegraphics[width=42mm]{F7_robQ1Q2_sensi_p}
190: \caption{Mean of sensitivity of {\bf p} throughout $C_u$}
191: \label{fig:sensi-p-Cu}
192: \end{center}
193: \end{minipage}
194:
195: \end{tabular}
196: \end{center}
197: \end{figure}
198:
199: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
200:
201: Figures \ref{fig:sensi-px-Cu}, \ref{fig:sensi-py-Cu},
202: \ref{fig:sensi-pz-Cu} and \ref{fig:sensi-p-Cu} depict the mean of
203: the sensitivity coefficients of $p_x$, $p_y$, $p_z$, and ${\bf
204: p}$, when the end-effector covers $C_u$. It appears that the
205: position of the end-effector is very sensitive to variations in
206: the position of points $A_i$, variations in the lengths of the
207: parallelograms, $L_i$, variations in the lengths of prismatic
208: joints, $\rho_i$, and variations in the position of points $C_i$
209: defined by $r_i$ (see Fig.\ref{fig:schema-cinematique-jambe}).
210: However, it is little sensitive to the orientation errors of the
211: direction of the prismatic joints, defined by parameters
212: $b_{1y},b_{1z},b_{2x},b_{2z},b_{3x},b_{3y}$. Besides, it is
213: noteworthy that $p_x$ ($p_y$ , $p_z$, respectively) is very
214: sensitive to the design parameters which make up the $1^{st}$
215: ($2^{nd}$, $3^{rd}$, respectively) leg of the manipulator,
216: contrary to the others. That is due to the symmetry of the
217: architecture of the manipulator. Henceforth, only the variations
218: in the design parameters of the first leg of the manipulator will
219: be taken into account. Indeed, the sensitivity of the position of
220: the end-effector to the variations in the design parameters of the
221: second and the third legs of the manipulator can be deduced from
222: the sensitivity of the position of the end-effector to variations
223: in the design parameters of the first leg.
224:
225: Chablat et al. \cite{CHABLAT03} showed that if the prescribed
226: bounds of the velocity transmission factors (the kinematic
227: criteria used to dimension the manipulator) are satisfied at $Q_1$
228: and $Q_2$, then these bounds are satisfied throughout the
229: prescribed cubic Cartesian workspace $C_u$. $Q_1$ and $Q_2$ are
230: then the most critical points of $C_u$, whereas $O$ is the most
231: interesting point because it corresponds to the isotropic
232: kinematic configuration of the manipulator. Here, we assume that
233: if the prescribed bounds of the sensitivity coefficients are
234: satisfied at $Q_1$ and $Q_2$, then these bounds are satisfied
235: throughout $C_u$.
236:
237: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
238: \begin{figure}[!htbp]
239: \begin{center}
240: \begin{tabular}{cc}
241:
242: \begin{minipage}[t]{42 mm}
243: \begin{center}
244: \centering\includegraphics[width=42mm]{F8_influence_vardim_px}
245: \caption{Sensitivity of $p_x$ to the variations in the $1^{st}$
246: leg} \label{fig:influence-vardim-px}
247: \end{center}
248: \end{minipage} &
249: \begin{minipage}[t]{42 mm}
250: \begin{center}
251: \centering\includegraphics[width=42mm]{F9_influence_vardim_py}
252: \caption{Sensitivity of $p_y$ to the variations in the $1^{st}$
253: leg} \label{fig:influence-vardim-py}
254: \end{center}
255: \end{minipage} \\
256:
257: \begin{minipage}[t]{42 mm}
258: \begin{center}
259: \centering\includegraphics[width=42mm]{F10_influence_vardim_p}
260: \caption{Sensitivity of ${\bf p}$ to the variations in the
261: $1^{st}$ leg} \label{fig:influence-vardim-p}
262: \end{center}
263: \end{minipage} &
264: \begin{minipage}[t]{42 mm}
265: \begin{center}
266: \centering\includegraphics[width=42mm]{F11_influence_pxpypzp}
267: \caption{Global sensitivity of ${\bf p}$, $p_x$, $p_y$, and $p_z$}
268: \label{fig:influence_pxpypzp}
269: \end{center}
270: \end{minipage}
271:
272: \end{tabular}
273: \end{center}
274: \end{figure}
275: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
276:
277: Figures \ref{fig:influence-vardim-px} and
278: \ref{fig:influence-vardim-py} depict the sensitivity coefficients
279: of $p_x$ and $p_y$ to the dimensional variations in the $1^{st}$
280: leg, {\it i.e.}: $a_1,b_{1y},b_{1z},\rho_1,L_1,r_1$, along
281: $Q_1Q_2$. It appears that these coefficients are a minimum in the
282: isotropic configuration, {\it i.e.}: $P \equiv O$, and a maximum
283: when $P \equiv Q_2$, {\it i.e.}: the closest configuration to the
284: singular one. Figure \ref{fig:influence-vardim-p} depicts the
285: sensitivity coefficients of ${\bf p}$ along the diagonal $Q_1Q_2$.
286: It is noteworthy that all the sensitivity coefficients are a
287: minimum when $P \equiv O$ and a maximum when $P \equiv Q_2$.
288: Finally, figure \ref{fig:influence_pxpypzp} depicts the global
289: sensitivities of $\bf p$, $p_x$, $p_y$, and $p_z$ to the
290: dimensional variations. It appears that they are a minimum when $P
291: \equiv O$, and a maximum when $P \equiv Q_2$.
292:
293: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%1%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
294:
295: \begin{figure}[!htbp]
296: \begin{center}
297: \begin{tabular}{cc}
298:
299: \begin{minipage}[t]{42 mm}
300: \begin{center}
301: \centering\includegraphics[width=42mm]{F12_rob_iso_sensi_px}
302: \caption{Sensitivity of $p_x$ in the isotropic configuration}
303: \label{fig:rob-iso-sensi-px}\end{center}
304: \end{minipage} &
305: \begin{minipage}[t]{42 mm}
306: \begin{center}
307: \centering\includegraphics[width=42mm]{F13_rob_iso_sensi_p}
308: \caption{Sensitivity of $\bf p$ in the isotropic configuration}
309: \label{fig:rob-iso-sensi-p}
310: \end{center}
311: \end{minipage}
312:
313: \end{tabular}
314: \end{center}
315: \end{figure}
316: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
317:
318: Figures \ref{fig:rob-iso-sensi-px} and \ref{fig:rob-iso-sensi-p}
319: depict the sensitivity coefficients of $p_x$ and $\bf p$ in the
320: isotropic configuration. In this configuration, the position error
321: of the end-effector does not depend on the orientation errors of
322: the directions of the prismatic joints because the sensitivity of
323: the position of $P$ to variations in
324: $b_{1y},b_{1z},b_{2x},b_{2z},b_{3x},b_{3y}$ is null in this
325: configuration. Besides, variations in $p_x$, $p_y$, and $p_z$ are
326: decoupled in this configuration. Indeed, variarions in $p_x$,
327: ($p_y$, $p_z$, respectively) are only due to dimensional
328: variations in the $1^{st}$, ($2^{nd}$, $3^{rd}$, respectively) leg
329: of the manipulator. The corresponding sensitivity coefficients are
330: equal to 1. It means that the dimensional variations are neither
331: amplified nor compensated in the isotropic configuration.
332:
333: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
334: \begin{figure}[!htbp]
335: \begin{center}
336: \begin{tabular}{cc}
337:
338: \begin{minipage}[t]{42 mm}
339: \begin{center}
340: \centering\includegraphics[width=42mm]{F14_rob_Q2_sensi_px}
341: \caption{$Q_2$ configuration, sensitivity of $p_x$}
342: \label{fig:rob-Q2-sensi-px}
343: \end{center}
344: \end{minipage} &
345: \begin{minipage}[t]{42 mm}
346: \begin{center}
347: \centering\includegraphics[width=42mm]{F15_rob_Q2_sensi_p}
348: \caption{$Q_2$ configuration, sensitivity of ${\bf p}$}
349: \label{fig:rob-Q2-sensi-p}
350: \end{center}
351:
352: \end{minipage}
353: \end{tabular}
354: \end{center}
355: \end{figure}
356: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
357:
358: Figures \ref{fig:rob-Q2-sensi-px} and \ref{fig:rob-Q2-sensi-p}
359: depict the sensitivity coefficients of $p_x$ and $\bf p$ when the
360: end-effector hits $Q_2$ ($P \equiv Q_2$). In this case, variations
361: in $p_x$, $p_y$, and $p_z$ are coupled. For example, variations in
362: $p_x$ are due to both dimensional variations in the $1^{st}$ leg
363: and variations in the $2^{nd}$ and the $3^{rd}$ legs. Besides, the
364: amplification of the dimensional variations is important. Indeed,
365: the sensitivity coefficients of $\bf p$ are close to 2 in this
366: configuration. For example, as the sensitivity coefficient
367: relating to $L_1$ is equal to 1.9, the position error of the
368: end-effector will be equal to $19 \mu m$ if $\delta L_1 = 10\mu
369: m$. Moreover, we noticed numerically that $Q_2$ configuration is
370: the most sensitive configuration to dimensional variations of the
371: manipulator.
372:
373: According to figures \ref{fig:sensi-px-Cu} - \ref{fig:sensi-p-Cu},
374: \ref{fig:rob-iso-sensi-px} - \ref{fig:rob-Q2-sensi-p}, variations
375: in design parameters of the same type from one leg the other have
376: the same influence on the location of the end-effector.
377:
378: However, this linkage kinematic method does not take into account
379: variations in the parallelograms, except the variations in their
380: global length. Thus, a differential vector method is developed
381: below.
382: