1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2: %---------------------------------------------------------------------
3: \subsection{Differential Vector Method}
4: \label{section:differential-vector-method}
5: %---------------------------------------------------------------------
6: In this section, we perfect a sensitivity analysis method of the
7: Orthoglide, which complements the previous one. This method is
8: used to analyze the sensitivity of the position and the
9: orientation of the end-effector to dimensional and angular
10: variations, and particularly to the variations in the
11: parallelograms. Moreover, it allows us to distinguish the
12: variations which are responsible for the position errors of the
13: end-effector from the ones which are responsible for its
14: orientation errors. To develop this method, we were inspired by a
15: Huang \& al. work on a parallel kinematic machine, which is made
16: up of parallelogram joints too \cite{HUANG03}.
17:
18: First, we express the dimensional and angular variations in
19: vectorial form. Then, a relation between the position and the
20: orientation errors of the end-effector is obtained from the
21: closed-loop kinematic equations. The expressions of the
22: orientation and the position errors of the end-effector, with
23: respect to the variations in the design parameters, are deduced
24: from this relation. Finally, we introduce two sensitivity indices
25: to assess the sensitivity of the position and the orientation of
26: the end-effector to dimensional and angular variations, and
27: particularly to the parallelism errors of the bars of the
28: parallelograms.
29:
30: \begin{figure}[!h]
31: \begin{center}
32: \includegraphics[width=80mm]{F16_ch5_OAi3}
33: \caption{Variations in $O-A_i$ chain} \label{fig:OAi}
34: \end{center}
35: \end{figure}
36:
37: %---------------------------------------------------------------------
38: \subsubsection{Formulation}
39: \label{section:differential-vector-method-theory}
40: %---------------------------------------------------------------------
41: The schematic drawing of the $i^{th}$ leg of the Orthoglide
42: depicted in Fig.\ref{fig:schema-cinematique-jambe} is split in
43: order to depict the variations in design parameters by a vectoriel
44: form. The closed-loop kinematic chains
45: $O-A_i-B_i-B_{ij}-C_{ij}-C_{i}-P$, $i=1,2,3$, $j=1,2$, are
46: depicted by Figs.\ref{fig:OAi}-\ref{fig:CijCiP}. ${\cal R}_i$ is
47: the coordinate frame attached to the $i^{th}$ prismatic joint.
48: ${\bf o}, {\bf a}_i, {\bf b}_i, {\bf b}_{ij}, {\bf c}_{ij}, {\bf
49: c}_{i}, {\bf p}$, are the Cartesian coordinates of points $O, A_i,
50: B_i, B_{ij}, C_{ij}, C_{i}, P$, respectively, expressed in ${\cal
51: R}_i$ and depicted in Fig.\ref{fig:schema-cinematique-jambe}.
52:
53: According to Fig.\ref{fig:OAi},
54: \begin{equation}\label{eq:OAi}
55: {\bf a}_i - {\bf o} = {\bf R}_i ({\bf a}_0 + \delta{\bf a}_i)
56: \end{equation}
57:
58: \noindent where ${\bf a}_0$ is the nominal position vector of
59: $A_i$ with respect to $O$ expressed in ${\cal R}_i$, $\delta{\bf
60: a}_i$ is the positioning error of $A_i$. ${\bf R}_i$ is the
61: transformation matrix from ${\cal R}_i$ to ${\cal R}_b$. ${\bf
62: I}_3$ is the ($3\times3$) identity matrix and
63: \begin{displaymath} \left.
64: \begin{array}{l} {\bf R}_1 = {\bf I}_3 \quad ; \quad {\bf R}_2 = \mat{ccc}{0 & 0 &
65: -1 \\ 1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & -1 & 0} \quad ; \quad {\bf R}_3 =
66: \mat{ccc}{0 & 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 \\ 1 & 0 &
67: 0}
68: \end{array}
69: \right.
70: \end{displaymath}
71:
72: \begin{figure}[!h]
73: \begin{center}
74: \includegraphics[width=80mm]{F17_ch5_AiBi3}
75: \caption{Variations in $A_i-B_i$ chain} \label{fig:AiBi}
76: \end{center}
77: \end{figure}
78:
79: According to Fig.\ref{fig:AiBi},
80: \begin{equation}\label{eq:AiBi} {\bf b}_i - {\bf a}_i = {\bf R}_i
81: ( \rho_i + \delta \rho_i ) {\bf e}_1 + {\bf R}_i {\delta
82: \theta}_{Ai} \times ( \rho_i + \delta \rho_i ) {\bf e}_1
83: \end{equation}
84:
85: \noindent where $\rho_i$ is the displacement of the $i^{th}$
86: prismatic joint, $\delta \rho_i$ is its displacement error,
87: $\delta \theta_{Ai}= \mat{ccc}{\delta \theta_{Aix} & \delta
88: \theta_{Aiy} & \delta \theta_{Aiz}}^{T}$ is the angular variation
89: of its direction, and
90: \begin{displaymath}
91: \left.
92: \begin{array}{l}
93: {\bf e}_1 = \mat{c}{1 \\ 0 \\ 0} \quad ; \quad {\bf e}_2 = \mat{c}{0 \\ 0 \\ 1} ;
94: \quad \xi(j) = \left\{\begin{array}{cc} 1 & \textrm{if } j=1 \\ -1 & \textrm{if } j=2
95: \end{array}\right.
96: \end{array}
97: \right.
98: \end{displaymath}
99:
100: \begin{figure}[!h]
101: \begin{center}
102: \includegraphics[width=80mm]{F18_ch5_BiBijCij3}
103: \caption{Variations in $B_i-B_{ij}-C_{ij}$ chain}
104: \label{fig:BiBijCij}
105: \end{center}
106: \end{figure}
107:
108: According to Fig.\ref{fig:BiBijCij},
109: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:BiBijCij}
110: &{\bf b}_{ij}& - {\bf b}_i = {\bf R}_i [{\bf I}_3 + {\delta
111: \theta}_{Ai} \times] \big( \xi(j) (d/2 + \delta {b}_i /2)[{\bf
112: I}_3 + \delta {\theta}_{Bi} \times] {\bf e}_2 \big)\\ &{\bf
113: c}_{ij}& - {\bf b}_{ij} = L_i {\bf w}_i + \delta L_{ij} {\bf w}_i
114: + L_i \delta {\bf w}_i
115: \end{eqnarray}
116:
117: \noindent where $d$ is the nominal width of the parallelogram,
118: $\delta {b}_i$ is the variation in the length of link
119: $\overline{B_{i1}B_{i2}}$ and is supposed to be equally shared by
120: each side of $B_i$. $\delta \theta_{Bi}= \mat{ccc}{\delta
121: \theta_{Bix} & \delta \theta_{Biy} & \delta \theta_{Biz}}^{T}$ is
122: the orientation error of link $\overline{B_{i1}B_{i2}}$ with
123: respect to the direction of the $i^{th}$ prismatic joint, $L_i$ is
124: the length of the $i^{th}$ parallelogram, $\delta L_{ij}$ is the
125: variation in the length of link $\overline{B_{ij}C_{ij}}$, of
126: which ${\bf w}_i$ is the direction, and $\delta {\bf w}_i$ is the
127: variation in this direction, orthogonal to ${\bf w}_i$.
128: \begin{figure}[!h]
129: \begin{center}
130: \includegraphics[width=80mm]{F19_ch5_CijCiP3}
131: \caption{Variations in $C_{ij}-C_i-P$ chain} \label{fig:CijCiP}
132: \end{center}
133: \end{figure}
134:
135: According to Fig.\ref{fig:CijCiP},
136: \begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:PCij} &{\bf c}_{ij}&
137: - {\bf c}_{i} = {\bf R}_i [{\bf I}_3 + \delta \theta \times] \big(
138: \xi(j)(d/2 + \delta{c}_i /2)[{\bf I}_3 + \delta {\theta}_{Ci}
139: \times]{\bf e}_2 \big)\\ &{\bf c}_{i}& - {\bf p} = [{\bf I}_3 +
140: \delta \theta \times] {\bf R}_i ({\bf c}_0 + \delta{\bf c}_i)
141: \end{eqnarray}
142:
143: \noindent where $\delta {c}_i$ is the variation in the length of
144: link $\overline{C_{i1}C_{i2}}$, which is supposed to be equally
145: shared by each side of $C_i$. $\delta \theta_{Ci}=
146: \mat{ccc}{\delta \theta_{Cix} & \delta \theta_{Ciy} & \delta
147: \theta_{Ciz}}^{T}$ is the orientation error of link
148: $\overline{C_{i1}C_{i2}}$ with respect to link $\overline{C_iP}$.
149: ${\bf c}_0$ is the nominal position vector of $C_i$ with respect
150: to end-effector $P$, expressed in ${\cal R}_i$, $\delta{\bf c}_i$
151: is the position error of $C_i$ expressed in ${\cal R}_i$, and
152: $\delta \theta = \mat{ccc}{\delta \theta_x & \delta \theta_y &
153: \delta \theta_z}^{T}$ is the orientation error of the
154: end-effector, expressed in ${\cal R}_b$.
155:
156: Implementing linearization of eqs.(\ref{eq:OAi}-\ref{eq:PCij}) and
157: removing the components associated with the nominal constrained
158: equation ${\bf p}_0 = {\bf R}_i ({\bf a}_0 + \rho_i {\bf e}_1 -
159: {\bf c}_0) + L_i {\bf w}_i$, yields
160: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:delta-r} \delta {\bf p} & = & {\bf p} - {\bf p}_0 \nonumber\\ & = & {\bf R}_i
161: \big( \delta {\bf e}_i + \rho_i (\delta \theta_{Ai} \times {\bf
162: e}_1) + \xi(j) \ d/2 \ ( \delta \theta_{Ai} \times {\bf e}_2) + \\
163: & & \xi(j) \ d/2 \
164: (\delta \gamma_i \times {\bf e}_2) + \xi(j) \ \delta{m_i}/2 \ {\bf e}_2 \big) + \nonumber\\
165: & & \delta L_{ij} {\bf w}_i + L_{i} \delta {\bf w}_i - \delta
166: \theta \times {\bf R}_i \big( {\bf c}_0 + d/2 \ \xi(j) \ {\bf e}_2
167: \big) \nonumber
168: \end{eqnarray}
169:
170: \noindent where
171: \begin{description}
172: \item $\delta {\bf p}$ is the position error of the end-effector
173: of the manipulator.
174: \item $\delta {\bf e}_i = \delta {\bf a}_i +
175: \delta{\rho}_i {\bf e}_1 - \delta {\bf c}_i$ is the sum of the
176: position errors of points $A_i$, $B_i$, and $C_i$ expressed in
177: ${\cal R}_i$.
178: \item $\delta \gamma_i = \delta \theta_{Bi} - \delta
179: \theta_{Ci}$ is the sum of the orientation errors of the $i^{th}$
180: parallelogram with respect to the $i^{th}$ prismatic joint and the
181: end-effector.
182: \item $\delta{m_i} = \delta{b}_i - \delta{c}_i $
183: corresponds to the parallelism error of links
184: $\overline{B_{i1}C_{i1}}$ and $\overline{B_{i2}C_{i2}}$, which is
185: depicted by Fig.\ref{fig:parallelogramme}.
186: \end{description}
187:
188: \begin{figure}[!htbp]
189: \begin{center}
190: \centering\includegraphics[width=80mm]{F20_ch5_parall_var_english}
191: \caption{Variations in the $i^{th}$ parallelogram}
192: \label{fig:parallelogramme}
193: \end{center}
194: \end{figure}
195:
196: Equation (\ref{eq:delta-r}) shows the coupling of the position and
197: orientation errors of the end-effector. Contrary to the
198: orientation errors, the position errors can be compensated because
199: the manipulator is a translational 3-DOF PKM. Thus, it is more
200: important to minimize the geometrical variations, which are
201: responsible for the orientation errors of the end-effector than
202: the ones, which are responsible for its position errors.
203:
204: The following equation is obtained by multiplying both sides of
205: eq.(\ref{eq:delta-r}) by ${\bf w}_i^T$ and utilizing the
206: circularity of hybrid product.
207: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:delta-r-2}
208: {\bf w}_i^T \delta {\bf p} & = & {\bf w}_i^T {\bf R}_i {\delta
209: {\bf e}_i} + \rho_i ({\bf R}_i {\bf e}_1 \times {\bf w}_i)^T {\bf
210: R}_i \delta \theta_{Ai} + \xi(j) \ d/2 \\ & & ({\bf R}_i {\bf
211: e}_2 \times {\bf w}_i)^T {\bf R}_i (\delta \theta_{Ai} + \delta
212: \gamma_i) + \xi(j) \ \delta{m_i}/2 \ {\bf w}_i^T {\bf R}_i {\bf
213: e}_2 \nonumber \\ & & + \delta L_{ij} - \big( {\bf R}_i ({\bf c}_0
214: + \xi(j) \ d/2 \ {\bf e}_2) \times {\bf w}_i \big)^T \delta \theta
215: \nonumber
216: \end{eqnarray}
217: %---------------------------------------------------------------------
218:
219: {\bf Orientation Error Mapping Function:} By substraction of
220: eqs.(\ref{eq:delta-r-2}) written for $j=1$ and $j=2$, and for the
221: $i^{th}$ kinematic chain, a relation is obtained between the
222: orientation error of the end-effector and the variations in design
223: parameters, which is independent of the position error of the
224: end-effector.
225: \begin{equation}\label{eq:orientation-error-mapping-function}
226: d({\bf R}_i {\bf e}_2 \times {\bf w}_i)^T \delta \theta = \delta
227: l_i + d({\bf R}_i {\bf e}_2 \times {\bf w}_i)^T {\bf R}_i (\delta
228: \theta_{Ai} + \delta \gamma_i) + \delta{m_i} \ {\bf w}_i^T {\bf
229: R}_i {\bf e}_2
230: \end{equation}
231:
232: \noindent where $\delta l_i = \delta L_{i1} - \delta L_{i2}$, the
233: relative length error of links $\overline{B_{i1}C_{i1}}$ and
234: $\overline{B_{i2}C_{i2}}$, depicts the parallelism error of links
235: $\overline{B_{i1}B_{i2}}$ and $\overline{C_{i1}C_{i2}}$ as shown
236: in Fig.\ref{fig:parallelogramme}. Equation
237: (\ref{eq:orientation-error-mapping-function}) can be written in
238: matrix form:
239: \begin{equation}\label{eq:expression-Jtheta-theta}
240: \delta \theta = {\bf J}_{\theta \theta} {\gbf \epsilon}_{\theta}
241: \end{equation}
242:
243: \noindent with
244: \begin{eqnarray*}
245: {\bf J}_{\theta \theta} &=& {\bf D}^{-1}{\bf E} \\
246: {\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
247: w}_3)^T} \quad ; \quad {\bf E} = \mat{ccc}{{\bf E}_1 & \cdots & \cdots \\ \cdots & {\bf E}_2 & \cdots \\ \cdots & \cdots & {\bf
248: E}_3}\\
249: {\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}
250: \end{eqnarray*}
251: $\delta \theta$ is the orientation error of the end-effector
252: expressed in ${\cal R}_b$, and ${\gbf \epsilon}_{\theta} = ({\gbf
253: \epsilon}_{\theta1}^T, {\gbf \epsilon}_{\theta2}^T, {\gbf
254: \epsilon}_{\theta3}^T )^T$ such that ${\gbf \epsilon}_{\theta i} =
255: (\delta l_i, \delta m_i, \delta \theta_{Ai}^T, \delta
256: \gamma_i^T)^T$. The determinant of ${\bf D}$ will be null if the
257: normal vectors to the plans, which contain the three
258: parallelograms respectively, are collinear, or if one
259: parallelogram is flat. Here, this determinant is not null when $P$
260: covers $C_u$ because of the geometry of the manipulator.
261: Therefore, ${\bf D}$ is nonsingular and its inverse ${\bf D}^{-1}$
262: exists.
263:
264: As $({\bf R}_i {\bf e}_2 \times {\bf w}_i)^T \bot {\bf R}_i {\bf
265: e}_2$, $\delta \theta_{Aiz}$ and $\delta \gamma_{iz}$, the third
266: components of $\delta \theta_{Ai}$ and $\delta \gamma_{i}$
267: expressed in ${\cal R}_i$, have no effect on the orientation of
268: the end-effector. Thus, matrix ${\bf J}_{\theta \theta}$ can be
269: simplified by eliminating its columns associated with $\delta
270: \theta_{Aiz}$ and $\delta \gamma_{iz}$, $i=1,2,3$. Finally,
271: eighteen variations: $\delta l_i$, $\delta m_i$, $\delta
272: \theta_{Aix}$, $\delta \theta_{Aiy}$, $\delta \gamma_{ix}$,
273: $\delta \gamma_{iy}$, $i=1,2,3$, should be responsible for the
274: orientation error of the end-effector.\\
275:
276: %---------------------------------------------------------------------
277: {\bf Position Error Mapping Function:} By addition of
278: eqs.(\ref{eq:delta-r-2}) written for $j=1$ and $j=2$, and for the
279: $i^{th}$ kinematic chain, a relation is obtained between the
280: position error of the end-effector and the variations in design
281: parameters, which does not depend on $\delta \gamma_{i}$.
282: \begin{equation}\label{eq:position-error-mapping-function}
283: {\bf w}_i^T \delta{\bf p} = \delta L_i + {\bf w}_i^T {\bf R}_i
284: \delta {\bf e}_i + \rho_i({\bf R}_i {\bf e}_1 \times {\bf w}_i)^T
285: {\bf R}_i \delta \theta_{Ai} - ({\bf R}_i {\bf c}_0 \times {\bf
286: w}_i)^T \delta \theta
287: \end{equation}
288:
289: \noindent Equation (\ref{eq:position-error-mapping-function}) can
290: be written in matrix form:
291: \begin{equation}\label{delta-r}
292: \delta{\bf p} = {\bf J}_{pp} {\gbf \epsilon}_{p} + {\bf J}_{p \theta} {\gbf
293: \epsilon}_{\theta} = [{\bf J}_{pp} {\bf J}_{p \theta}]\left[\begin{array}{c} {\gbf \epsilon}_{p} \\ {\gbf
294: \epsilon}_{\theta} \end{array} \right]
295: \end{equation}
296:
297: \noindent with
298: \begin{eqnarray*}
299: {\bf J}_{pp} &=& {\bf F}^{-1}{\bf G} \quad ; \quad {\bf J}_{p
300: \theta} = {\bf F}^{-1}{\bf H}{\bf J}_{\theta \theta} \\ {\bf F}
301: &=& [{\bf w}_1 {\bf w}_2 {\bf w}_3]^T \\ {\bf G} &=& \mbox{diag}
302: ({\bf G}_i) \quad ; \quad {\bf G}_i = \mat{ccc}{1 & {\bf w}_i^T
303: {\bf R}_i & \rho_i ({\bf R}_i {\bf e}_1 \times {\bf w}_i )^T {\bf
304: R}_i}
305: \\
306: {\bf H} &=& - \mat{ccc}{{\bf R}_1 {\bf c}_0 \times {\bf w}_1 &
307: {\bf R}_2 {\bf c}_0 \times {\bf w}_2 & {\bf R}_3 {\bf c}_0 \times
308: {\bf w}_3} \\ {\gbf \epsilon}_{p} &=& ({\gbf \epsilon}_{p1}^T,
309: {\gbf \epsilon}_{p2}^T, {\gbf \epsilon}_{p3}^T)^T, \ {\gbf
310: \epsilon}_{pi} = (\delta L_i, \delta {\bf e}_i^T, \delta
311: \theta_{Ai}^T)^T
312: \end{eqnarray*}
313:
314: $\delta L_i = (\delta L_{i1} + \delta L_{i2})/2$ is the mean value
315: of the variations in links $\overline{B_{i1}C_{i1}}$ and
316: $\overline{ B_{i2}C_{i2}}$, {\it i.e.}: the variation in the
317: length of the $i^{th}$ parallelogram. ${\gbf \epsilon}_{p}$ is the
318: set of the variations in design parameters, which should be
319: responsible for the position errors of the end-effector, except
320: the ones which should be responsible for its orientation errors,
321: {\it i.e.}: ${\gbf \epsilon}_{\theta}$. ${\gbf \epsilon}_{p}$ is
322: made up of three kinds of errors: the variation in the length of
323: the $i^{th}$ parallelogram, {\it i.e.}: $\delta L_i, i=1,2,3$, the
324: position errors of points $A_i$, $B_i$, and $C_i$, {\it i.e.}:
325: $\delta {\bf e}_i, i=1,2,3$, and the orientation errors of the
326: directions of the prismatic joints, {\it i.e.}: $\delta
327: \theta_{Ai}$, $i=1,2,3$. Besides, ${\bf F}$ is nonsingular and its
328: inverse ${\bf F}^{-1}$ exists because ${\bf F}$ corresponds to the
329: Jacobian kinematic matrix of the manipulator, which is not
330: singular when $P$ covers $C_u$, \cite{CHABLAT03}.
331:
332: According to eq.(\ref{eq:position-error-mapping-function}) and as
333: $({\bf R}_i {\bf e}_1 \times {\bf w}_i)^T \bot {\bf R}_i {\bf
334: e}_1$, matrix ${\bf J}_{pp}$ can be simplified by eliminating its
335: columns associated with $\delta \theta_{Aix}, \ i=1,2,3$. Finally,
336: thirty-three variations: $\delta L_i$, $\delta e_{ix}$, $\delta
337: e_{iy}$, $\delta e_{iz}$, $\delta \theta_{Aix}$, $\delta
338: \theta_{Aiy}$, $\delta \theta_{Aiz}$, $\delta l_i$, $\delta m_i$,
339: $\delta \gamma_{ix}$, $\delta \gamma_{iy}$, $i=1,2,3$, should be
340: responsible for the position error of the end-effector.
341:
342: Rearranging matices ${\bf J}_{pp}$ and ${\bf J}_{p \theta}$, the
343: position error of the end-effector can be expressed as:
344: \begin{equation}\label{delra-r2}
345: \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
346: \ {\gbf \epsilon}_{q3}^T)^T
347: \end{equation}
348:
349: \noindent with ${\gbf \epsilon}_{qi} = (\delta L_i, \delta e_{ix},
350: \delta e_{iy}, \delta e_{iz}, \delta \theta_{Aix}, \delta
351: \theta_{Aiy}, \delta \theta_{Aiz}, \delta l_i, \delta m_i, \delta
352: \gamma_{ix},
353: \delta \gamma_{iy})^T$, and ${\bf J} \in {\field{R}}^{3 \times 33}$.\\
354:
355: %---------------------------------------------------------------------
356: {\bf Sensitivity Indices:} In order to investigate the influence
357: of the design parameters errors on the position and the
358: orientation of the end-effector, sensitivity indices are required.
359: According to section
360: \ref{section:linkage-kinematic-analysis-results}, variations in
361: the design parameters of the same type from one leg to the other
362: have the same influence on the location of the end-effector. Thus,
363: assuming that variations in the design parameters are independent,
364: the sensitivity of the position of the end-effector to the
365: variations in the $k^{th}$ design parameter responsible for its
366: position error, {\it i.e.}: ${\epsilon}_{q(1,2,3)k}$, is called
367: ${\mu}_{k}$ and is defined by eq.(\ref{eq:sensi-pos}).
368:
369: \begin{equation}\label{eq:sensi-pos}
370: {\mu}_{k} = \sqrt{\sum_{i=1}^{3} \sum_{m=1}^{3}J_{imk}^{2}} \ ,
371: \ k = 1, \cdots, 11
372: \end{equation}
373:
374: Likewise, $\nu_r$ is a sensitivity index of the orientation of the
375: end-effector to the variations in the $r^{th}$ design parameter
376: responsible for its orientation error, {\it i.e.}:
377: ${\epsilon}_{\theta (1,2,3) r}$. $\nu_r$ follows from
378: eq.(\ref{eq:expression-Jtheta-theta}) and is defined by
379: eq.(\ref{eq:sensi-orientation}).
380:
381: %\begin{equation}\label{eq:sensi-orientation}
382: % {\nu}_{r} = \sqrt{\sum_{j=0}^{2} \sum_{i=1}^{3}J_{\theta \theta
383: % i(6j+r)}^{2}} \ , \ r = 1, \cdots, 6
384: %\end{equation}
385:
386: \begin{equation}\label{eq:sensi-orientation}
387: {\nu}_{r} = \arccos{\frac{\mathrm{tr}({\bf Q}_r) - 1}{2}}
388: \end{equation}
389:
390: \noindent where ${\bf Q}_r$ is the rotation matrix corresponding
391: to the orientation error of the end-effector, and ${\nu}_{r}$ is a
392: linear invariant: its global rotation \cite{ANGELES02}.
393:
394: \begin{equation}\label{eq:matrice-Qr-2}
395: {\bf Q}_r = \mat{ccc}{ C_{{\nu}_{zr}} C_{{\nu}_{yr}} & C_{{\nu}_{zr}} S_{{\nu}_{yr}} S_{{\nu}_{xr}} - S_{{\nu}_{zr}} C_{{\nu}_{xr}} & C_{{\nu}_{zr}} S_{{\nu}_{yr}} C_{{\nu}_{xr}} + S_{{\nu}_{zr}} S_{{\nu}_{xr}} \\
396: S_{{\nu}_{zr}} C_{{\nu}_{yr}} & S_{{\nu}_{zr}} S_{{\nu}_{yr}} S_{{\nu}_{xr}} + C_{{\nu}_{zr}} C_{{\nu}_{xr}} & S_{{\nu}_{zr}} S_{{\nu}_{yr}} C_{{\nu}_{xr}} - C_{{\nu}_{zr}} S_{{\nu}_{xr}} \\
397: -S_{{\nu}_{yr}} & C_{{\nu}_{yr}} S_{{\nu}_{xr}} & C_{{\nu}_{yr}} C_{{\nu}_{xr}}}
398: \end{equation}
399:
400: \noindent such that $C_{{\nu}_{xr}} = \cos{{\nu}_{xr}}$,
401: $S_{{\nu}_{xr}} = \sin{{\nu}_{xr}}$, $C_{{\nu}_{yr}} =
402: \cos{{\nu}_{yr}}$, $S_{{\nu}_{yr}} = \sin{{\nu}_{yr}}$,
403: $C_{{\nu}_{zr}} = \cos{{\nu}_{zr}}$, $S_{{\nu}_{zr}} =
404: \sin{{\nu}_{zr}}$, and
405:
406: \begin{eqnarray}
407: {\nu}_{xr} = \sqrt{\sum_{j=0}^{2} J_{\theta \theta
408: 1(6j+r)}^{2}} \ , \ r = 1, \cdots, 6 \\
409: {\nu}_{yr} = \sqrt{\sum_{j=0}^{2} J_{\theta \theta
410: 2(6j+r)}^{2}} \ , \ r = 1, \cdots, 6 \\
411: {\nu}_{zr} = \sqrt{\sum_{j=0}^{2} J_{\theta \theta
412: 3(6j+r)}^{2}} \ , \ r = 1, \cdots, 6
413: \end{eqnarray}
414:
415: %\begin{onecolumn}
416:
417: %\begin{equation}\label{eq:matrice-Qr-2}
418: % {\bf Q}_r = \mat{ccc}{ \cos({\nu}_{zr})\cos({\nu}_{yr}) & \cos({\nu}_{zr})\sin({\nu}_{yr})\sin({\nu}_{xr})-\sin({\nu}_{zr})\cos({\nu}_{xr}) & \cos({\nu}_{zr})\sin({\nu}_{yr})\cos({\nu}_{xr})+\sin({\nu}_{zr})\sin({\nu}_{xr}) \\
419: % \sin({\nu}_{zr})\cos({\nu}_{yr}) & \sin({\nu}_{zr})\sin({\nu}_{yr})\sin({\nu}_{xr})+\cos({\nu}_{zr})\cos({\nu}_{xr}) & \sin({\nu}_{zr})\sin({\nu}_{yr})\cos({\nu}_{xr})-\cos({\nu}_{zr})\sin({\nu}_{xr}) \\
420: % -\sin({\nu}_{yr}) & \cos({\nu}_{yr})\sin({\nu}_{xr}) & \cos({\nu}_{yr})\cos({\nu}_{xr})}
421: %\end{equation}
422: %
423: %\begin{equation}\label{eq:matrice-Qr-2}
424: % {\bf Q}_r = \mat{ccc}{ C({\nu}_{zr})C({\nu}_{yr}) & C({\nu}_{zr})S({\nu}_{yr})S({\nu}_{xr})-S({\nu}_{zr})C({\nu}_{xr}) & C({\nu}_{zr})S({\nu}_{yr})C({\nu}_{xr})+S({\nu}_{zr})S({\nu}_{xr}) \\
425: % S({\nu}_{zr})C({\nu}_{yr}) & S({\nu}_{zr})S({\nu}_{yr})S({\nu}_{xr})+C({\nu}_{zr})C({\nu}_{xr}) & S({\nu}_{zr})S({\nu}_{yr})C({\nu}_{xr})-C({\nu}_{zr})S({\nu}_{xr}) \\
426: % -S({\nu}_{yr}) & C({\nu}_{yr})S({\nu}_{xr}) & C({\nu}_{yr})C({\nu}_{xr})}
427: %\end{equation}
428:
429:
430: %\begin{multicols}{3}[Titre sur une seule colonne.]
431: % 3~colonnes équilibrées, 3~colonnes équilibrées, 3~colonnes
432: % équilibrées, 3~colonnes équilibrées
433: %\end{multicols}
434: %
435: %\begin{multicols}{2}[\section{Titre num\'erot\'e.}]
436: % blabla sur deux colonnes, c'est plus sérieux. C'est le
437: % style qui est généralement utilisé pour écrire des
438: % articles.
439: %\end{multicols}
440:
441:
442: %\end{onecolumn}
443:
444: %\begin{equation}\label{eq:sensi-orientation}
445: % \mathrm{tr}({\bf Q}_r) = \cos({\nu}_{zr})\cos({\nu}_{yr}) +
446: % \sin({\nu}_{zr})\sin({\nu}_{yr})\sin({\nu}_{xr}) + \cos({\nu}_{zr})\cos({\nu}_{xr}) + \cos({\nu}_{yr})\cos({\nu}_{xr})
447: %\end{equation}
448: %
449: %\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:sensi-orientation}
450: % \mathrm{tr}({\bf Q}_r) & = & \cos({\nu}_{zr})\cos({\nu}_{yr}) + \cos({\nu}_{zr})\cos({\nu}_{xr}) +
451: % \cos({\nu}_{yr})\cos({\nu}_{xr}) \nonumber \\
452: % & & + \sin({\nu}_{zr})\sin({\nu}_{yr})\sin({\nu}_{xr})
453: %\end{eqnarray}
454:
455:
456: Finally, ${\mu}_{k}$ can be employed as a sensitivity index of the
457: position of the end-effector to the $k^{th}$ design parameter
458: responsible for the position error. Likewise, ${\nu}_{r}$ can be
459: employed as a sensitivity index of the orientation of the
460: end-effector to the $r^{th}$ design parameter responsible for the
461: orientation error. It is noteworthy that these sensitivity indices
462: depend on the location of the end-effector.
463:
464: %---------------------------------------------------------------------
465: \subsubsection{Results of the Differential Vector Method}
466: \label{section:differential-vector-analysis-results}
467: %--------------------------------------------------------------------
468: The sensitivity indices defined by eqs.(\ref{eq:sensi-pos}) and
469: (\ref{eq:sensi-orientation}) are used to evaluate the sensitivity
470: of the position and orientation of the end-effector to variations
471: in design parameters, particularly to variations in the
472: parallelograms.
473:
474: \begin{figure}[!h]
475: \includegraphics[width=44mm]{F21a_ch5_deltap_vardim4} \hfill
476: \includegraphics[width=44mm]{F21b_ch5_deltap_varang3}
477: \caption{Sensitivity of the position of the end-effector along
478: $Q_1Q_2$, (a): to dimensional variations, (b): to angular
479: variations} \label{fig:deltar-vardim-varang}
480: \end{figure}
481:
482: %\begin{figure}[!h]
483: %\psfrag{deix}{$\delta e_{ix}$} \psfrag{dLi}{$\delta L_{i}$}
484: %\psfrag{dli}{$\delta l_{i}$} \psfrag{dmi}{$\delta m_{i}$}
485: %\psfrag{deiydeiz}{$\delta e_{iy},\delta e_{iz}$}
486: %\psfrag{Q1}{$q_1$} \psfrag{Q2}{$q_2$} \psfrag{a}{(a)}
487: %\psfrag{p}{$p$}
488: %\includegraphics[width=44mm]{deltar_vardim2} \hfill
489: %\psfrag{thix}{$\delta \gamma_{ix},\delta \theta_{Aix}$}
490: %\psfrag{thiy}{$\delta \theta_{Aiy}$} \psfrag{thiz}{$\delta
491: %\theta_{Aiz}$} \psfrag{giy}{$\delta \gamma_{iy}$}
492: %\psfrag{Q1}{$q_1$} \psfrag{Q2}{$q_2$} \psfrag{b}{(b)}
493: %\psfrag{p}{$p$}
494: %\includegraphics[width=44mm]{deltar_varang4}
495: %\caption{Sensitivity of the position of the end-effector along
496: %$Q_1Q_2$, (a): to dimensional variations, (b): to angular variations}
497: %\label{fig:deltar-vardim-varang}
498: %\end{figure}
499:
500: Figures \ref{fig:deltar-vardim-varang}(a-b) depict the sensitivity
501: of the position of the end-effector along the diagonal $Q_1Q_2$ of
502: $C_u$, to dimensional variations and angular variations,
503: respectively. According to Fig.\ref{fig:deltar-vardim-varang}(a),
504: the position of the end-effector is very sensitive to variations
505: in the lengths of the parallelograms, $\delta L_i$, and to the
506: position errors of points $A_i$, $B_i$, and $C_i$ along axis $x_i$
507: of ${\cal R}_i$, {\it i.e}: $\delta e_{ix}$. Conversely, the
508: influence of $\delta l_i$ and $\delta m_i$, the parallelism errors
509: of the parallelograms, is low and even negligible in the kinematic
510: isotropic configuration. According to
511: Fig.\ref{fig:deltar-vardim-varang}(b), the orientation errors of
512: the prismatic joints depicted by $\delta \theta_{Aiy}$ and $\delta
513: \theta_{Aiz}$ are the most influential angular errors on the
514: position of the end-effector. Besides, the position of the
515: end-effector is not sensitive to angular variations in the
516: isotropic configuration.
517:
518: \begin{figure}[!h]
519: \includegraphics[width=44mm]{F22a_ch5_deltatheta_vardim2} \hfill
520: \includegraphics[width=44mm]{F22b_ch5_deltatheta_varang2}
521: \caption{Sensitivity of the orientation of the end-effector along
522: $Q_1Q_2$, (a): to dimensional variations, (b): to angular
523: variations} \label{fig:deltatheta-vardim-varang}
524: \end{figure}
525:
526: Figures \ref{fig:deltatheta-vardim-varang}(a-b) depict the
527: sensitivity of the orientation of the end effector, along
528: $Q_1Q_2$, to dimensional and angular variations. According to
529: Fig.\ref{fig:deltatheta-vardim-varang}(a), $\delta l_i$ and
530: $\delta m_i$ are the only dimensional variations, which are
531: responsible for the orientation error of the end-effector.
532: However, the influence of the parallelism error of the small sides
533: of the parallelograms, depicted by $\delta l_i$, is more important
534: than the one of the parallelism error of their long sides,
535: depicted by $\delta m_i$.
536:
537: According to figures \ref{fig:deltar-vardim-varang} and
538: \ref{fig:deltatheta-vardim-varang}, the sensitivity of the
539: position and the orientation of the end-effector is generally null
540: in the kinematic isotropic configuration ($p = 0$), and is a
541: maximum when the manipulator is close to a kinematic singular
542: configuration, {\it i.e.}: $P \equiv Q_2$. Indeed, only two kinds
543: of design parameters variations are responsible for the variations
544: in the position of the end-effector in the isotropic
545: configuration: $\delta L_i$ and $\delta e_{ix}$. Likewise, two
546: kinds of variations are responsible for the variations in its
547: orientation in this configuration: $\delta l_i$, the parallelism
548: error of the small sides of the parallelograms, $\delta
549: \theta_{Aiy}$ and $\delta \gamma_{iy}$. Moreover, the
550: sensitivities of the pose (position and orientation) of the
551: end-effector to these variations are a minimum in this
552: configuration, except for $\delta l_i$. On the contrary, $Q_2$
553: configuration, {\it i.e.}: $P \equiv Q_2$, is the most sensitive
554: configuration of the manipulator to variations in its design
555: parameters. Indeed, as depicted by
556: Figs.\ref{fig:deltar-vardim-varang} and
557: \ref{fig:deltatheta-vardim-varang}, variations in the pose of the
558: end-effector depend on all the design parameters variations and
559: are a maximum in this configuration.
560:
561: Moreover, figures \ref{fig:deltar-vardim-varang} and
562: \ref{fig:deltatheta-vardim-varang} can be used to compute the
563: variations in the position and orientation of the end-effector
564: with knowledge of the amount of variations in the design
565: parameters. For instance, let us assume that the parallelism error
566: of the small sides of the parallelograms, $\delta l_i$, is equal
567: to $10 \mu$m. According to
568: Fig.\ref{fig:deltatheta-vardim-varang}(a), the position error of
569: the end-effector will be equal about to $3\mu$m in $Q_1$
570: configuration ($P \equiv Q_1$). Likewise, according to
571: Fig.\ref{fig:deltar-vardim-varang}(b), if the orientation error of
572: the direction of the $i^{th}$ prismatic joint round axis $y_i$ of
573: ${\cal R}_i$ is equal to 1 degree, {\it i.e.}: $\delta
574: \theta_{Aiy} = 1$ degree, the position error of the end-effector
575: will be equal about to 4.8 mm in $Q_2$ configuration.
576: