Advertisement

Kinematic, Dynamic and Stiffness Analysis of an Asymmetric 2PRP-PPR Planar Parallel Manipulator

  • Deep SinghEmail author
  • Rutupurna Choudhury
  • Yogesh Singh
Conference paper
  • 15 Downloads
Part of the Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering book series (LNME)

Abstract

This paper presents an assessment of the comparison of three-degree-of-freedom 2PRP-PPR planar parallel robotic manipulator (x, y, \(\theta_{z}\) motion stage) with other standard planar parallel manipulators such as 3PPR U-base, 3PPR delta (Δ)-base and 3RRR in respect of static structural stiffness, optimal kinematic design and dynamic performances. Adams/View, a multibody dynamics software, has been utilized to analyze the kinematic and dynamic performance of the motion stage. Analysis of static stiffness has been performed and compared by the joint space Jacobian method along with the matrix structural analysis method. Also, static stiffness was verified through NASTRAN, a standard finite element software. The findings of numerical simulation conclude that the 3PPR U-base configuration and the proposed 2PRP-PPR manipulator possess a number of favorable optimum design characteristics such as good isotropy, better manipulability, better dynamic performances (power, energy), higher stiffness and singularity-free workspace as compared to other manipulators. Note: P and R refer to prismatic and revolute, respectively.

Keywords

Planar parallel manipulator Kinematic analysis Isotropy Manipulability Structural stiffness 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Authors acknowledge TEQIP-III under National Institute of Technology, Silchar, for financial support.

References

  1. 1.
    Gosselin C, Angeles J (1988) The optimum kinematic design of a planar three-degree-of-freedom parallel manipulator. ASME J Mech Trans Autom 110:35–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alvarado JG, Campos JHT (2019) A parallel manipulator with planar configurable platform and three end-effectors. Math Prob Eng 2019Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bolboli J, Khosravi MA, Abdollahi F (2019) Stiffness feasible workspace of cable-driven parallel robots with application to optimal design of a planar cable robot. Robot Auton Syst 114:19–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gosselin C (1990) Stiffness mapping for parallel manipulators. IEEE Trans Robot Autom 6:377–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wu J, Wang J, You Z (2011) A comparison study on the dynamics of planar 3-DOF 4-RRR, 3-RRR and 2-RRR parallel manipulators. Robot Comput Integr Manuf 27:150–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Choi KB (2003) Kinematic analysis and optimal design of 3-PPR planar parallel manipulator. KSME Int J 17:528–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Vinoth V, Singh Y, Santhakumar M (2014) Indirect disturbance compensation control of a planar parallel (2-PRP and1-PPR) robotic manipulator. Robot Comput Integr Manuf 30:556–564CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringNIT SilcharAssamIndia

Personalised recommendations