You are on page 1of 19

Advances in the Modelling and Control of

Elastic Parallel Manipulators
Krzysztof Stachera
Institute of Technology of Machines
and Automation of Production,
Czestochowa University of Technology, Poland

Frank Schreiber, Walter Schumacher
Institute of Control Engineering,
Technical University of Braunschweig, Germany

1

Introduction

Modern industrial processes require high performance manipulators, especially regarding the obtainable speed
and precision. Parallel manipulators have the potential to meet some of those goals. As opposed to their omnipresent serial counterparts, the drives of parallel mechanisms are mounted to the base or at least close to the
base allowing for a significant reduction of the moved structural masses and at the same time increasing the obtainable precision of the parallel manipulators. Since the heavy drives do not have to be moved, the links and
joints can consequently be designed lighter. The resulting light-weight manipulators are able to realize higher
accelerations and velocities, but tend to suffer from a reduced mechanical damping which may lead to unwanted
vibrations during and after the execution of motions. Since the following steps of a handling and assembly process require the decay of the end-effector oscillations below a certain level of desired accuracy, these oscillations
increase the necessary duration of each working cycle. To allow for the settling of the end-effector some of the
time gained by performing faster motions is unavoidably lost. Furthermore, the reduced stiffness of the structure
causes static deformations of the robot structure under the influence of gravity, which decrease the manipulator’s
precision and which have to be compensated by the control strategies.
Among other means, the vibrations in a manipulator structure can be suppressed, using integrated adaptronic components. These, along with the elasticities of the manipulator structure, introduce additional degrees
of freedom (Keimer & Sinapius, 2011). In comparison to rigid structures, these degrees of freedom increase the
mathematical and computational effort for the description and calculation of the manipulator’s kinematics and
dynamics. In order to use the advantages of the light-weight constructions, efficient algorithms for the derivation
of the manipulator models and their real time calculation for the motion control, as well as the structural control
have to be proposed. The current lack of appropriate methods is caused by the common assumption, that the
parallel manipulators are rigid structures, which is true for most, but not for all of them.
In order to solve the problems mentioned above and to ensure the high performance of the elastic parallel manipulators, computationally efficient algorithms for the calculation of the direct dynamics, based on the

. 2001). 2 Related works Serial and parallel robots in general belong to the class of nonlinear systems (Murray et al. 2001). In contrast to their serial counterparts the drives of parallel manipulators are not always directly connected to the elastic elements of the structure. 1999). additional equations describing the closed kinematic loop constraints. The division of the dynamics equations into many groups and their parallel calculation can reduce the computational effort. 2000. 1997. The use of the robot drives for the purposes of vibration control can be complicated for parallel elastic manipulators (De Luca et al. Their behavior in the time-domain is described by second order nonlinear dynamics equations (Tsai.. 2002). Those problems can be overcome through the use of so-called “smart materials”. 1928. 2005a. Stachera.. Robinett et al. Consequently. in combination with the appropriate control algorithms. 1988. Approaches. called the Lagrangian. Wang et al. Several techniques from analytical mechanics can be applied to derive the models of the manipulator dynamics (Schwertassek & Wallrapp. 1998. 1989). 2001. since both take place at different time scales (Levine. is generated.Lagrange-D’Alembert formulation. Siciliano & Book. which are advantageous for system analysis and controller design. The Singular-Perturbation-method allows to separate the motion control of the manipulator from the vibration suppression control for the structure.. 2000). 1994). 1996. which are manufactured in diverse shapes (Wierach & Sch¨onecker. Based upon the presented methods. Wang & Gosselin. therefore decreasing their influence upon the elastic modes of the structure. 2002). Furthermore. 1995. For matrices of higher order. potential and dissipative energy of the system in generalized coordinates. 2009). 2001. allowing an easy integration into the robot structure. One elegant and efficient method which is very widely used in the field of parallel manipulators is the Lagrangian method (Beyer. Among those “smart materials” are piezo-electric actuators. As mentioned in Section 1. as well as for the derivation of the Jacobian of parallel elastic manipulators are developed and presented in this chapter. this step requires high computational effort and can thereby constitute a limitation in the real-time calculation. Krefft & Hesselbach. well known methods and techniques. for control purposes. they are consequently reduced for light weight parallel manipulators. 2000. which are parameterized by the non-redundant coordinates (Yiu et al. Yang et al. A problem occurs when calculating the direct dynamics e.. which. since it requires the inversion of the inertia matrix. The actuators’ placements can be optimized in order to maximize their authority over the elastic modes of the manipulator . which consider this problem can be found (Saha. Nakamura & Ghodoussi. 2005). 2005b) induces deformations and vibrations of the end-effector during and after the robots movements. form the field of adaptronics. which describes the entire kinetic. a model-based robust control strategy was developed and validated using experimental results obtained from the implementation for the F IVE -BAR manipulator (Stachera. which is the case for elastic parallel manipulators. To illustrate the advantages of the suggested approaches on a low complexity example. 1999. the reduced stiffness of the robot structure (Krefft & Hesselbach. 1989.. the algorithms are demonstrated for the F IVE -BAR-elastic planar parallel manipulator and evaluated by comparison to conventional techniques. Spong & Vidyasagar. Hermle. Kock. Khalil & Gautier. Here a scalar function. For this purpose the Jacobian matrices of the kinematic constraints are used. For parallel manipulators. 2000. since the forces generated by the drives are proportional to the mass of the structure.g.. must be provided. Jarzebowska & Jarzebowski. 2006b). The Lagrange-D’Alembert formulation provides compact equations for the manipulators dynamics. that the parallel manipulator can be divided into many serial kinematic chains. which have already been applied to serial elastic robots can be used for the description of the manipulator’s chain dynamics (Beres & Sasiadek. The approach using the Jacobian matrix has the significant advantage that for the modelling process. Moallem et al.

One disadvantage of this approach is the high order of the obtained matrices.(Gabbert et al. 2001). 2009). In addition. Gross et al. EIi (x) the bending stiffness. 1997). that the control algorithms for the robot motion and for the structure’s vibrations can be arbitrarily combined and laid out independently.. This provided the motivation for the research in this area. 2002.. Breitbach et al. since they are mainly built as long and slender elements (Piedboeuf. Rose.. The derivation of the equations of motion of such a parallel manipulator will be based upon the Lagrange-D’Alembert formalism enhanced by elements to represent the links’ elasticities (Nakamura & Ghodoussi. 2011). 1999). ρi the mass density.. It was shown.t) the deformation vector of the ith arm (see Figure 1). in the presented approach the links of an elastic parallel manipulator will be regarded as a main source of vibrations in the robot structure. Gabbert et al. described in this chapter. These works were also able to demonstrate the effectiveness of the adaptronics in this area (Wilson et al.t) + βi EIi w˙ 0000 i (x.t)0000 + αi µi w˙ i (x. The nonlinear model-based control concepts for elastic manipulators have not yet been studied as thoroughly as in the field of serial robots. Significant progress was made to make the compliance of the manipulator joints accessible for control (Pavlovic et al. (1) with µi (x) = ρi · Ai (x) the mass distribution.. 2005. The analysis of the dynamics of elastic parallel manipulators will be started with a brief discussion of the methods for the description of the elastic robot arms. Algermissen et al. So. 2001. Park et al. 3. 2008). 2007) is introduced. The finite element method (FEM) allows an approximative description of more complicated continua (Czichos. (2). 2007.. Wang & Mills. The factors αi and βi have to be determined from experiment (Magnus & Popp. 2008). A the cross sectional area perpendicular to the neutral fiber of the beam..1 Description of the elasticities in the manipulator’s structure The deformation of a continuum can be described by a partial differential equation: µi w¨ i (x. Afterwards a new method for the simultaneous/distributed calculation of their direct dynamics (SCDD) will be presented and verified (Stachera & Schumacher. First research on the separate control strategies has been carried out by applying patches as well as stacks of piezoactive materials. without loss of generality. in a form corresponding to eq.. 1997).. 2004.. 2004b. 1989. Schwertassek & Wallrapp. Di = αi Mi + βi Ki denotes the attenuation matrix according to a specific Rayleigh ansatz (Magnus & Popp.t) = 0. 2000. The separate control of the elastic structure using piezoelectric patches and of the robot motion using conventional drives has been studied for several serial kinematics (Hermle. Algermissen et al. 1999).t) + EIi wi (x. with Mi ∈ Rn×n representing a symmetrical positive definite mass or inertia matrix. 1997. The same limitations hold for the Ritz method with the global trial functions and its approximative solution Mi~q¨ie (t) + Di~q˙ie (t) + Ki~qie (t) = ~0 (2) in the form of ordinary differential equations (ODE). ?). This type of description is only possible for geometrically simple shapes and only in cases in which forces are exclusively applied to the end points of the element (Stachera. 3 Dynamics of elastic parallel manipulators The elasticity of a manipulator’s links and of its joints can be considered as the main sources of structural vibrations. which might make a real time calculation of the equations . The solution obtained with this method is also formulated using ordinary differential equations (ODE). 1989. Ki ∈ Rn×n a symmetrical positive definite or semidefinite stiffness matrix and ~qie (t) ∈ Rn×1 the vector of the elastic modes. 2005). a new method for the derivation of the Jacobians of elastic parallel manipulators (Stachera et al. Ii (x) the geometrical moment of inertia and wi (x.

1999. this system is transformed into a representation in which the independent generalized coordinates are defined in such a way that the motion constraints are implicitly fulfilled. which are known from serial manipulators and consists of the following three steps (Nakamura & Ghodoussi. Transformation of the Torques: The torques and forces of the original parallel manipulator’s actuators are calculated from the forces and torques of the tree structure by considering the additional closed kinematic loop constraints..2. though.. 2. 1978.1 Inverse Dynamics The procedure for the derivation of the inverse dynamics corresponds to methods. 2001). The result is a reduced system which possesses a tree structure. Khalil & Gautier. one of the two at last mentioned methods is applied. Consequently. 3. 3. A reduction of the obtainable precision has to be taken into account. One significant possibility to reduce the order of the model is the method of concentrated parameters which also provides solutions of the form (2) (Benedict & Tesar. Isermann. The resulting models obtained by these discretization methods share the same structure.r. only serial kinematic chains are found in this system. Yiu et al. Nakamura. The algorithm to derive the equations of motion in these coordinates is detailed below. 1991. 2002. but differ with regard to the interpretation of the coordinates and the precision of the solution.2 Derivation of the equations of motion The Lagrange-D’Alembert formulation can be used for the derivation of the dynamic equations of elastic parallel manipulators (Nakamura & Ghodoussi. . 2000). passive and elastic degrees of freedom are interdependent due to the system’s constraints. 1989. and these movements correspond to the movement of the original closed-link structure. The model forms a system in which the coordinates of the active. A yi x Oi xi zi ci i ri . end-effector or link. T0 wi O0 Os z si+1 x si+1 z ei+1 z0 y si+1 y ei+1 Oe x ei+1 y0 x0 Figure 1: Deformation of a elastic robot link of motion unfeasible. Furthermore it is assumed that all remaining passive joints possess virtual actuators. Park et al. Transformation of the System: Each closed kinematic loop of the parallel manipulator is separated at a passive joint. Depending upon the precision demands and the goal of the modelling. In order to derive the dynamic equations. These torques and forces cause a movement in every chain. 3. 1989): 1. Calculation of the Torques: The torques and forces of the real and virtual actuators are computed for each kinematic chain.

Mt (~qt ) is a symmetric and positive definite matrix. (9) where Mt (~qt ). ˙ t (~qt ) − 2Ct (~q˙t .~qe ). 2005.. The redundant coordinates of the passive joints ~q p depend upon the coordinates of the active joints ~qa and the elastic DOF ~qe ~q p = ~q p (~qae ). They can be derived from the equations of motion in matrix form: Mt (~qt )~q¨t + Ct (~q˙t . the torques/forces of the tree-structure have to be calculated. These matrices satisfy the following structural properties: 1.It is assumed that the manipulator consists of l closed kinematic loops and possesses a total of e+a+ p = none DOF joints. with e and p of them being discrete elastic DOF ~qe and passive DOF ~q p . Therefore. a Jacobian of the kinematic constraints parameterized by the non-redundant coordinates has to be derived.~q p . Ct (~q˙t . According to the first step. The number of passive joint coordinates ~q p amounts to n p = (p − l). The dimensions of ~qa and ~qe remain identical to those of the original structure (na = (n − p − e) and ne = e respectively). but a solution to determine the relationship between the velocities and accelerations of the active and passive joints can always be found (Merlet.~qt ) is a skew-symmetric matrix. the relation represented in (4) may not always exist analytically. 2000. The configuration space of the manipulator can be smoothly parameterized by the coordinates of the active joints and the elastic DOF ~qae :  −1     ∂~q p ˙ ∂h ∂h ˙ ~q˙ p = − ~ q = ~qae . ∂~qTae ∂~q p (6) In order to parameterize the configuration space of the manipulator. with nt = na + n p + ne . (7) ae ∂~qTp ∂~qTae ∂~qTae Based on (7) the sought Jacobian of the parameterization matrix can be written as follows: W= ∂~qt . M . The controllability of the manipulator in absence of elasticity is assumed. ~q p ∈ Rn p ×1 . Yiu et al. For this purpose it will be assumed that the robot is normally actuated and away from actuator singularity. (5) After the differentiation of (5) a Pfaffian form of the constraints is obtained: ∂h ∂h ˙ ~qae + T ~q˙ p = 0. ∂~qTae (8) In accordance with the second step. 2001). the matrix ∂~∂h qTp from (6) is square and invertible. 2. (3) where ~qa ∈ Rna ×1 .~qt )~q˙t +~ηt (~qt ) + Kt~qt + Dt~q˙t =~τt . (4) where ~qae ∈ Rnae ×1 and nae = na + ne . Generally.~qt ) ∈ Rnt ×nt are the inertia matrix and the Coriolis matrix of the tree structure. ~qe ∈ Rne ×1 and the dimension of ~qt ∈ Rnt ×1 . this system is divided into a tree structure. Thus the coordinates of the tree structure are: ~qt = ~qt (~qa . The coordinates of the active joints ~qa and elastic DOF ~qe form a set of non-redundant coordinates. Stachera. For this purpose the closed kinematic loop constraints h of the parallel manipulator are introduced: h(~qt ) = h(~qae . respectively.~q p ) = 0.

it was not yet shown how the Jacobians of the serial kinematic chains of the tree structure Ji can be transformed into the Jacobian of the parallel manipulator G. ∈R ∈R nae ×nae nae ×1 . which are necessary for the computation of the compact matrices. Kt ∈ Rnt ×nt and Dt ∈ Rnt ×nt represent the diagonal matrices of the discrete elasticities and discrete damping elements in joint space. 2001). The redundant coordinates of the passive joints.~τt ∈ Rnt ×1 represents all torques/forces of the real and virtual drives of the reduced system and ~ηt (~qt ) ∈ Rnt ×1 is the vector of the gravitational force projected into joint space. The static matrix S describes the relationship between the forces in the arms of the parallel manipulators ~fb ∈ Rna ×1 and the force ~fx on its end-effector “e”. they are expressed only as a function of the coordinates of the active joints ~qa and the elastic DOF ~qe : Mc (~qt )~q¨ae + Cc (~q˙t .~qt )~q˙ae +~ηc (~qt ) + Kc~qae + Dc~q˙ae =~τc . However. Park et al. representing the parameterization of the configuration space from (8) and the static matrix S of the parallel manipulator are used. Merlet. 2000. Consequently the drive torques can be calculated. 1991. Using this method.~q pi . 1999. ˙ + WT Ct W ∈ Rnae ×nae . (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) Proofs of these transformations and their derivations have been published in (Nakamura & Ghodoussi. . (10) W T Mt W ∈ Rnae ×nae . the branch force of the ith chain. For this purpose. An algorithm has been developed to perform this transformation. 3. (17) If the matrix S is not square then S−1 is the pseudo-inverse S+ .3 Derivation of the Jacobian matrix of the parallel manipulator In conventional methods the Jacobian of the parallel manipulator is derived using the velocity vector-loop method (Tsai. 1991).. Yiu et al.~qei ) comprise the vector that relates fbi . the W matrix.. In the following. (11) with: Mc = Kc = Dc = ~τc = WT K t W WT D t W WT~τt ∈ Rnae ×nae . By using the matrix W from (8) the third step of this method is performed to transform the equations of the dynamics of the tree structure (9) into the equations of the closed-link mechanism. result from the closed kinematic loop constraints of the parallel manipulator (4) as well as from their first (7) and second derivatives. 1999) or by analyzing of the parallel manipulator’s statics (Chakarov. . Kock. the Cartesian force. and ~fxi . The elements of the S-matrix ~si (qai . the equations of the dynamics of the tree structure (9) are transformed into the compact equations of the closed-link mechanism (10) and parameterized by the non-redundant coordinates ~qae (11)–(16). . shown in the Figure 2. Cc = WT Mt W ~ηc = WT~ηt ∈ Rnae ×1 . Nakamura. (18) . These forces in the branches ~fb can be calculated using the following relationship:   ~fb = ~s1 . 1999. 2001). ~sna −1 ~fx = S−1 ~fx . That relation can be written: ~fxi =~si fbi . 1989. The L-D’A formulation allows to systematically convert between the single models of serial kinematic chains and the model of the compact parallel manipulator (Nakamura.

.. . the matrix Jt is parametrized with the matrix W. In order to eliminate the dependencies of the coordinates of the passive joint ~q p for the calculation of the Jacobian G of parallel manipulator. 3. . . the new matrix does not yet represent the mapping between the joint and Cartesian velocities nor that between the joint torques/forces and end-effector torques/forces of the parallel manipulator. (21) This pseudo-inverse Jacobian G+T represents the necessary mapping between the Cartesian force ~fx on the endeffector of parallel manipulator and the forces/torques ~τae ∈ Rnae ×1 in the manipulator’s structure in the joint space: ~τae = G+T ~fx (22) The presented method has the significant advantage that the derivation of the serial Jacobians is less complex in comparison to the direct derivation of the compact Jacobian using standard methods. .  ~fbx =   . If more parameters need to be considered . . .4 Direct Dynamics The equations of the direct dynamics are obtained from the compact equations (10) of the manipulator’s inverse dynamics: (23) ~q¨ae = Mc (~qt )−1 (~τc − Cc (~q˙t . the Jacobian of the parallel manipulator can be derived from the following relation: G+T = WT JTt US−1 .Jacobians of the serial kinematic chains. the matrices S and U have to be introduced. Applying the transformations (17) and (19).~q pi . In order to obtain this mapping. 0  . . Jna (19) (20) where Ji (~qai . This method therefore produces compact equations of the direct dynamics of the elastic parallel manipulator.  0 . the Jacobian Jt of the tree-structure is introduced:   J1 . . .  ..fx e fb1 fbna fbi Figure 2: Distribution of the Cartesian force on the end effector ~fx into the branch forces fbi of the parallel manipulator’s arms and in the matrix form with matrix U this relation takes the form:   ~s1 . .  ~fb = U~fb .. . . Jt =  ... . ~0 . . After this parametrization. ~0 .~qei ) are the na . . The disadvantage is that the computations cannot be executed in parallel.~qt )~q˙ae −~ηc (~qt ) − Kc~qae − Dc~q˙ae ). ~sna Now. .

for the modelling. 3.1 Simultaneous calculation of the direct dynamics The compact form of the direct dynamics equations. e. The inputs of each of these equations are the external forces acting upon the end of the particular serial kinematic chain ~fbxi and the input torques τai and ~τ pi . Tsai. 2000. All the torques/forces of the passive joints of the tree-structure have to be calculated. has to be equal (Jarzebowska & Jarzebowski. These equations will now be factored into the equations of motion of the individual serial kinematic chains: Mti (~qti )~q¨ti + Cti (~q˙ti . The torques of the elastic DOF ~τei result from the material properties like stiffness and damping. The input of the tree-structure (9) and of the compact parallel manipulator (10) is the torque/force vector τc . the reduced and the original one. 2007. Finite-Element-Method (Wang & Mills. where i denotes one kinematic chain with the associated variables ~qtiT = qai ~qTpi ~qTei and torques   ~τtiT = τai ~τTpi ~τTei of the active τai and passive ~τ pi joints and additional structure torques ~τei .~qti )~q˙ti +~η pi j (~qti ) + Kpij~qti + Dpij~q˙ti + JTij ~fbxi . a new method for the simultaneous/distributed calculation of the direct dynamics of the elastic parallel manipulator . 1992. as mentioned above. ~fxi represents an external force acting on the end of the ith -branches of the tree-structure. the new torques/forces of the closed-loop constraints acting on the end of each branch. . 2008). especially in control systems with short cycle times. Moreover. The equations of the tree-structure have the known form shown in (9). (25) for i = 1 . ~τ p = ~0. must be calculated. According to the D’Alembert principle the performed virtual work for both systems. Thus. To perform this task. in this system the closed kinematic loop constraints of the elastic parallel structure are represented by forces and torques.. (26) In order to fulfill these conditions. 2004a). the manipulator is handled as a reduced system similar to the approach for the inverse dynamics of the L-D’A formulation. 1989). 1999).~qti )~q˙ti −~ηti (~qti ) − Kti~qti − Dti~q˙ti − JTi ~fxi .4. 2006a. can lead to complications in the real time calculation. It implies following conditions (Stachera. Nakamura & Ghodoussi.g. 2009): ~τa =~τc . the direct dynamics of each serial kinematic chain can be calculated. na .~qti )~q˙ti +~ηti (~qti ) + JTi ~fxi + Kti~qti + Dti~q˙ti =~τti . In this method. .SCDD is suggested (Stachera. (24)   for i = 1 . which are associated with the virtual torques of the passive joints: ~τ pi = Mpij (~qti )~q¨ti + Cpij (~q˙ti . just like in the case of the Lagrangian equations of the first type (Miller & Clavel. The calculation of these torques/forces starts with the computation of the interdependent torques/forces of the tree-structure resulting from the input torque vector ~τc . In order to overcome this limitation. The relation between them is established in (16). Along with the drive torques they are applied to the partial equations of direct dynamics (25). Stachera et al. Stachera & Schumacher. . the working conditions of both systems have to be equal. na . those partial matrices and vectors of the equations of the reduced system (24) are used. the matrices of the compact system may no longer be feasibly calculated in real time due to their size and complexity. However. (27) . The equations of the direct dynamics of each such chain can then be formulated:  ~q¨ti = Mti (~qti )−1 ~τti − Cti (~q˙ti . .

. only the virtual torques (27) of the passive joints are used for the calculation of these differences ∆~τa . it is therefore better to process several small matrices rather than a single large one. (30) i T T T . . more sophisticated algorithms can reduce the complexity of the inversion to O(ne ). has the complexity O(n3 ). Therefore each kinematic chain can be modeled with more parameters and accordingly higher accuracy (Stachera & Schumacher. na . These calculations were carried out with the assumption that one elastic DOF nek exists in each kinematic chain. . ~fbn with ~fbx a and the force takes the end form: ~fxi = ~fxi + ~fˆxi . . In accordance with the conditions (26) and regarding relation (16) the difference between acting torques/forces of the tree-structure and the compact parallel manipulator can be calculated:   ∂~q p T ~τ p . 3. Additionally. na n pk nek SCDD L-D’A Reduction F IVE -BAR 2 1 1 54 64 16 % H EXA 6 2 1 384 1728 78 % T RIGLIDE 3 2 1 162 729 78 % Table 1: Complexity of the direct dynamics calculation The results indicate a considerable reduction of the calculation complexity by using the proposed algorithm. 2008). . the external forces acting on the end-effector of the compact parallel manipulator have to be distributed between all the separate serial kinematic chains. . i = 1 . These forces have to be complemented with the resulting constraint forces (29) = ~fx1 . The distribution of this force (29) in the manipulator’s structure implies the compliance of the condition (26). The relations (17)–(19) can be combined: ~fbx = US+ ~fx . The most frequently used method. . . . ~fxiT .. the computations of the direct dynamics with this decomposition can be performed in parallel. (31) h for i = 1 . The forces from (31) in combination with the torques/forces from (26) cause the same movement of the tree-structure as the movement of the original parallel manipulator as well as the same force and torques distribution in both structures. Now.5 Verification of the new calculation method In the new method . 2005). the LU-Gaussian elimination. ∆~τa =~τc −~τa = (28) ∂~qTa Since the influence of the torques/forces of the elastic DOF (~τe ) upon the manipulator’s movement has already been taken into account during the calculation of the virtual torques ~τ p . . . na . For the computation of the direct dynamics in the joint space of large scale systems. . In the Table 1 the complexity of the matrix inversion indicated by the number of the necessary arithmetical operations is calculated for three different manipulators of the Collaborative Research Center SFB562 (Hesselbach et al. the system is divided into a tree structure in order to accelerate the inversion of the inertia matrix. . the new constraints torques/forces can be calculated: ~fˆxi = J−T [∆~τai −~τ pi ] .the Simultaneous Calculation of the Direct Dynamics (SCDD).for j = 1 . (29) i for i = 1 . na . n p . Now.

8 y in m 0. 1996. The existing differences between the paths traveled by these two elastic models can be accounted for by the numerical precision (Stachera & Schumacher..4 x in m 0. The dark gray line is a result of the L-D’A model and the light gray line from the SCDD model. Furthermore the control algorithms have to be robust enough to be able to tolerate uncertainties of the robot model.4 Q 21 0 0. Moallem et al. 1986. a small numerical error. The models have then been controlled by torques. This error does not constitute any encumbrance to implement this new method. 2000). which increases slowly with time. In order to do this. 2009). which were created by a rigid body model without control. 1972). Even for this standard method. The black line represents the reference trajectory. 2001). For better investigation. According to the Singular-Perturbationmethod. Q11 and Q21 represent the motors. These results show that the models both followed the trajectory with comparable accuracy. The other parameters of this model are not relevant for this comparison. a model of the elastic planar parallel manipulator F IVE -BAR was derived (Stachera. the smaller the error. The error in the SCCD method results from the parallel computation and rounding errors and depends upon the sample interval of the simulation: the smaller the interval.F IVE -BAR A straight line trajectory between two points pA and pE has been chosen. the control law for vibration suppression of robot structure can be designed separately from the motion control of the manipulator (Siciliano & Book. The discrete elasticities k14 = k24 = 5. 2011). As the properties of the manipulator are pose dependent. In this chapter a model-based control algorithm is described in Section 4..4 k 14 p k 24 E 0.8 Figure 3: Trajectory and workspace of elastic planar parallel manipulator . 2008).2 0 Q 11 −0. is identifiable.The new SCDD method has been compared with the L-D’A method in the simulation. 0. 4 Control of the structure’s vibration of a parallel manipulator One of the principal requirements for the structural. 2004b. Figure 4 shows the distance between the endpoints of both kinematic chains. the error of the standard L-D’A is additionally presented in Figure 4(b). Algermissen & Sinapius. Algermissen et al.1 along with the update strategy . because in the field of numerical methods algorithms are known that deal with the stabilization of the numerical calculation and increasing of the computation accuracy (Baumgarte. The light gray line in Figure 4(a) shows the numerical error of the SCDD model and the black line of the L-D’A method. this implies the necessity of the use of model-based control algorithms (Asada & Slotine.464 × 106 [N/m] were considered in all upper arms of the manipulator. Levine. 1988. as well as the motion control is a constant control quality all over the workspace. This demand can not be fulfilled using gain-scheduling-control (Wang & Mills. which can only be determined with a limited precision. 2005.6 pA E p 0. shown in Figure 3. Hermle.

05 0.05 0. 4. These methods use additional spring-mass-dampersystems as dynamic vibration absorbers. 1993). Each vibration mode possesses its own controller.2 0.1 0. ka the virtual stiffness.1 Linear robust controller The choice of the control structure was motivated by methods for passive vibration suppression. mmod the effective vibrating mass.25 0. xa the actuator displacement and va the controller gain. the effect of the controller upon the system mainly equals the product of the accelerations produced by the actuator x¨a and the effective vibrating mass mmod .15 t in s ((b)) L-D’A Method Figure 4: Numerical error of the SCDD and LDA method in Section 4.4 using the experimental results obtained with the F IVE -BAR manipulator. The approach is validated in Sects.15 0.3 and 4. Figure 5 depicts the basic idea for the controller design. 4. The parameters of the virtual spring-mass-damper-system formed by the actuator and each . Therefore. The transfer function Ga (s) describes the relationship between the force measured by the sensor fs (controller input) and the actuator forces caused by the control action fa (controller output). that the structure exhibits a very low damping and its natural damping factors can be neglected (dmod ≈ 0).1 0.−10 Δs in m x 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 0. which are commonly applied to linear systems (Fischer & Stephan. which are installed with poorly damped systems and tuned in order to suppress its natural frequency. 2003): Ga (s) = L { fa } L {mmod x¨a } mmod va s2 = = .2 0.25 t in s ((a)) SCDD Method −14 Δs in m x 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 0. L { fs } L { fs } mmod s2 + da s + ka (32) with da denoting the virtual attenuation factor. The controller coefficients for each mode are calculated with the assumption. In the selected approach the actuator is chosen to behave like a spring resulting in a controller with a D2 T2 transfer function (Stachera & Schumacher.2 to adjust the controller parameters to the varying nonlinear plant.

This feature is very important for complex non-linear systems. Additionally. By comparing the coefficients of the closed-loop system with the desired transfer function the parameters ka and da can be determined: ka = 4 kmod = βmod kmod . Any of those modal controllers is designed for each of the controlled structural modes of the manipulator and for each of the used actuators. which has to ensure very good damping of the system: p da = 2 ka mmod . Since most manipulators belong to the family of nonlinear systems. (34) The parameters kmod and mmod represent the stiffness and the effective vibrating mass of a single structural mode projected into the direction of the actuator for a complex systems. the new control algorithm allows a better usage of the actuators’ range than the reference control law. . and the dark gray line the behavior of the actuator. The new D2 T2 -Controller (32) combined with the proposed parameters (33) and (34) was compared in the simulation with LQ-Controller in order to investigate its performance. π2 − 4 (33) with βmod the relation factor between both stiffnesses and the virtual attenuation factor. 2009). that the new controller possesses an efficiency comparable to the reference control law derived for that specific point and at the same time requires a lower computational effort than the LQ-Controller. Further information regarding the used formula and the proof of robustness and stability are detailed in (Stachera & Schumacher. the frequencies of their respective modes change during motion. as can be seen by the symmetrical actuator action. the light gray line the undamped vibration without control. The black line shows the behavior of the system under control. The answer of the controlled closed-loop system shows clearly. as shown in Figure 5(b). The simulation’s results for both controllers are presented in Figure 6.sensor fS xa actuator n-D2T2 f12 kVS Σ f13 1-D2T2 dmod xr kmod mmod fe y 0 f12 x0 f13 Controller ((a)) One-mode-model of the vibration ((b)) Superposition of the modal controllers Figure 5: Basic ideas for the controller design one-mode-system have to be chosen in a way that allows the closed-loop control system to return to its resting point as quickly as possible without oscillating. The actuator response is computed from superposition of the modal controllers associated with him. Stachera. Therefore the closed-loop system has to show a behavior of a critically damped second order system. 2003. where the controllers’ parameters have to be calculated for a high number of controllers at every time step of the working digital control system. Consequently the parameters kmod and mmod have to be updated according to the end-effector position.

2005). Nakamura & Ghodoussi. 2009).2 Application of the manipulator characteristics for the adjustment of the controller parameter A linear controller was proposed for the control of the structural vibrations of an elastic parallel manipulator. In some cases the generation of the fields for every mode is advisable to be able to analyze them separately. The force ellipsoids allow the determination of the robot properties with regard to the generation of forces and the resistance against forces and. the unit vector k~fx k = 1 describing the spatial direction. therefore. 1999. 1990. also the calculation of the structural stiffness in an arbitrary direction in space. the features of the force and inertia ellipsoids were utilized (Tsai. Ceccarelli & Carbone. the analysis of separated modes can require the separate calculation of each field. The stiffness can be derived as follows: DIR kmod = kxy = q ~fxT NTx Nx ~fx −1 (35) with Nx = K−1 x denoting the compliance matrix (the inverse of the stiffness matrix in the task coordinate frame). Gosselin. 1989. therefore it determines the inertia of the robot structure into a given direction. Thus the control algorithm consists of the transfer function (32). In order to adjust the modal controller to the varying nonlinear plant. 3. 1999. ~ x and the inertia matrix M ~ x are pose-dependent and have to be calculated in each The compliance matrix N control step using the non-linear model of the manipulators dynamics. The effective vibrating mass differs from the projected inertia by a factor λ and can be calculated from: q mmod = mDIR = λ ~x¨xT MTx Mx ~x¨x (36) xy with the unit vector k~x¨x k = 1 determining the spatial direction and MTx describing the inertia matrix of the manipulator in the task frame (Stachera. Here again. The inertial ellipsoid describes the ability of the manipulator to generate a unit force in an arbitrary spatial direction. . as derived in Sec.40 30 30 20 f in N f in N 40 ×10 10 0 −10 0 20 ×10 10 0 5 10 15 t in ms 20 −10 0 25 ((a)) D2 T2 -Controller 5 10 15 t in ms 20 25 ((b)) LQ-Controller Figure 6: Comparison of the control strategies 4. the parameters of the controller (33) and (34) and the adaption formulas (35) and (36). Chakarov.

ki2 = 4. mi3 = 0. In the robot model each upper arms’ elasticities are modeled by the lumped parameters k14 and k24 .additional mass at the end-effector.063 [kg].125 [kg] . The parameters have the following values: i = 1. li2 = 0. as depicted in Figure 7(b).piezo actuators. mi2 = 0. k14 m13.523 [kg] . f12 and f22 represent the sensors’ forces measured in the left and right upper link.016 [m]. k22 l23 l22 l12 m 11 O4 l21 y1 l11 Q11 O1 z1 ((a)) Elastic planar parallel manipulator F IVE -BAR m24. Consequently.0 . k13 m12. di2 = 819. The controllers’ parameters are calculated in the block “Adjustment of the controllers” based on the measured or observed states of the elastic manipulator at each time step. k23 m22. mi1 = 0. f13 and f23 are the actuators’ forces of the piezo-actuators integrated into the upper left and right link.piezo sensors. k24 l13 O2 e p a y 5 m 21 x1 O5 z5 Q21 x5 ((b)) Model parameters of the F IVE -BAR manipulator Figure 7: Elastic planar parallel manipulator F IVE -BAR crank .3 Verification of the proposed control law The proposed control algorithm was examined using the elastic planar parallel manipulator F IVE -BAR (see Figure 7(a)).0 .y Elastic Parallel Manipulator t11 t21 Control of the rigid body f 13 f 23 Figure 8: Control Architecture implemented for the F IVE -BAR elastic planar parallel manipulator The architecture of the proposed controller. .22 × 109 [N/m]. k12 l14 l24 m23. 2. li3 = 0.0 [kg] . as implemented to control the structural vibrations of the elastic planar parallel manipulator F IVE -BAR is shown in the Figure 8. ki3 . Adjustment of the controllers Parameters States Control of the structure Parameters Parameters f 12 f 22 Trajectory x.404 [m]. li4 = 0. di4 = 10. Idrive = 0. me = 1. τ11 and τ21 are the torques of the left and right drive respectively. the new parameters are transmitted to the controllers.08 [m].elastic robot arms. li1 = 0.4.stiff me O3 m14.464 × 106 [N/m]. ki4 = 5. mi4 = 0.089 [kgm2 ] .186 [kg].moment of inertia at the drives.3 [m].

15 0. The vibrations of the elastic modes were excited by the stepwise change of the accelerations caused by the drive torques. as shown in Figure 3. as well as the control quality.2 0. The effort of the actuators. Without the use of the controller. during the motion as well as after the completion of the trajectory. whereas they are efficiently attenuated after the activation of the control.25 0. The results of the controller action are shown in Figure 10(a) for the piezo-sensors and in Figure 10(b) for the 3-axial acceleration sensor. 4. The attenuation of the z-components of the oscillations at the end-effector was 7.05 0. e. still need to be addressed in 1A detailed discussion of the experimental and simulative results can be found in (Stachera. distinct vibrations are visible. The boxes show magnifications by 1.5. This meets the demands placed upon the control algorithm. although the experiments were performed only for static poses and the performance of the control was not good enough. respectively.15 0. These implementation difficulties. Figure 9 depicts the forces f12 and f22 at the sensors during the motion along the given trajectory with (black) and without (light gray) structural control.which compute the new output of the structural control. remains nearly constant in each point of the trajectory.2 0. 2009) . Responsible for this poor performance was a phase shift from the signal processing. which was expected but not considered and modeled in this first implementation of the new control strategy 1 .1 0.3 dB.1 0. The magnifications in Figure 9 provide further details for two points on the trajectory.g. the phase shift due to the digital signal processing.05 0. 250 f12 in N 125 0 −125 −250 0 0. The force measured at the respective piezo sensor served as an input for the controller. Every actuator was driven by a one single-mode controller. The dominant oscillations were perpendicular to the working plane and therefore a 3-axial acceleration sensor attached to the end-effector was used for the control strategy. These experimental results confirm the applicability of the new control algorithm and the chosen design strategy.25 250 f22 in N 125 0 −125 −250 0 t in s Figure 9: Vibration suppression on the elastic parallel manipulator F IVE -BAR The simulations were performed in the following way: The controllers were activated during a motion along a straight line trajectory.4 Experimental results The presented experiments were carried out for one pose of the manipulator (Q11 = 135◦ and Q12 = 45◦ ) and with an additional payload at the end-effector me = 2 kg. These experiments have shown that the main sources of the vibrations are located in the passive joints of the manipulator.5 and 2.

of 22nd International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction (ISARC) Ferrara.5 3 3. It allows a significant reduction of the complexity of the calculations. .5 4 2 2.. & Monner.5 t in s 4 50 0 −50 5. where this calculation time can be a critical point for the implementation of the system’s observers or sophisticated model-based control strategies.5 3 3. Based upon these results. Italy. For the modelling of the manipulators’ dynamics.5 3 3. (2005). References Algermissen. P.5 t in s ((a)) Measurements using piezosensors 4 4 a22 in m/s 2 a12 in m/s 2 80 40 0 −40 −80 −120 2 az in m/s 2 f12 in N f22 in N 80 40 0 −40 −80 −120 50 0 −50 2 2. The knowledge of manipulator’s dynamics has allowed the design of a new model-based control law for vibration suppression in the manipulator’s structure. S.5 3 3... an enhancement of the Lagrange-D’Alembert formulation has been proposed using a new algorithm for the derivation of the Jacobian of parallel manipulators. M. Applied robust control for vibration suppression in parallel robots.5 3 3. A robust linear controller combined with a pose-dependent adjustment law has been conceptualized and presented. E.2 2.0 0 −5.5 2. In Proc. a method has been presented to simultaneously calculate the direct dynamics of parallel and furthermore elastic parallel manipulators.5 4 2 2.. Future work will be directed towards applying the presented methods to parallel kinematic machines offering more degrees of freedom.0 ((b)) Measurements using a 3-axial accelerometer Figure 10: Measurements future work in order to apply the proposed controller scheme to a wider range of mechanisms. Keimer. The performance and potential of the new algorithm has been confirmed by simulative and experimental examinations. R. 5 Conclusions In this chapter the modelling and control of structural vibrations of elastic parallel manipulators has been discussed. Rose. Breitbach. H. This procedure has been demonstrated for the F IVE -BAR manipulator.

Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics.. Breitbach.. I. Wahl (Eds.. H. E. (2011).. Gosselin. S. (1978)... Last. W. S. N. S. & Carbone. Leuven. S. In P. Algermissen. C. Proc. Mechatronics 15. 799 –805).). 203 – 219). Asada. T. & Stachera. M. (1999). J. C. J. H. Applied Mathematics and Computer Science. Bier. HUTTE. Schuetz. Pergamon: Mechanism and Machine Theory. Mechanische Schwingungen. Entwurf intelligenter Strukturen unter Einbeziehung der Regelung. U. Automatisierungstechnik. A. C. Fachbuchverlag Leipzig . M. Zeitschrift f¨ur angewandte Mathematik und Mechanik. of the 2nd International Colloquium of the Collaborative Research Center 562 . Springer. Benedict.Robotic Systems for Handling and Assembly. Chakarov.. Gabbert. (2005). Hesselbach. In D. In Proc. (1998). (2002). Numerical and experimental analysis of the stiffness performances of parallel manipulators. (1986). Proc. Rose. Angewandte robuste Regelung zur Schwingungsunterdr¨uckung am Parallelroboter mit adaptronischen Komponenten.. K.). 373–389. Gabbert. J. Stuttgart: VDI. 1–7). & F. & Keimer.. Technische Mechanik 4. & Tesar. Model formulation of complex mechanisms with multiple inputs: Part II . Stiffness mapping for parallel manipulators. 8(2). Last. (1997). Stable inversion control for flexible link manipulators. G. (2005). volume 8 of Fortschritt-Berichte. (1928). B¨uttgenbach. Rose. (1990). 6th edition. S.. Wahl (Eds.). J. Poland. (2007). Beres. Wogersien. Hauger. Dynamik der Mehrkurbelgetriebe. Rose. Journal of Mechanical Design. G. ¨ Czichos. Sacramento. Wahl (Eds. & Sinapius. 755 – 761. 14 – 17). Proc. C. I..Robotic Systems for Handling and Assembly (pp. Fischer. E. Hierarchische Regelung globaler Bewegungen elastischer Roboter. In Adaptronic Congress (pp.. Algermissen.Algermissen.. Braunschweig: Shaker. S. E. Wahl (Eds. W. In D.The dynamic model. Technical University Press Zielona Gora. Aachen: Shaker. 6(3). J..Robotic Systems for Handling and Assembly (pp. M. volume 67 of Springer Tracts in Advanced Robotics (pp. 2005. M. 231 – 262. U. & Stachera. (2005). Hermle. S. J. In Symposium on Mechatronics and Smart materials. M. D. Schulz. R. & Slotine. 43 65. M. A. Conference on Mechanical Vibration and Noise (pp. Sch¨utz & F. Adaptive Tools in Parallel Robotics. & F. & Sasiadek.. & Weber. Baumgarte. Belgium: IEEE. Springer Berlin / Heidelberg. Robust gain-scheduling control for parallel robots with smartstructure components. Aachen: Shaker Verlag. & Nestorovic-Trajkov. M. 100. Study of the passive compliance of parallel manipulators. Ed. C. Keimer.. D. R. 21 – 35). 15. (2008). M. . 432 – 438. Hildesheim. M.. 43 65. 191 – 206). Budde. & Wriggers. Stabilization of constraints and integrals of motion in dynamical systems. Springer. Robotic Systems for Handling and Assembly. (1993). P.-T. of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) (pp. In P. (1972).. of the 2nd International Colloquium of the Collaborative Research Centre 562 . Panzieri. 29th edition.. Finite element dynamic model of multilink flexible manipulators. Germany. of the 3rd International Colloquium of the Collaborative Research Center SFB 562 . Algermissen. Die Grundlagen der Ingenieurwissenschaften. C. 377–382.. Z. USA. & G¨uttler. (1995). Pietsch. W. Beyer. M. Gross. (2001). U. Actuator placement in smart structures by discrete-continuous optimization. 122 – 133. De Luca. John Wiley & Sons.. 50. H. Sinapius. Inc. CA. R. & Ulivi. Koeppe. Budde. (1989).. volume 14 of Fortschritte in der Robotik (pp. Robust gain scheduling for smart-structures in parallel robots. Ceccarelli. Oldenbourg Verlag. A. Passive joint-sensor for parallel robots. Robot analysis and control. 159–174).K¨oln. 34. Raatz. & F. 5(2). 1–36. 1.. & Stephan. (2004). Plitea. K.. D.).

413–427). K..-P. J.). on Robotics and Applications . 34. & Sastry. 294 − −302. Springer Verlag. Murray. Wilson. Khalil. Korea: IEEE. volume 8 of Fortschritt . (1989). (2005b). Design and implementation of adaptronic robot components. Parallelroboter mit Antriebredundanz. Pergamon: Mechanism and Machine Theory. A mathematical introduction to robotic manipulation. Eisler. The Lagrange-based model of Delta-4 robot dynamics.. & Ghodoussi. Flexible-link robot manipulators: Control techniques and structural design. Automatica.. R. (2000). (2005a). J. S. M. R. Seul. Flexible robot dynamics and controls. & Clavel. Mechanika Og´olna. W. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) (pp.-C. 1825 – 1834. Parallel Robots. Li. Rose. Edmonton. & Khorasani. Krefft. K. Modelling of mechanical system with lumped elasticity. 429–444).. R. D. Dynamics computation of closed-link robot mechanisms with nonredundant and redundant actuators. J.. 357 – 362). & Hesselbach. Robotic Systems for Handling and Assembly.. M. (2001). A decomposition of the manipulator inertia matrix. Feddema. D.Berichte. 8. In D. K. (2002). Moallem.. Schwingungen. G. & Vietor. The Control Handbook. 13(2). (1996). 1st edition. Mechatronische Systeme: Grundlagen. & Popp. C.. K. USA. V. (2001). S. Levine. Ed. Otremba. Choi. London: Springer. Z. C. Kluwer Academics Publishers. D. Y. S. Pavlovic. Wahl (Eds. & Khorasani.. E. of ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition Orlando. M. Springer Berlin / Heidelberg. Nakamura. 1st edition. Robinett. S. & Stokes. Nonlinear tip-position tracking control of a flexible-link manipulator: Theory and experiments. N. Number 257 in Lecture Notes in Control and Information Sciences. W. J. M.RA (pp. S. Modal based correction methods for the placement of piezoceramic modules.Isermann. 731–751. D. Conf. V. Dohrmann. R. Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN. volume 67 of Springer Tracts in Advanced Robotics (pp. 301 − −304. W. (2000). CRC Press LLC. R. 49–54. & Sinapius. K. Y. of IEEE International Conference on Automation Science and Engineering (pp.. D¨usseldorf: VDI. (1997). Parker. Piedboeuf.).. M.. G. S. (2005). Sch¨utz & F. PIEEEJ R A. 249 – 254). (2001). J.. Sch¨utz & F. Springer. Wahl (Eds. USA: IEEE. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers: International Federation for System Research IFSR. volume 67 of Springer Tracts in Advanced Robotics (pp. 3965 – 3970). Patel. Advanced robotics: redundancy and optimization. & Hesselbach. (1994). Germany. Franke. 37. (1992). F. H. Miller. 2832 – 2839). (2002). Jarzebowska. Park. (1997). Mechanik. Symbolic formulation of closed chain dynamics in independent coordinates. USA. In Proc. Passive and adaptive joints for parallel robots. (2000). Krefft. R. M. Moallem. IEEEJ R A. K. Kock. Magnus. CRC Press and IEEE Press. R. In Proc. of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) (pp.-J.. 5(3).. In D. Six methods to model a flexible beam rotating in the vertical plane. M. R. Florida. of IASTED Int. Nakamura. & Gautier. (1999). R. Merlet. (2011). In Proc. T. Robotic Systems for Handling and Assembly. Patel. & Ploen. In Proc.. Robotersysteme. R. J. USA. Cambrige. Kanada.. M. (1991). (2011). Keimer.. Stuttgart: Teubner Studienb¨ucher. Saha. Elastodynamic optimization of parallel kinematics. G. & Jarzebowski. Springer Berlin / Heidelberg.. In Proc. Inkermann. (2000). San Francisco. A way to the optimal design of parallel robots with high dynamic capabilities. G. . Warszawa. M.

Wang. X. W. (1999). An approach to direct kinematics of a planar parallel elastic manipulator and analysis for the proper definition of its workspace. Stachera. & Schumacher. John Wiley and Sons. & Schumacher. Seul. G¨ottingen. of IEEE Control Theory and Applications. 7(2).. K. & Li. F. Automation and Robotics. Stachera. G. H. Spong. parallele Manipulatoren zur Regelung der Strukturschwingungen. . & Robinett. Stachera. (2004a). USA: IEEE. Dynamik flexibler Mehrk¨orpersysteme. 4308–4313). San Francisco. G. Tip-trajectory tracking control of single-link flexible robots by output redefinition. W. Krishnan. Y.: IEEE. Stachera. of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) (pp.. K. & Mills. Multibody System Dynamics. 3766 – 3771). of the IASTED Asian Conference on Modelling and Simulation (AsiaMS 2007) Beijing. P. H. K. 580 – 587).. & Ang. (pp. (1999).. Wang. & Mills. ISBN 978-3-90261341-7. USA: IEEE Computer Society. K. Wobbe. Yiu. Z. Robot dynamics and control. Yang. A singular perturbation approach to control of lightweight flexible manipulators. (2003). (2004b). Liu. In Proc. A. G. & Sch¨onecker. (2002). D. Wierach.link / flexible . of 2004 ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress (IMECE2004) (pp. Poland: IEEE. China: IEEE. I-Tech Education and Publishing. In Proc.. & Cheng. 1 – 8). C. J. Parker. Poland: IEEE. 145 – 170. In Proc. In Proc. 7(4). O. 79 − −90. Stachera. Xiong. Germany. Inc. Bauweisen und Anwendungen von Piezokompositen in der Adaptronik.. On the dynamics of parallel manipulators. F. Z. Washington.. P. J. of the 9th IEEE International Conference on Methods and Models in Automation and Robotics (MMAR) Miedzyzdroje. (2006a). Stachera. (1988). of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) (pp. 261 – 276). A new method for the direct dynamics’ calculation of parallel manipulators. J. DC. PhD thesis. & Book. Korea: IEEE. Robot analysis: the mechanics of serial and parallel manipulators.Schwertassek. In Adaptronic Congress (pp. of the 6th World Congress on Intelligent Control Automation (WCICA) Dalian. R. J. H. Siciliano. & Wallrapp. In Proc. H. In Proc. H. (2000). W. G. & Schumacher. Vienna. (2000). In Proc. D. 34 – 38). B. (2005). J. USA: IEEE. Starr. Parallel computational algorithms for the simulation of closed-loop robotic systems. Wang. John Wiley and Sons. W.joint robots. of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) (pp. China: IASTED. (2007).-W. X. In Proc. W. IEEEJ R A. Robust control design for flexible . & Gosselin. R. of the 12th IEEE International Conference on Methods and Models in Automation and Robotics (MMAR) (pp. K. Stachera. (2000). A FEM model for active vibration control of flexible linkages. K. M. Miedzyzdroje. Institute of Control Engineering. L. Springer Netherlands. An approach for the simultaneous calculation of the direct dynamics of parallel manipulators. L. 1496 – 1500).. In Proc. Jacobian-based derivation of dynamics equations of elastic parallel manipulators. TU Braunschweig. Austria. Inc. New Orleans. C. of the International Conference on Parallel Computing Applications in Electrical Engineering (PARELEC2000) (pp. (2005). Wang. (2001). of the 11th IEEE International Conference on Methods and Models in Automation and Robotics (MMAR) Miedzyzdroje. In Proc. K. K. Konzepte f¨ur elastische. (1989). In Proc. chapter Derivation and calculation of the dynamics of elastic parallel manipulators.. G. Cheng. Gosselin. K. 1 – 11).. Anaheim: ASME. Substructuring dynamic modeling and active vibration control of a smart parallel platform. Braunschweig/Wiesbaden: Vieweg. (2006b). (2009). Tsai.. Poland: IEEE. M. X. Kluwer Academic Publishers. volume 147 (pp. Modeling and simulation of robotic systems with closed kinematic chains using the virtual spring approach. (2008). M. Robust vibration control of flexible planar parallel robot. 751 – 758). M... & Vidyasagar. Wilson. K. 1th edition.