Dynamic Modeling and Computed Torque Control

of a 3-DOF Spherical Parallel Manipulator

Iman Yahyapour∗ , Mojtaba Yazdani† , Mehdi Tale Masouleh‡ , and Mahmoud Ghafouri Tabrizi§
∗ Humanand Robot Interaction Laboratory, Faculty of New Sciences and Technologies,
University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran, Email: iman.yahyapour@ut.ac.ir
† Department of Mechanical Engineering,

AmirKabir University of Technology (Tehran Polytechnic), Tehran, Iran, Email: mojtaba.yazdani@aut.ac.ir

‡ Human and Robot Interaction Laboratory, Faculty of New Sciences and Technologies,

University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran, Email: m.t.masouleh@ut.ac.ir

§ Mechatronic Engineering Department,

‫ﺘ‬ ‫ﻣ‬
Qazvin Islamic Azad University, Qazvin, Iran, Email: m.ghafouri@qiau.ac.ir

‫ﺐ‬ ‫ﻠ‬
Abstract—This paper investigates the dynamic modeling of inverse dynamic problem of this manipulator. Zhao and Li [5]
a 3-degree-of-freedom spherical parallel manipulator, called the investigated the inverse dynamic analysis of a 3-RRRT joint

‫ﺎ‬ ‫ﺳ‬
Agile Eye, first build at Laval University. The approach used manipulator. They combined screw theory and principle of

‫ﯾ‬
in this paper is based on detaching the manipulator into sev- virtual work approach to solve the inverse dynamic problem

‫ﺖ‬
eral subsystems and applying a consecutive synergy between of the manipulator.
kinematic analysis, Lagrangian and Newtonian approaches. In
A basic problem in controlling robots is to make the manip-
this regard, the manipulator under study is detached to four
subsystems. After writing down the kinematic equations of all ulator follow a prescribed desired trajectory. Before the robot
the three subsystems, the Lagrangian and Newtonian approaches can do any useful work, its position should be in the right

m
are blended and finally the dynamic model of the 3-DOF Agile place at the right instances. Through the years many kinds

o
Eye is obtained. Finally, the problem leads to a system of 12 of robot control schemes have been proposed. However, most

. c
equations and 18 unknowns, which has been simplified to have a of them can be considered as special cases of the class of

e
fully constraint system of equations. The results are put into Computed Torque Method (CTM) [6] which is the technique

i t
contrast by the one obtained with a analyser software, MD- of applying feedback linearization to nonlinear systems. Com-

S
Adams. Then a co-simulation between MATLAB and MD-Adams puted torque, at the same time, is a special application of

b
has been accomplished in order to control the Agile Eye with

a
feedback linearization of nonlinear systems, which has gained

l
computed torque control method. The latter method has led to

t
popularity in modern systems theory [7]. This method needs

a
the end-effector (EE) to follow the desired trajectory perfectly.
the inverse dynamic model to calculate the actuation torques

M
I. I NTRODUCTION
The primary researches of robotic manipulators, Parallel
Mechanisms (PMs) among others, leads to face the challenges
on their kinematic and dynamic analysis. The fact that they
have not anthropomorphic character, like the serial manipu-
lators, which is mainly caused by the presence of passive
joints and having multi-link limbs are the main reasons of
these challenges. The complexity in the dynamic analysis of
overconstraint PMs, the central subject of this paper, increases
considerably where the redundant constraints imposed by each
limb should be take into account [1].
In the context of dynamic analysis of PMs, some works have
been conducted. Thanh et al. [2] introduced a general solution
of the inverse dynamics problem of parallel robots including
mechanisms with reduced mobility as well as redundant struc-
tures. Li and Xu [3] designed a modified DELTA parallel robot
with applications in cardiopulmonary resuscitation and ana-
lyzed the dynamic properties. Dasgupta and Mruthyunjaya [4]
presented an inverse dynamic formulation by the Newton-Euler
approach for the Gough-Stewart platform manipulator of the
most general architecture and models all the dynamic and
gravity effects. They separated each link of Gough-Stewart
platform and applied the Newton-Eulers concept to solve the
978-1-4799-6743-8/14/$31.00
2014
c IEEE
resulted from a desired motion [6]–[9]. Kovács et al. [10] have
presented the motion control of a pendulum like underactuated
service robot called ACROBOTER. As the first step, they
obtained the inverse dynamics model of the manipulator. Then
CTM with a PD controller is applied to the manipulator
using the extracted dynamic model. Piltan et. al [11] have
described the MATLAB/SIMULINK realization of the PUMA
560 robot manipulator with a position control methodology.
Li and Xu [12] have used the intuitive co-simulations with
the combination of MATLAB/Simulink and MD-ADAMS in
order to control a 3-PRC translational parallel manipulator.
The same approach has been recruited in the present paper in
order to simulate the motion control of the Agile Eye [13], a
3-DOF spherical parallel manipulator built for the first time
in Laval University, which will be discussed in details in the
corresponding section.
This paper aims at obtaining the dynamic model and control
of the Agile Eye as an over-constraint PM with 3 rotational
spherical DOF. After extracting the dynamic model, control
of the manipulator has been discussed using the CTM on the
basis of the obtained dynamic model. In the approach proposed
in this paper for the dynamic modeling, which is presented
by authors in [14], the Agile Eye is separated from specific
joints to constitute 4 subsystems, consisting 3 RR subsystems
plus the EE. After extracting the kinematic model of each RR
subsystem, a developed Lagrange equation in task space is

MatlabSite.com ‫ﻣﺘﻠﺐ ﺳﺎﯾﺖ‬

 z y
x′
O
β

γ
z y

O x
w
v
α2
g
α1
θ3 r
θ2

θ1

‫ﺘ‬ ‫ﻣ‬
Fig. 1: CAD model of the 3-DOF spherical parallel manipu-

‫ﻠ‬
lator, the Agile eye [13]. u

‫ﺎ‬ ‫ﺳ‬ ‫ﺐ‬

Fig. 2: Schematic of the Agile Eye and the unit vectors defined

‫ﯾ‬
written for each of the latter subsystems, which result in 9 using the D-H convention.

‫ﺖ‬
equations for the legs. Finally, in order to couple the latter 9
equations of the legs with the EE, the dynamic model of the
EE is derived by resorting to Newton-Euler approach. Solving
these 12 equations, 9 from the dynamic model of the legs plus in [14], which discussed the dynamic model of a 3-PRRR
3 equations from the dynamic model of the EE, results in the manipulator. Therefore, the explanation of this approach is

m
actuation forces, i.e., the inverse dynamic problem of the Agile skipped and is not presented in details due to the page

co
Eye. However, due to overconstraint structure of the Agile Eye, limitation.

e .
the number of unknowns in the latter equations are more than

i t
12, but by applying some mechanical simplifications in the A. Defining the Subsystems

S
joints of the manipulator, without changing the motion pattern

b
performed by the end-effector, a proper inverse dynamic model The main reasoning behind dividing the mechanism into

a
its constitutive subsystems is to relate each actuation force

l
for the Agile Eye was obtained.

t
to the acceleration of the EE. In the case of the Agile Eye,

a
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. First
the architecture of the Agile Eye is broadly reviewed. Then upon detaching the EE from its attached limbs, the subsystems

M
the essential to establish a general framework for obtaining
the dynamic model of PMs is laid down by touching upon
some preliminary concepts in dynamic of robotic mechanical
systems. The proposed general approach is applied to the Agile
Eye. Thereupon the results obtained by the latter approach
are put into contrast to the ones obtained by a dynamic
analysis simulator software, MD-Adams. Finally, the so called
CTM is used to control the manipulator. Considering the
fact that, the real mechanism has not been available in order
to experimentally control the manipulator, MD-Adams and
MATLAB/Simulink have been used in the control modeling
simulation process.
II. A RCHITECTURE OF T HE AGILE E YE
The Agile Eye, which is depicted in Fig. 1, is a 3-RRR
spherical parallel mechanism in which the axes of all pairs of
adjacent joints are orthogonal, as shown in Fig. 2, and pass
through a common fixed point. Based on the Agile Eye design,
a camera-orienting device was constructed at Laval University
in mid-90th [15], [16].
III. DYNAMIC M ODELING OF THE AGILE E YE
Dynamic modeling of the Agile Eye is discussed in this
section based on the general approach proposed by authors
becomes three RRR limbs plus the EE, which leads to four
subsystem as a whole. The concept in separating one limb
from the EE is depicted in Fig. 3. Then dynamic model of
each subsystem should be extracted using the Lagrangian and
Newtonian approaches.
B. Kinematic Modeling of the Limbs
In order to find the kinematic model of one limb, Denavit-
Hartenberg (D-H) parameters are severed, which leads to the
values presented in Table I, in which λ, α1 , α2 and θi i =
1, 2, 3 are illustrated in Fig. 2. Moreover, η1 is the angle
between x-axis of the fixed coordinate system and the x-axis
of the coordinate system attached to the first frame. The latter
parameters lead to calculation of rotation matrices of the first,
second and third revolute joint, which can be expressed as Q1 ,
Q2 and Q3 , respectively. Applying the latter rotation matrices,
the unit vectors of the first, second and third revolute joints
in the coordinate systems attached to them, which are shown
in Fig. 2 as u, w and v, respectively, can be expressed in the
fixed coordinate system, which is shown as O in Fig. 2. Thus,
one has:
u0 = Q0 u, (1)
w0 = Q0 Q1 w, (2)
v0 = Q0 Q1 Q2 v. (3)

MatlabSite.com ‫ﻣﺘﻠﺐ ﺳﺎﯾﺖ‬

 In Eq. (7), I, named as inertia matrix, is a 2×2 symmetric
Fy wL1 matrix for which the first row consists in the coefficients of
My θ12 and θ1 θ2 and the second row consists in the coefficients of
θ1 θ2 and θ22 of the kinetic energy equation. Moreover, G is
Fz Mx the potential energy of the mechanism and the gravity matrix
Mx Fx will be calculated as:
Fx  T
Fz ∂G ∂G ∂G
= , , (9)
Fy ∂θ ∂θ1 ∂θ2
My
and τ n is the torque matrix applied to each joint, which for
a RR linkage is a 2×1 matrix. Equation (7) can be developed
in order to map the dynamic equations from the task space to
the joint space. Skipping mathematical derivations, the wrench
exerted to the last revolute joint of a limb can be mapped into
joint space as follows:
τ eL1 = JTL1 wL1 , (10)

‫ﻠ‬ ‫ﺘ‬ ‫ﻣ‬

Fig. 3: The concept of dividing the limbs from the EE. in which JL1 is the Jacobian matrix of the separated limb and
wL1 is the wrench applied to the third R joint of the limb, as

‫ﺐ‬
depicted in Fig. 3. The Jacobian matrix of the RR subsystem

‫ﺳ‬
is a 6×2 matrix, which can be obtained as follow:

‫ﯾ‬ ‫ﺎ‬
Moreover, a rotation matrix is defined as Q∗ to map v to
 
u w
the mobile coordinate system, shown as O0 in Fig. 2, in its JL1 = . (11)

‫ﺖ‬
u×r w×r
reference position where all its DOFs are equal to zero:
where u and v are unit vectors of first and second revolute
v∗ = Q∗ v. (4) joint, respectively as illustrated in Fig. 2. Moreover, the wrench
Furthermore, another rotation matrix can be defined in order matrix can be introduced as:

m
T

o
to map the position of the EE as R. As previously mentioned, wL1 = [Fx1 , Fy1 , Fz1 , Mx1 , My1 , 0] . (12)

c
Agile Eye has 3-DOF and if each of the DOFs is expressed

.
After mapping the applied wrench to the joint space, the torque

e
by a rotation matirx as Rφ , Rψ and Rζ . Thus, one has the

i t
following for R: matrix in Eq. (7) for the first limb can be written as:

S
τ nL1 = τ aL1 + τ eL1 , (13)

b
R = Rφ Rψ Rζ . (5)

l a
where τ aL1 , which stands for the actuation matrix of this limb,

t
The latter rotation matrix can be used to express v∗ in the

a
fixed coordinate system: is a 2×1 vector as follows:
T

M
τ aL1 = [τ1 , 0] , (14)
v0 = Rv∗ . (6)
and τ eL1 in Eq. (13) is derived from Eq. (10). Due to limited
Upon calculating all the unit vectors in the fixed frame and by
space, calculations of I and G in Eq. (7) are not presented here,
inner producting them in proper order, all the kinematic values
although it can be found in [17] with details. After obtaining I
containing θ1 , θ2 and θ3 can be derived.
and G , Eq. (8) can be used in order to find V matrix, which
is then used in Eq. (7). Thereupon, by employing Eqs. (7-14)
C. Dynamic Modeling of Each Leg dynamic model of one of the limbs of the Agile Eye can be
From the results revealed in [17], the dynamic model of a extracted, which leads to two equations:
RR linkage can be readily obtained: 
εQ1

∂GL1
≡ τ aL1 = IL1 (θ L1 )θ̈ L1 + VL1 (θ L1 , θ̇ L1 ) + .
∂G εQ2 ∂θ L1
τ n = I(θ)θ̈ + V(θ, θ̇) + , (7) (15)
∂θ
where Upon following the same approach for the two other limbs,
" #T 2 dynamic equations are derived for each limb, which are as
1 ∂Iθ̇ follows:
V = İ(θ, θ̇) − θ̇. (8)
2 ∂θ
 
εQ3 ∂GL2
≡ τ aL2 = IL2 (θ L2 )θ̈ L2 + VL2 (θ L2 , θ̇ L2 ) + ,
εQ4 ∂θ L2
(16)
 
TABLE I: D-H parameters derived for the Agile Eye limb. εQ5 ∂G L3
≡ τ aL3 = IL3 (θ L3 )θ̈ L3 + VL3 (θ L3 , θ̇ L3 ) + .
εQ6 ∂θ L3
i ai bi αi θi
1 0 0 γ−π η1
(17)
2 0 0 α1 θ1 The parameters in the two latter equations, introduce similar
3 0 0 α2 θ2 parameters mentioned for the first limb which have not been
4 0 0 β θ3 explained here again due to lack of space.

MatlabSite.com ‫ﻣﺘﻠﺐ ﺳﺎﯾﺖ‬

D. Dynamic Modeling of the EE 24 MATLAB
MD Adams
After obtaining the dynamic model of each limb which 22
leads to 6 expressions, Eqs. (15-17), dynamic modeling of the
EE with Newton-Euler approach is considered. Newton-Euler 20

Torque (N.m)
equations can be expressed as follows: 18
 P 
P F = Mr̈, (18) 16
H
in which F and H are the vectors of forces and moments 14
applied to the EE, respectively. Moreover, r̈ represents the
acceleration vector of the EE: 12
h iT
r̈ = 0, 0, 0, φ̈, ψ̈, ζ̈ , (19) 10

and M is the mass matrix, which can be introduced as follows: 8

0 1 2 3 4 5 6
M = diag (m, m, m, Ixx , Iyy , Izz ) . (20) Time (s)

‫ﻣ‬
(a) Torque exerted by the actuator of the first limb, τa1

‫ﺘ‬
Upon resorting to Newton-Euler approach, discussed in Eqs.

‫ﻠ‬
(18-20), the dynamic model of the EE becomes: 20

‫ﺐ‬
MATLAB
 T MD Adams
εQ7 18

‫ﺎ‬ ‫ﺳ‬
 εQ8 

‫ﯾ‬
 εQ9  16
 
 εQ  = −wL1 − wL2 − wL3 − Mr̈ = 0, (21)

Torque (N.m)

‫ﺖ‬
 10 
 εQ11  14
εQ12
12
in which wL1 , wL2 and wL1 are the wrenches applied to the

m
EE by the limbs. 10

. co
E. Solving Procedure 8

i t e
As described in Eqs. (15-17) and (21), the dynamic model 6

S
of the Agile Eye consists of 12 equations. However, these

b
equations contains 18 unknowns constituting Fx1 , Fy1 , Fz1 , 4

a
0 1 2 3 4 5 6

l
Mx1 , My1 , Fx2 , Fy2 , Fz2 , Mx2 , My2 , Fx3 , Fy3 , Fz3 , Mx3 ,

t
Time (s)

a
My3 , τ aL1 , τ aL2 and τ aL3 . As discussed in [18], [19], in order (b) Torque exerted by the actuator of the secound lim,b τa2
to obtain the dynamic models of these type of mechanisms,

M
which can be regarded as a overconstraint manipulator, some 24 MATLAB
unknown should be neglected in order to equal the number of MD Adams
equation with unknowns. In Agile Eye, 6 unknowns should be 22
neglected to equal the number of obtained dynamic equations
and the unknowns. In order to achieve this goal all the last 20
Torque (N.m)

revolute joints which attach the limbs to the EE are assumed as

18
spherical joints and therefore Mx1 , My1 , Mx2 , My1 , Mx3 , and
My3 , are assumed to be zero. It should be noted that the latter 16
assumption will not affect the motion pattern performed by
the EE, i.e., the EE still has three rotational DOF. The results 14
obtained by solving Eqs. (15-17) and (21) by a computer
algebraic system are put into contrast with the ones obtained 12
by MD-ADAMS, a dynamic simulator. It worth to be noticed
that there are some major deterrents in obtaining the desired 10
results from MD ADAMS-View, which are mentioned and 8
solved in [14]. For the sake of comparison, a trajectory is 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
considered as case study. The trajectory is assumed as follow: Time (s)
 2 t (c) Torque exerted by the actuator of the third limb, τa3
φ = 0.1 cos t sin 4
3 Fig. 4: Results of the desired trajectory, given in Eq. (22).
ψ = 0.1 sin t cos t . (22)
2
ζ = 0.05 sin t


The results from MD Adams and MATLAB are compared,

IV. C OMPUTED T ORQUE C ONTROL OF THE AGILE E YE
which are shown in Fig. 4. The latter reveals the coherence
between two results which affirms the correctness of the Up to now, the dynamic model of the Agile Eye is derived
proposed algorithm. which consists of 12 equations. By solving these equations, the

MatlabSite.com ‫ﻣﺘﻠﺐ ﺳﺎﯾﺖ‬

 q
+
I(q)
+ τ
q̈d Σ Σ Agile Eye ADAMS uout
u - +
Adams Model
q̇
τ1
q

- Σ - V(q, q̇) + τg (q)

Kd Kp τ2 Mux MSC Software Demux
ev ep

qd
+
Σ - τ3 q̇

q̇d
+
Σ - ADAMS yout

Fig. 5: Schematic control loop of Agile Eye with CTM.

ADAMS tout Demux

Clock

values of the unknowns contained in the latter equations can Fig. 6: The SIMULINK output of Adams Control pachakge
be extracted. The resulted values which are obtained for the 3 for Agile Eye.
actuation torques can be expressed as follows, [6], [7], [9]:

‫ﻠ‬ ‫ﺘ‬ ‫ﻣ‬

τ = I(q)q̈ + V(q, q̇) + τ g , (23)
It should be noted that there are some other upper bounds for

‫ﺐ‬
T
in which q = [φ, ψ, ζ] is the position vector of the EE and q̇ the selection of natural frequency such as the maximum poser

‫ﺳ‬
and q̈ are the first and second differentiate of q with respect to

‫ﺎ‬
supported by actuators. Furthermore, Kv and Kp originally

‫ﯾ‬
time. Moreover, τ = [τa1 , τa2 , τa3 ] shows the actuation torques should be in form of two matrices. However, it is usual to
and I, V and τ g illustrate the inertia, coriolis and gravity

‫ﺖ‬
take them diagonal matrices. As it is depicted in Fig. 5, CTM
matrices, respectively. The schematic control loop of CTM is applies the actuation torques to the manipulator as the input
shown in Fig. 5. In order to be used in CTM, Eq. (23) is which then generates the position and velocity of the EE as the
written in the following form: output of the loop. A simulation can be used as a virtual proto-
τ = I(q)w + V(q, q̇) + τ g , (24) type of the Agile Eye by combining Adams Control package

m
and MATLAB/Simulink. During the simulation, the control

o
which with the goal of using PD controller in feedback of the

c
loop which is defined in SIMULINK enters the actuation

.
CTM, as illustrated in Fig. 5, w is expressed as

e
torques as inputs to the SIMULINK file which is extracted

i t
w = q̈d + Kv ėq + Kp eq , (25) from ADAMS, as shown in Fig. 6. These inputs generates

S
a motion on the EE of the ADAMS model, which can be

b
where ėq shows the velocity error: measured and introduced as the outputs to the control loop in

l a
MATLAB again for calculation of the next command signal.

t
ėq = q̇d − q̇. (26)

a
This procedure continues until the end of the time. A desired
Moreover, eq illustrates the position error: trajectory is defined for the EE as shown in Eq. (31):

M
eq = qd − q,
and in the two latter equations q̇d and qd are the desired
velocity and desired position vectors of the EE, respectively.
In Eq. (25), Kv and Kp can be expressed as [6], [7], [12]:
Kv = 2ζωn , Kp = ωn2 ,
with ζ, ωn the desired damping ratio and natural frequency.
It is undesirable for the robot to exhibit overshoot, since
this could cause impact if, for instance, a desired trajectory
terminates at the surface of a workpiece. Therefore, the PD
gains are usually selected for critical damping ζ = 1 [7], [12],
which in this case leads to:
p
Kv = 2 Kp . (29)
There are some upper limits on the choice for ωn [20].
Although the links of most industrial robots are massive, they
may have some flexibility. Thus in order to avoid exciting
the structural oscillation and resonance of the manipulator,
the undamped natural frequency should not be assumed more
than half of the structural resonant frequency. If the mechanical
resonant frequency assumed to be 6 Hz, natural frequency then
becomes ωn = 2π × 3 = 18.85 [12], which leads to:
Kv = 355.3, Kp = 37.7.
 2
(27) φ1 = sin t
φ = sin t . (31)
 2
φ3 = sin t
Position errors of each DOF, eqi , velocity errors of each DOF,
(28) ėqi , and the actuation torques are shown in Figs. 7, 8 and 9,
respectively.
The maximum value of error of position has been observed
as 4.4 × 10−3 , whereas the maximum value of velocity error
is 1.9 × 10−3 . Although the controller performance can be
improved by increasing Kv and Kp , they are restricted by
upper bounds as discussed above.
V. C ONCLUSION
This paper proposed dynamic model of a 3-DOF spatial
parallel manipulator, called the Agile Eye, first built at Laval
University. The manipulator was separated into four subsys-
tems, namely three constituting limbs plus the EE and after
kinematic modeling, Lagrangian and Newtonian approaches
are combined and used in order to derive the dynamic model
of the Agile eye. Then for a desired trajectory, the actuation
torques are obtained and compared with MD-Adams. Finally,
computed torque method was used to control the motion of the
(30) end-effector of the manipulator by using the obtained dynamic

MatlabSite.com ‫ﻣﺘﻠﺐ ﺳﺎﯾﺖ‬

 10−3 R EFERENCES
4
eq1
3 eq2 [1] X. Kong and C. Gosselin, Type Synthesis of Parallel Mechanisms.
eq3
Error of Position (rad)

Springer, 2007, vol. 33.

2
[2] T. Do Thanh, J. Kotlarski, B. Heimann, and T. Ortmaier, “On the Inverse
1 Dynamics Problem of General Parallel Robots,” in IEEE International
Conference on Mechatronics, 2009. ICM 2009. IEEE, 2009, pp. 1–6.
0
[3] Y. Li and Q. Xu, “Dynamic Analysis of a Modified DELTA Parallel
-1 Robot for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation,” in IEEE/RSJ International
-2 Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2005.(IROS 2005).
IEEE, 2005, pp. 233–238.
-3 [4] B. Dasgupta and T. Mruthyunjaya, “A Newton-Euler Formulation for
-4 the Inverse Dynamics of the Stewart Platform Manipulator,” Mechanism
and Machine Theory, vol. 33, no. 8, pp. 1135–1152, 1998.
-5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 [5] X. Zhao and B. Li, “Inverse Dynamics of 3-RRRT Parallel Manipula-
tor,” in IEEE Asia Pacific Conference on Circuits and Systems, 2008.
Time (s) APCCAS 2008. IEEE, 2008, pp. 745–749.
Fig. 7: Postion error of the EE related to the trajectory defined [6] B. Siciliano and O. Khatib, Springer Handbook of Robotics. Springer,
2008.
in Eq. (31).

‫ﺘ‬ ‫ﻣ‬
[7] F. L. Lewis, D. M. Dawson, and C. T. Abdallah, Robot Manipulator

‫ﻠ‬
Control: Theory and Practice. CRC Press, 2003.

‫ﺐ‬
[8] A. Isidori, Nonlinear Control Systems. Springer, 1995, vol. 1.
10−3 [9] J.-J. E. Slotine, W. Li et al., Applied Nonlinear Control. Prentice-Hall
2

‫ﺎ‬ ‫ﺳ‬
Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1991, vol. 199, no. 1.
ėq1

‫ﯾ‬
1.5 ėq [10] L. L. Kovács, A. Zelei, L. Bencsik, J. Turi, and G. Stépán, “Motion Con-
ėq32
s )

trol of an Under-Actuated Service Robot Using Natural Coordinates,” in

‫ﺖ‬
1
Error of Velocity ( rad

ROMANSY 18 Robot Design, Dynamics and Control. Springer, 2010,

0.5 pp. 331–338.
0 [11] F. Piltan, M. H. Yarmahmoudi, M. Shamsodini, E. Mazlomian, and
A. Hosainpour, “PUMA-560 Robot Manipulator Position Computed
-0.5 Torque Control Methods Using MATLAB/SIMULINK and Their In-

m
-1 tegration into Graduate Nonlinear Control and MATLAB Courses,”

co
International Journal of Robotics and Automation, vol. 3, no. 3, pp.

.
-1.5 167–191, 2012.

t e
-2 [12] Y. Li and Q. Xu, “Dynamic Modeling and Robust Control of a 3-PRC

i
Translational Parallel Kinematic Machine,” Robotics and Computer-

S
-2.5 Integrated Manufacturing, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 630–640, 2009.
0 1

b
2 3 4 5 6

a
Time (s) [13] C. M. Gosselin and J.-F. Hamel, “The Agile Eye: a High-performance

tl
Three-Degree-of-Freedom Camera-Orienting Device,” in IEEE Inter-

a
Fig. 8: Velocity error of the EE related to the trajectory defined national Conference on Robotics and Automation, 1994. Proceedings.,
1994. IEEE, 1994, pp. 781–786.
in Eq. (31).

M
[14] I. Yahyapour, M. Hasanvand, M. Tale Masouleh, M. Yazdani, and
S. Tavakoli, “On the Inverse Dynamic Problem of a 3-PRRR Parallel
Manipulator, the Tripteron,” in First RSI/ISM International Conference
on Robotics and Mechatronics (ICRoM), 2013. IEEE, 2013, pp. 390–
14 τ1 395.
τ2 [15] C. Gosselin, E. St Pierre, and M. Gagne, “On the Development of the
12 τ3
Agile Eye,” Robotics & Automation Magazine, IEEE, vol. 3, no. 4, pp.
Torque(N.m)

10 29–37, 1996.
8 [16] I. A. Bonev, D. Chablat, and P. Wenger, “Working and Assembly Modes
of the Agile Eye,” in IEEE International Conference on Robotics and
6 Automation, 2006. ICRA 2006. Proceedings 2006. IEEE, 2006, pp.
4 2317–2322.
2 [17] J. Angeles and J. Angeles, Fundamentals of Robotic Mechanical
Systems. Springer, 1997, vol. 2.
0
[18] J. Allan, Analyse Dynamique de Mecanismes Paralléles á 3 et 4 Degrés
-2 de Liberté, 1997.
[19] F. Caron, Analyse et Conception dún Manipulateur Paralléle Sphérique
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 á Deux Degrées de Liberté pour Lorientation dúne Cam’era, 1999.
Time (s) [20] R. P. Paul, Robot Manipulators: Mathematics, Programming, and
Fig. 9: Actuation torques related to the trajectory defined in Control: the Computer Control of Robot Manipulators. Richard Paul,
1981.
Eq. (31).

model and a co-simulation between MATLAB/Simulink and

MD-Adams, which led to a perfectly follow of the desired
trajectory.

MatlabSite.com ‫ﻣﺘﻠﺐ ﺳﺎﯾﺖ‬