See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/314673285

An Optimal Stewart Platform For Lower Extremity Robotic Rehabilitation

Conference Paper · June 2017

DOI: 10.23919/ACC.2017.7963777

CITATIONS READS
4 304

5 authors, including:

Arman Dabiri Sahand Sab

Southern Illinois University Edwardsville The University of Arizona
44 PUBLICATIONS   488 CITATIONS    10 PUBLICATIONS   23 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Ali-Mohammad Poursina David G. Armstrong

Universitetet i Agder Keck School of Medicine USC
51 PUBLICATIONS   317 CITATIONS    918 PUBLICATIONS   39,702 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Limb Salvage View project

Cartilage lesions and ankle osteoarthrosis: Review of the literature and treatment algorithm View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Arman Dabiri on 18 October 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 An Optimal Stewart Platform For Lower Extremity Robotic
Rehabilitation
Arman Dabiri1 , Sahand Sabet2 , Mohammad Poursina3 , David G. Armstrong4 , and Parviz E. Nikravesh5
Abstract— In this paper, two algorithms are performed to
find an optimum design of a six-degree-of-freedom Stewart
platform to provide a desired pure rotational motion required
in the robotic rehabilitation of the foot for patients with
neuropathy. To accomplish this, first, we present the kinematic
and the dynamic analysis of the Stewart platform. The dynamic
equations are derived by using a customized Lagrange method.
Then, physically meaningful objective variables are defined
such as the size of the platform, the length of the six links,
the maximum stroke of the six linear actuators, the maximum
actuator force, and the reachable workspace. This is followed
by using two optimization methods (Genetic Algorithm and
Monte-Carlo method) to study the aforementioned objective
variables, resulting in the optimal solution for the desired
orientation motions. Then, the detailed investigation of the effect
of changes in these objective variables on the variation of the
platform design variables is studied. Finally, in a numerical
example, the advantages and disadvantages of using the Genetic
Algorithm and the Monte-Carlo method to find the optimal
design variables for a custom cost function with weighted
objective variables are revealed.
I. I NTRODUCTION
According to the centers for Disease Control and Preven-
tion, about one in 10 American adults has diabetes. Currently,
the manually assisted physical therapy is the most common
treatment strategy for diabetes outpatients. However, three
main drawbacks of the manually assisted physical therapy are
labor-intensive (the duration of the training is based on the
personal shortage and fatigue of the therapist), the limitation
in the repeatability and evaluating the patients’ performance,
and the high cost of the procedure. In addition, achieving an
optimal therapeutic result is not guaranteed by a manually
assisted physical therapy [1].
In contrast to manual therapy, rehabilitation robots are
capable of performing repeated tasks with high precision
[2]. They can evaluate patients’ efforts, and hence adjust
the training procedure. This can provide a promising way
to make the physical therapy affordable and more effective
1 Arman Dabiri is with the Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering
Department, University of Arizona, AZ 85721, USA (corresponding author:
armandabiri@email.arizona.edu)
2 Sahand Sabet is with the Aerospace and Mechanical
Engineering Department, University of Arizona, AZ 85721, USA
sahandsabet@email.arizona.edu
3 Assistant Prof. Poursina is with the Aerospace and Mechani-
cal Engineering Department, University of Arizona, AZ 85721, USA
mpoursina@gmail.com
4 Prof. Armstrong is with the Department of Surgery,
College of Medicine, University of Arizona, AZ 85721, USA
dga@email.arizona.edu
5 Prof. Nikravesh is with the Aerospace and Mechanical
Engineering Department, University of Arizona, AZ 85721, USA
pen@email.arizona.edu
for clinical use. Among the variety of robots, parallel robots
represent a good candidate for rehabilitation purposes [3],
[4]. Implementing parallel robots for rehabilitation purposes
is relatively new [5]–[8]. Physical therapy programs require
highly repeated motions usually, and parallel robots are
capable of doing repeated tasks with high precision. Most of
the rehabilitation robots are designed for patients suffering
from neurological disorders [5], [6], [9].
Like other robots, there is always limitations on the size
of this parallel robot for clinical or in-house applications.
Indeed, it is well known that the most significant drawback of
parallel manipulators is their limited workspace and compli-
cated dynamic equations [10]. Therefore, workspace analysis
plays a key role in the design of such robots. Enormous
efforts and advances have been conducted to the design
and development of parallel robots [11]–[16]. Furthermore,
optimization methods have been conducted for the optimal
design of parallel robots or Stewart platforms with different
objectives and certain restrictions [17]–[20].
In this research, the objective is to design a compact
Stewart robot for the ankle rehabilitation of the patients
with diabetic neuropathy. For this purpose, the design and
optimization of a Stewart platform, the most celebrated
parallel manipulator known as 6-UPS, for the desired pure
rotational motion is studied. The two main contributions of
this work are (1) visual/qualitative observation of platform
designs under a predefined motion, and (2) an optimiza-
tion approach that generates these designs parametrically.
In addition, the effects of changing design parameters on
the objective variables are shown in different illustrative
figures and the results are discussed. Then, the GA is used
to optimize a cost function defined by weighted objective
variables to obtain the optimal design variables.
II. D ESCRIPTION OF THE S TEWART P LATFORM
The Stewart platform with the 6-UPS parallel manipulators
is shown in Fig. 1. It consists of a top platform, a base
platform, and six linear actuators. Each actuator is connected
to the base platform and the top platform with a universal
joint and a spherical joint, respectively. The radius of the
circumcircles of the bottom plate R, the radius of the
circumcircles of the top plate r, the top offset angle θt ,
the base offset angle θb , and the height of the platform h
are the five design parameters shown in Fig. 1. These five
design parameters define the geometry of the platform and it
is desired to obtain their optimal value for the desired pure
rotation motion in this paper. Therefore, the configuration

Fig. 1. A Stewart platform with the 6-UPS parallel manipulators.
of the platform is determined by the design variable column
vector d = [R, r, θb , θt , h]T , which needs to be tuned.
The global reference frame ΣN (O) is fixed to the ground
and centered at the point O coinciding with the center of the
base plate. The reference frame ΣG (G) with the origin at
the point G is attached to the center of mass of the top plate
of the platform. The points Ai and Bi , i = 1, 2, · · · , 6, are
the connection points on the base and top plates, respectively
through which these plates are connected to the six actuators.
In this paper, N
A rB denotes a vector connecting the point A
to the point B in the reference frame ΣN .
III. I NVERSE K INEMATICS AND I NVERSE DYNAMICS
Following the closed kinematic chains associated with
each actuator, one can describe the associated algebraic
constraint as
N
O rG + N RG (Φ) N N N
G rPi = O rAi + O rli , i = 1, 2, ..., 6, (1)
where O RB (Φ) is the rotation matrix relating the top plate
orientation to the global reference frame. In this relation,
N
A rB describes the position vector from an arbitrary point A
to another point B expressed in terms of the unit vectors of
the Newtonian frame of reference. For instance, N RG (Φ) is
the rotation matrix describing the orientation of the top plate
with respect to the global reference frame.
Let Φ = [θx , θy , θz ] represents the Bryant angles or the
Euler angles of the top plate in the x − y − z convention.
Then, the N RG (Φ) is defined as
 
cy cz −cy sz sy
N Since dynamic constraints are functions of kinematic
RG (Φ) = cx sz + cz sx sy cx cz − sx sy sz −cy sx ,
sx sz − cx cz sy cz sx + cx sy sz cx cy
(2)
where c and s are short notations for the cos and sin
functions, respectively.
The generalized coordinate states are chosen as q =
[s, Φ] ∈ R6 in which s = [x, y, z] are the coordinates
of the center of mass G in the general coordinate system,
and the active joint variables are the length of the legs li ,
i = 1, 2, · · · , 6. In the inverse kinematic analysis of the
Stewart platform, the length of each leg is obtained by using
the position and the orientation of the top plate. The length
of each leg, li , i = 1, 2, ..., 6, is given by the induced norm
of NO rli in (1):
li := Li (q) =
(3)
kN
O rG +
N
RG (Φ) N N
G rPi − O rAi kL2 , i = 1, 2, ..., 6.
The dynamic equations of the Stewart platform is derived
by using a a customized Lagrange method called the explicit
dynamics method [21]. This advantageous method employs
analytical Jacobian JA (q), linear Jacobian JL (q), and the
positive-definite property of the mass matrix M (q) to inher-
ently simplify dynamic equation formulation and implement
the minimum number of generalized coordinates.
We assume that the inertial effects of the legs are negligi-
ble compared to the inertial effects of the body (top plate).
As a result, the dynamic equations of the Stewart platform
are derived as
M (q)q̈ + C(q, q̇, d)q̇ + G(q) = Ju (q)u(t), (4)
∂ N T 6
where G(q) = × [0, 0, −9.81] , u(t) ∈ R repre-
∂q O rG
sents the linear actuator forces, and Ju (q) ∈ R6×6 is its
coefficient matrix obtained as
∂l
Ju (q) = , (5)
∂q
where l = [l1 , · · · , l6 ]. Singularity is an critical issue in a
parallel platform when it reaches in a certain configuration
where the Jacobian matrix Ju (q) is singular with the deter-
minant of 0. It is noticed that the Jacobian matrix Ju (q) is
independent from the generalize coordinate state ratios which
means this constraint is a kinematic constraint. Thus, during
the kinematic analysis, the singularity of this matrix should
be considered. The second type of kinematic constraint is
ΩJ (q) : det(Ju (q)) 6= 0 (6)
and for any spatial platform, the singular points must be
identified and removed from the workspace.
IV. OPTIMIZATION
The objective of the optimization is to determine a plat-
form configuration with an optimal set of design variables
denoted by dopt that result in the minimum value of a
cost function J (d) subjected to some constraints, which is
described in the following section in detail.
A. Constraints
constraints which are functions of the design variables,
all constraints are classified into three categories: design,
kinematic, and dynamic constraints denoted by C Ω , C K , and
CD.
 1) Design Constraints: The design constraints apply the
limitations on the geometrical properties of the structure
such as the platform’s dimensions. These constraints directly
affect by the design variables which are chosen in a way that
compacts the structure
Ω
CR : 0 < R < 30 cm, CrΩ : 0 < r < 30 cm, (7a)
◦
CθΩt ◦
: 0 < θt < 60 , CθΩb : 0 < θb < 60 , (7b)
ChΩ : 20 cm < h < 50 cm.
2) Kinematic Constraints: Three kinematic constraints
are considered for this structure: the length of each leg, the
maximum speed of the actuator, and the singularity of the
Jacobian matrix Ju (q), i.e.
ClKi (q) : 10 cm < li , i = 1, 2, · · · , 6,
CVKi (q, q̇) : Vi < 10 cm/sec, i = 1, 2, · · · , 6, (8b)
CJK (q) : det(Ju (q)) 6= 0.
3) Dynamic Constraints: A dynamic constraint is a func-
tion of generalized coordinates, velocities, and accelerations.
In this application, the following dynamic constraint is
applied to the bandwidth of the actuators’ driving force
CuD (q, q̇, q̈) : |ui (t)| < 100 kg, i = 1, · · · , 6.
B. Cost Function and Objective Variables
Let w0 define the desired workspace volume generated by
a desired trajectory. This trajectory is made of Np sample
points (Np is chosen large enough to appropriately represent
the entire trajectory). The parameters, wL , wJ , and wU
denote the platform’s reachable workspace which contains all
possible points that meet the length constraint (see Eq. (8a)),
singularity constraint (see Eq. (8c)), and dynamic constraint
(see Eq. (9)), respectively. The number of grid points for
the workspace is chosen Np and the states are denoted by
qs , s = 1, · · · , Np . The cost function is determined by
a set of objective variables which are defined as follows
subject to the design, kinematic, and dynamic constraints
explained in the previous sections; (1) WL = 100 × wL/N
, (2) WJ = 100 × wJ /N , (3) WU = 100 × wU/N , (4)
the minimum length of the legs by Lmin , (5) the maximum
actuator’s stroke denoted by Emax , (6) the maximum and
average actuator’s speed Vmax / and Vavg , respectively , (7)
the maximum and average actuator’s force Umax and Uavg ,
respectively , (8) the maximum and average actuator’s power
Pmax and Pavg , respectively.
These objective variables should be normalized since they
are not scaled. On the other hand, some of these objective
variables should be maximized and some minimized. There-
fore, we use the well-known membership functions which are
widely utilized in Fuzzy systems: a Z-shaped membership
function Za,b (x) : x 7→ C(0, 1) for maximizing and a S-
shaped membership function Sa,b (x) : x 7→ C(0, 1) for
minimizing.
Finally, a constant gain column matrix w ∈ R13 as a
weight function is used to control each objectives’ signifi-
cance. Therefore, the cost function is defined as
J (q, d) = wT [Za1 ,b1 (WL , WJ , WU ),
Za2 ,b2 (Lmin , Lmin ), Sa3 ,b3 (Vmax ,
Vavg ), Sa4 ,b4 (Umax , Uavg ), Sa5 ,b5 (Pmax , Pavg ),
Sa6 ,b6 (Emax , Eavg )]. (10)
Algorithm 1 shows the procedure to obtain the proposed
(7c) cost function for the optimization problem. The inputs are the
desired generalized coordinates (qd ) of a specific trajectory,
and a set of design variables (d0 ). The design variables d0
are chosen depending on the type of platform used. In the
first step, the lengths of the legs are obtained at all grid
points qs , s = 1, · · · , Np of the trajectory by using Eq. (3),
and the results are stored in the variables ls,i , s = 1, · · · , N ,
(8a)
i = 1, · · · , 6. Then, the obtained lengths at each state qs , s =
1, · · · , Np , are compared against the kinematic constraint
(8c) applied to each leg as shown in Eq. (8a). If they satisfy this
constraint, then boolean variable BsL = 1, otherwise BsL = 0,
s = 1, · · · , N . In the second step, the next kinematic
constraint as the non-singularity condition given in Eq. (8c) is
investigated. If the configuration is nonsingular, then boolean
variable BsJ = 1, otherwise BsJ = 0, for s = 1, · · · , N .
(9) In the third step, the speed of the actuators is calculated
by evaluating the first derivative of the lengths in Eq. (3),
while Eq. (4) provides the actuator force. If the dynamic
constraint given in Eq. (9) is satisfied, then boolean variable
BsU = 1, otherwise BsU = 0, for s = 1, · · · , N . Finally,
all the aforementioned objective variables are calculated at
the states that meet all the constraint conditions. Then, they
are normalized and weighted to obtain the value of the cost
function.
C. Optimization
This optimization problem is solved using two meth-
ods: the Monte-Carlo method and Genetic Algorithm (GA).
Monte-Carlo methods are numerical approaches that para-
metric sweep with inverse kinematic equations for the as-
sessment of the workspace. In this approach, if these values
satisfies the design parameter boundaries, then that point
is a feasible point and will be added to the reachable
workspace. Moreover, an initial workspace volume is initially
considered. Then, the inverse kinematics is performed for
each set of the platform design variables at every grid point
of the workspace to obtain the length of the legs. Next,
first, it is checked if the obtained length meets the kinematic
constraint conditions at each grid point (see Eqs. (8a)-(8c)).
Second, the kinetic constraint condition as the limitation of
the linear actuators is checked at each grid point. If met, then
the point belongs to the workspace, if not, it shall be rejected.
Any feasible point is certainly in the reachable space of the
platform.
The genetic algorithm (GA) is one of the powerful
methods for optimizations. Probably the main advantages
for using the GA are: it can be employed to solve any
unconstrained, bound-constrained, and most general opti-
mization problems; it does not require the functions to be
Algorithm 1 The Cost Function for Optimization
1: procedure C OST F UNCTION (d0 , q)
2: for qs ∈ {q1 , · · · , qN } do
3: BsL = BsJ = BsJ = Vs,i = Ps,i = 0
4: Us = 06
5: ls,i = Li (q, d0 ), i = 1, · · · , 6
6: if lmin < ls,i < lmax , i = 1, · · · , 6 then
7: BsL = 1
8: if det (Ju (qi , d0 )) 6= 0, i = 1, · · · , 6 then (a) (b)
9: BsJ = 1 Fig. 2. The minimum length of the legs in R − r − WU design variable
10: vs,i = L̇i (q, d0 ), i = 1, · · · , 6 space when θb = 5◦ , θt = 55◦ and (a) h = 0.2 cm (b) h = 0.5 cm.
11: us = Ju−1 (qi , d0 )(M (qi , d0 )q̈i + ...
12: C(qi , q̇i , d0 )q̇i + G(qi ))
13: ps,i = vs,i us,i , i = 1, · · · , 6
14: if |us,i | < umax , i = 1, · · · , 6 then
15: BsU = 1
16: Lmax = max{l1,1 , · · · , l1,6 , ls,1 , · · · , ls,6 }
17: Lavg = avg{l1,1 , · · · , l1,6 , ls,1 , · · · , ls,6 }
18: Lmin = min{l1,1 , · · · , l1,6 , ls,1 , · · · , ls,6 }
19: Umax =
max{u1,1 , · · · , u1,6 , us,1 , · · · , us,6 }
(a) (b)
20: Uavg = avg{u1,1 , · · · , u1,6 , us,1 , · · · , us,6 }
21: Vmax = max{v1,1 , · · · , l1,6 , vs,1 , · · · , vs,6 } Fig. 3. The maximum stroke of the actuators in R−r−WU design variable
22: Vavg = avg{v1,1 , · · · , l1,6 , vs,1 , · · · , vs,6 } space when θb = 5◦ , θt = 55◦ and (a) h = 0.2 cm (b) h = 0.5 cm.
23: Pmax =
max{p1,1 , · · · , p1,6 , ls,1 , · · · , ps,6 }
24: Pavg = avg{p1,1 , · · · , p1,6 , ls,1 , · · · , ps,6 }
25: end if rehabilitation (0 ≤ t ≤ 2)
26: end if
x(t) = y(t) = z(t) = 0, (11a)
27: end if
28: end for π π
θx (t) = 3θz (t) = 2θy (t) = sin( t). (11b)
29: PN 6 2
30: WL = 100 N Ps=1 s
BL First, the effects of changing R, r, and h on the objective
100 N J
31: WJ = N
PN s=1 Bs variables are evaluated when θb = 5◦ and θt = 55◦ .
100 U
32: WU = N s=1 Bs Figures 2-6 show the variation in the minimum link length,
33:
34: J (q, d0 ) = w [Z80,100 (WL , WJ , WU ), Z0.1,0.3 (Lmax , Lavg ), maximum stroke, maximum actuator speed, and maximum
35: S0,0.15 (Vmax , Vavg ), S0,100 (Umax , Uavg ), S0,20 (Pmax , Pavg )]T actuator force, respectively. Increasing R and r increases
36: return J (q, d0 ) the minimum stroke (see Fig. 3) and the maximum actuator
37: end procedure speed (see Fig. 4), but reduces the maximum actuator force
(see Fig. 5). In addition, increasing R and r slightly decreases
Lmin and slightly increases Pmax as shown in Figs. 2) and
differentiable or continuous; and it can be used to solve see Fig. 6, respectively. On the other hand, increasing h
global optimization problems [22]–[24]. The principle of the significantly increases Lmin , but does not have any effect
GA is as follows (also see [23]). The GA is employed to on the minimum stroke, aximum actuator speed, maximum
obtain the optimal solution as minimizing the scalar cost actuator force, and maximum actuator power as shown in
function J (q, d) in Eq. (10). Figs. 2-3. By comparing the results illustrated in Figs. 2-6,
one may conclude that having a large value for R and small
ones for r satisfies the objective variables at the best.
V. RESULTS Second, the effect of changing θb , θt , and h on the
objective variables is shown in Figs. 7-11 when R = 25 cm
The maximum dimension of a space that can be visualized and r = 5 cm. Figure. 7 shows that the minimum length
is four. This contains three dimensions for the Euclidean of the legs is invariant respect to the design angles, and
space and one dimension for the map of color. Therefore, increasing h increases it significantly. From Figs. 8 and 9, it
a series of three-dimensional plots with color maps are is observed the maximum stroke and the maximum actuator
provided to illustrate the result better. In all of the following speed are decreased when the design angles becomes closer
figures, x and y axes indicate two platform design variables, to each other. However, having the values of the design
z axis represents the feasibility of the workspace WU (the angles close to each other increases the maximum actuator
dynamic constraint), and the color map demonstrates the force significantly due to the singularity of the structure. In
value of an objective parameter. addition, the platform is kinematically singular when θb =
The generalized coordinates of the top plate are defined θt , and that best workspace is achieved when the difference
as functions of time to generate a desired orientation [25]. between these angles is maximum, i.e. θb = 5◦ and θt = 55◦ .
Therefore, the following trajectory is selected for the ankle Since the maximum actuator force cannot exceed 100 kg, the
 (a) (b)
Fig. 4. The maximum speed of the actuators in R−r−WU design variable
space when θb = 5◦ , θt = 55◦ and (a) h = 0.2 cm (b) h = 0.5 cm.
(a) (b)
Fig. 5. The maximum force of the actuators in R−r −WU design variable
space when θb = 5◦ , θt = 55◦ and (a) h = 0.2 cm (b) h = 0.5 cm.
surface in the region of θt − 10◦ < θb < θt + 10◦ are grayed
as unacceptable results. This maximum difference results in
having the minimum force as well, see Fig. 10. Increasing
h decreases the maximum force and the actuator power, but
increases the minimum link length. Furthermore, increasing
h does not have much effects on the maximum stroke, the
maximum speed, and the maximum actuator force as shown
in Figs. 8-10.
By performing the both optimization methods, i.e. the
Monte-Carlo method and GA, it is observed that both of
them result in the same optimal solution. Furthermore, let
us define an arbitrary trajectory planning to validate the
aforementioned conclusions from the Monte-Carlo method
such as θx = 30◦ sin(90◦ t), θy = 10◦ sin(90◦ t), and θz =
20◦ sin(90◦ t). Fig. 12 shows the effect of using the GA to
optimize the cost function given in Eq. (10).
VI. C ONCLUSION
Stewart platforms are articulated robots that use similar
parallel mechanisms for the movement of their top platforms.
They are popular because of their high speed, high-accuracy
positioning with limited workspace. Much effort has been
devoted to the design and development of parallel robots,
and to find an efficient algorithm for giving an accurate
kinematic solution. However, there has not been proposed
a unique method for designing Stewart platforms due to the
fact that it is difficult to obtain the optimal configuration in
the context of performance criteria. In this paper, two opti-
mization algorithms has been proposed to study the effects
of the design variables on physically meaningful objective
variables such as the size of the platform, the length of the
six legs, the maximum stroke of the six linear actuators, the
maximum actuator’s force, and the reachable workspace. The
Monte-Carlo method has been used to show the effect of the
variation of the design variables on the objective variables.
(a) (b)
Fig. 6. The maximum power of the actuators in R−r−WU design variable
space when θb = 5◦ , θt = 55◦ and (a) h = 0.2 cm (b) h = 0.5 cm.
(a) (b)
Fig. 7. The minimum length of the legs in θt − θb − WU design variable
space when R = 25 cm, r = 5 cm and (a) h = 0.2 cm (b) h = 0.5 cm.
It has been shown that for a pure rotational motion in three
directions, it is better to increase the radius of the base,
the radius of the top platform, to decrease the height of the
platform, and finally to keep the angles the same. Finally, in
an illustrative example, it was shown that how the GA can
be used to optimize a cost function with weighted objective
variables.
VII. ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to acknowledge the University of
Arizona for the Accelerate for Success Grant to perform this
project.
R EFERENCES
[1] R. Riener, M. Frey, M. Bernhardt, T. Nef, and G. Colombo, “Human-
centered rehabilitation robotics,” in Rehabilitation Robotics, 2005.
ICORR 2005. 9th International Conference on, pp. 319–322, 2005.
[2] S. Hesse, H. Schmidt, C. Werner, and A. Bardeleben, “Upper and
lower extremity robotic devices for rehabilitation and for studying
motor control,” Current opinion in neurology, vol. 16, no. 6, pp. 705–
710, 2003.
[3] H. I. Krebs, B. T. Volpe, M. L. Aisen, and N. Hogan, “Increasing
productivity and quality of care: Robot-aided neuro-rehabilitation,”
Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, vol. 37, pp. 639–
652, 2000.
[4] M. Girone, G. Burdea, M. Bouzit, V. Popescu, and J. E. Deutsch,
“Stewart platform-based system for ankle telerehabilitation,” Au-
tonomous Robots, vol. 10, pp. 203–212, 2001.
[5] H. Krebs, B. Volpe, M. Aisen, and N. Hogan, “Increasing productivity
and quality of care: robot-aided neuro-rehabilitation,” Journal of
rehabilitation research and development, vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 639–652,
2000.
[6] M. Girone, G. Burdea, M. Bouzit, V. Popescu, and J. E. Deutsch,
“A stewart platform-based system for ankle telerehabilitation,” Au-
tonomous robots, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 203–212, 2001.
[7] G. Liu, J. Gao, H. Yue, X. Zhang, and G. Lu, “Design and kinematics
simulation of parallel robots for ankle rehabilitation,” in 2006 Interna-
tional Conference on Mechatronics and Automation, pp. 1109–1113,
IEEE, 2006.
[8] P. K. Jamwal, S. Xie, and K. C. Aw, “Kinematic design optimization of
a parallel ankle rehabilitation robot using modified genetic algorithm,”
Robotics and Autonomous Systems, vol. 57, no. 10, pp. 1018–1027,
2009.
 (a) (b) (a) (b)

Fig. 8. The maximum stroke of the actuators in θt − θb − WU design Fig. 10. The maximum force of the actuators in θt − θb − WU design
variable space when R = 25 cm, r = 5 cm and (a) h = 0.2 cm (b) variable space when R = 25 cm, r = 5 cm and (a) h = 0.2 cm (b)
h = 0.5 cm. h = 0.5 cm.

(a) (b) (a) (b)

Fig. 9. The maximum speed of the actuators in θt − θb − WU design Fig. 11. The maximum power of the actuators in θt − θb − WU design
variable space when R = 25 cm, r = 5 cm and (a) h = 0.2 cm (b) variable space when R = 25 cm, r = 5 cm and (a) h = 0.2 cm (b)
h = 0.5 cm. h = 0.5 cm.

[9] Y. H. Tsoi, Modelling and adaptive interaction control of a parallel plied to electromagnetics: A review,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas
robot for ankle rehabilitation. PhD thesis, The University of Auckland and Propagation, vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 343–353, 1997.
,Auckland, New Zealand, 2011. [23] L. Davis, “Handbook of genetic algorithms,” 1991.
[10] C. C. Nguyen, S. C. Antrazi, Z.-L. Zhou, and C. E. Campbell, [24] Y. Davidor, Genetic Algorithms and Robotics: A heuristic strategy for
“Analysis and implementation of a 6 dof stewart platform-based optimization, vol. 1. World Scientific, 1991.
robotic wrist,” Computers & electrical engineering, vol. 17, no. 3, [25] S. Siegler, J. Chen, and C. Schneck, “The three-dimensional kinemat-
pp. 191–203, 1991. ics and flexibility characteristics of the human ankle and subtalar joints
[11] V. Gough, “Contribution to discussion of papers on research in part i: Kinematics,” Journal of Biomechanical Engineering, vol. 110,
automobile stability, control and tyre performance,” in Proc. Auto Div. no. 4, pp. 364–373, 1988.
Inst. Mech. Eng, vol. 171, pp. 392–394, 1956.
[12] F. Pierrot, C. Reynaud, and A. Fournier, “Delta: a simple and efficient
parallel robot,” Robotica, vol. 8, no. 02, pp. 105–109, 1990.
[13] F. Pierrot, P. Dauchez, and A. Fournier, “Hexa: a fast six-dof fully-
parallel robot,” in Advanced Robotics, 1991.’Robots in Unstructured
Environments’, 91 ICAR., Fifth International Conference on, pp. 1158–
1163, IEEE, 1991.
[14] Y. Guan and K. Yokoi, “Reachable space generation of a humanoid
robot using the monte carlo method,” in 2006 IEEE/RSJ International
Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, pp. 1984–1989, IEEE,
2006.
[15] Y. Guan, K. Yokoi, and X. Zhang, “Numerical methods for reachable
space generation of humanoid robots,” The International Journal of
Robotics Research, vol. 27, no. 8, pp. 935–950, 2008.
[16] O. Bohigas, M. Manubens, and L. Ros, “A complete method for
workspace boundary determination on general structure manipulators,”
IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 993–1006, 2012. (a) (b)
[17] R. E. Stamper, L.-W. Tsai, and G. C. Walsh, “Optimization of a
three dof translational platform for well-conditioned workspace,” in
Robotics and Automation, 1997. Proceedings., 1997 IEEE Interna-
tional Conference on, vol. 4, pp. 3250–3255, IEEE, 1997.
[18] L.-W. Tsai, “Multi-degree-of-freedom mechanisms for machine tools
and the like,” Aug. 12 1997. US Patent 5,656,905.
[19] Y. Hou, D. Zeng, J. Yao, K. Kang, L. Lu, and Y. Zhao, “Optimal
design of a hyperstatic stewart platform-based force/torque sensor with
genetic algorithms,” Mechatronics, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 199–204, 2009.
[20] X.-J. Liu, Z.-L. Jin, and F. Gao, “Optimum design of 3-dof spherical
parallel manipulators with respect to the conditioning and stiffness
indices,” Mechanism and Machine Theory, vol. 35, no. 9, pp. 1257–
1267, 2000.
[21] S. A. A. Moosavian and A. Dabiri, “Dynamics and planning for stable (c) (d)
motion of a hexapod robot,” in Advanced Intelligent Mechatronics
(AIM), 2010 IEEE/ASME International Conference on Advanced In- Fig. 12. Using the GA method subject to the cost function in Eq. (10).
telligent Mechatronics, pp. 818–823, IEEE, 2010. The dashed lines represent the optimal values chosen from the Monte-Carlo
[22] D. S. Weile and E. Michielssen, “Genetic algorithm optimization ap- method and the solid lines represent the optimal solution given by the GA.

View publication stats