Fundamental Comparison of the Use of Serial and Parallel Kinematics for Machines Tools

Jiri Tlusty (1). John Ziegert, Shannon Ridgeway Mechanical Engineering Departernent, University of Florida, Gainesville, USA Received on January 8, 1999

Abstract Classical Cartesian kinematics Machining Center (MC) structures are compared with parallel kinematics hexapods (HX) structures from the point of view of workspace, stiffness, accuracy, acceleration ability, and motion dynamics for use as high speed milling machines. Concrete stiffness values are used as achievable. It is concluded that variable strut length HX are fundamentally inferior to the MC and cannot practically be used as high speed milling machines. The constant strut length HX offer larger workspace and higher strut stiffness and may produce characteristics comparable to MC in particular designs.

Keywords: Hexapod, Machining, Stiffness

INTRODUCTION

For the past few years extensive research activities have been conducted in the area of machines with parallel kinematic structure for application as machine tools. These types of machines are generally called hexapods. Many of these new machines are intended for high speed milling, with a workspace of about a meter cube or less. In spite of the widespread interest and research effort, it is not yet clear whether these types of machine tools hold any real promise of future usefulness. When the hexapod structure was first proposed for machine tools, there were many generic claims made regarding its advantages. Among these claims were assertions of 'an almost infinite rigidity because the structural elements are not subject to any bending", improved dynamic performance and better accuracy. These generic claims are now being challenged, and some have been found to be false. In many cases, individual researchers have not been able to take a step back and review the whole concept. In this paper we will offer the larger perspective by examining and comparing the performance potential of the classical, serial kinematics design of a machining center, MC; and the parallel structures of the hexapods, HX. The comparison will consider the following important performance parameters for high speed machine tools: static stiffness, ability to accelerate, drive dynamics, and static accuracy. The comparison will be done in concrete terms, using concrete numbers. For the classical machine, the measured performance of the high speed milling machine built at the Machine Tool Research Center (MTRC) of the University of Florida (UF) will be used as the representative of the MC class. For the HX machines, we will consider two generic types of machines, those which move the platform using variable length struts with fixed joint locations, and those which use fixed length struts and move the platform by moving the joint locations.

We will begin by comparing the most basic 2D elements of both types of machines in order to simplify the derivations and analysis and make the evaluations transparent and easily understandable. Therefore, we will consider an XY table for the classical MC, and planar assemblies for the HX. Finally, we will generalize to 6D HX machines.
'

2 CLASSICAL MACHINING CENTER AT UF/MTRC The reference MC is shown in Figure 1. Its development has been described in [l J, and will not be repeated here. It is a 5 axis machine with the mean spindle position horizontal. The XY table is in a vertical plane opposite the spindle. The XYZ travels are 800 x 800 x 500 mm. A single servomotor and leadscrew drive the Y axis which has a table mass of 180 kg. The typical workpiece is an aluminum plate about 100 mm thick with an average mass of 75 kg. The X-axjs saddle carries the Y guideways and has a mass of 400 kg. Therefore, on average the X axis drives a mass of 650 kg and the Y axis drives a mass of 250 kg. The motion in the X axis i driven by two servomotors and leadscrews in parallel, s each of them driving an average mass of 325 kg. However, because these are rotary drives with a rather large down-transmission of 0.020 m/ 2nrad, these masses play a minor role. The Y motion is driven by a single rotary servomotor and leadscrew. Each of the servomotors driving these axes has a peak torque of 200 Nm. The leadscrews are 1320 mm long with a 55 mm diameter and 20 rnm lead. The total s rotary inertia is 0.0325 kgm' of which 25% i the rotor of the servomotor, 54% is the ballscrew, 11'othe coupling Y between motor and screw and only 10 Yo is the reflected mass of the saddle and table. The measured maximum achievable rotary acceleration of the motors is 6154 radsec', giving the table a peak acceleration of 19.59 mlsec2which is almost exactly 2 g. The sewocontrol system has been carefully tuned and resonances filtered, giving a bandwith of 100 Hz, and a loop gain of 5Wsec. We are able to command and execute 29 step accelerations and reach feedrates of 30dmin.

Annals of the ClRP Vol. 48/7/7999

351

(ceramic balls and steel races) with bore diameters of

50 to 65 mm. The shaft between the bearings carries

the rotor of the motor and typically has the same diameter. End mills range between 12.5 mm and 40 mm in diameter and 50 to 100 mm in length. The set screw type (Weldon) and collet type holders typically have insufficient stiffness for high speed milling, and therefore shrink fit tools are used with a compact and We have short holder for minimum overhang. measured and tested about ten different makes of these spindles with many different tools. We found that natural frequencies of the most dominant modes are in a range 700 2500 Hz and modal stiffnesses are between k = 10 and 40 Wpm, with rather small damping ratios of { = 0.01-0.04. Therefore, we will use this as a reference value and require that none of the structural modes of a well designed high speed milling machine should have the (kQ values less than the (kt) = 40 X 0.025 = 1.O Wpm of the spindle modes, when reflected onto the tool end. This value corresponds typically to a high speed milling of aluminum case with an end mill 20 mm in diameter, with 4 teeth, running at 25,000 rpm, with feedrate lOm/min, depth of cut 4 mm, metal removal rate 800 cm3/min using 9.3 kW power. The same size tool milling steel could only rotate at 2800 rpm and cut chatter free 1.3 mm depth reaching cutting rate of 29 cm3/minand using 1 .l kW power. Obviously, these are rather light operations. Their performance could be doubled or trippled utilizing "stability lobes". Let us consider a modestly heavier operation with a d=75 mm face mill with 6 teeth, depth of cut 2 5 mm and . . spindle speed of 750 rpm utilizing 3 3 kW. This operation would require, for chatter free operation the value of (k<) = 3 N/pm. For spindle modes with = 0.025 this needs k = 120 N/pm and for feed drives with 5 = 0.08 it needs k = 37.5 N/pm. As given in the preceding paragrahs, the feed drives of the HS classical MC have at least (kQ = 140 X 0 1 = 14 . N/pm. This exceeds the requirement of the heavier operation 4.7 times. Let us see how the hexapod compares with this. However, let us require at least the (kQ = 3 N/pm.

Figure 1: 5 Axis Reference-MC. The vibratory response of the x and y systems driven by ballscrews 63 mm in diameter have been measured and the modal stiffness found between 100 and 200 Wpm. Let us use 140 Wpm as the common value. Damping ratios in rangeof = 0.08 and 0.16 have been found. These high levels of damping originate in the ballscrewhut and roller guideway system. The total axial flexibility comes primarily from the flexibility in the ballscrewhut contact and the flexibility of the double tapered roller thrust bearing. The natural frequency of the system changes very little with the x position. If this same leadscrew drive system were applied to the strut of a hexapod machine, then the flexibility of the spherical joints at each end must also be considered. In summary, for the classical MC, we may state that the workspace is a parallepiped, or a rectangle in the planar case. The axial stiffness of the rotary drives is k, 4 4 0 Nlpm and k, = 180 Wpm, and these values are constant over the whole workspace. The acceleration capability is 2 g both in X and Y over the whole workspace. The natural frequencies of the basic structural modes with the leadscrew systems as springs and the translative masses in X and Y are 75 Hz and 128 Hz. Using feedback from rotary encoders on the servomotrs these structural modes do not have a strong effect on the stabilityof the drives and bandwidth of approximately 100 Hz has been achieved both in x and y. Alternatively, linear servomotors may be used for the axis drive systems. We will assume that the control system can produce a very high axial stiffness. A typical linear motor for this application will have a peak force of 10,000 N and a moving mass of 34 kg. When this motor drives an additional mass of 600 kg it would produce a 1 6 g acceleration. We will use these rotary and linear . drive parameters when analyzing the HX machines in the following sections.

<

- 20 EXNPLE

4 HX MACHINESWITH VARIABLE LENGTH STRUTS

n iSPINDLEMO~EFUTWL ~ SYSTEM The critical stiffness element of the machine is the spindleholderhool system. Therefore, to obtain a reference measure of required stiffness we will look at the stiffness values of various modes of end mills clamped in high speed (HS)spindles. The spindle inevitably has a limited stiffness because of the limited diameter of the bearings and of the spindle shafts and also of the rather slender tools. Typically, a HS spindle has maximum speed in the range of 25,000to 40,000 rpm. It produces 30 to 40 kW, and uses hybrid bearings
3 REQUIRED STIFFNESS
352

In general for HX machines, the worktable which may carry the spindle is called the platform. It moves in a Cartesian world coordinate system which we designate as XYZABC. Our current discussion will be limitedto the planar XY case, and the machine will have the form of "scissors" that are encountered as a very common element of the hexapod kinematics. It is important to note an important aspect of the HX structure: Every strut applies its force and motion in a direction inclined to the platform motion direction, so that it drives in an "up-transmission". In this arrangement, the velocity in the driven coordinate, e.g. v, = r v, , where v, is the strut velocity and r L 1. We will discuss this and its effects on stiffness and acceleration for the simplest case of one- to- one coordinates, see Figure 2. Here in A there is an angle a and a ratio r= da = lkos a. For illustration,we will choose a= 60, which gives r=2. The strut drives on the line c and the point of attachment of the strut to the platform, the joint, moves on line a. As shown in B , the force F, in the strut is 2 times larger than the force F, acting on the platform but the velocity v, in the platform is 2 times larger than v, in the strut. This is analogous to a lever transmission such as in D. In this type of drive, the stiffness k, opposing a force F, is 8 times smaller than the stiffness of the

Reflected m, = Pm,
Figure 2 Transmissionfrom Strut to Platform. :

of six struts. Nevertheless, the essential effects of the inherent "up-transmissions"of'struts acting in directions different from the directions of the driven motions must be taken into account. We will see that this leads to variations of stiffness, of acceleration capability and of the natural frequencies of the structure throughout the workzone. These variations increase towards the extremes of the workzone and limit its useful size. This situation will now be illustrated for the 20 case of the "scissors " element. Referring to Figure 3, we have a base 600 mm wide with two joints 1 and 2. Struts (1) and (2)swivel around these joints and they can stretch from the minimum length of 600mm to a maximum of 1200 mm. This 2l : extension ratio is actually more than can be achieved in most designs in which the leadscrew does not pass through the spherical joint. The motions cover a workspace bounded by the line AA'CBC'A" and they are joined in one point, such as A, 6, etc.
4.1 Stiiness We will now determine the value of stiffness k, of a strut, assuming the same ballscrew/nut assembly used in Sec.2, with a stiffness of 140 N/pm. For the HX machine, we must also include the flexibility of the ball joints at each end. Typically, these will be constructed either, 'a), as gimbals (Cardan joints) with slender shafts loaded in bending and small ball bearings, or b), as spheres separated by small balls. For the gimbal joints, we assign a stiffness of 25 N/pm to each, which yields an overall strut axial stiffness of ku 4 1 . 5 Nlpm. For case b), we will assign each joint a stiffness of 200 N/pm to obtain an overall strut axial stiffness of k?,= 58 Wpm. Obviously, the flexibility of the spherical joints at the strut ends degrades the axial strut stiffness considerably. The stiffnesses at the platform in the directions X and Y at various points A to D in the worktone are derived in a . manner similar to that shown in Figure 2 For example, the relationship between the forces F, and F2 in the struts and the external forces F and Fy is shown in , Figure 4, for the location C. From the equality of deformation work the relationship between deformations J X , byand forces F and F is then derived. , , , The values of stiffnesses k, relating force F and , deflection 6 and similarly k, are given in Table 1 as multiples of the strut stiffness k,

strut. Figure 2C shows that the velocities, and also the accelerations are in the opposite ratios of the forces. In , this example ,v, = 2 v, and also a = 2 a, Most HX machines of this type have struts with ballscrewlnut transmissions As was previously explained for the MC case, the servomotor essentially accelerates its own inertia and that of the leadscrew. The mass of the table, or the platform for the HX machine, is negligible when reflected onto the motor. Thus, for a simplified analysis we will make the conservative assumption that there is a maximum , acceleration a available in the strut itself, irrespective of the mass on the platform. This is symbolically shown in - which illustrates a favourable circumstancefor the HX E machine where the strut with the highest transmission r will act at its maximum acceleration, thus creating a high acceleration in the platform joint. Of course, if a linear motor is used to drive the strut the acceleration capability will be seriously diminished since the platform mass m, is reflected back onto the strut drive with a magnification of f . In our example, the platform acceleration is then reduced by a factor of 4, as shown in F. The simple one-to-one actions illustrated here point out the basic problems with stiffness and accelerations, and as we will show later, with the drive dynamics. However, there are normally two struts driving a platform joint and, overall, the platform is driven by the joint action

B
Table 1 Stiffnesses in the field of a 2D hexapod with : variable strut length, Figure 3. We see that stiffnesses in the X direction at every point are much lower than the individual strut stiffness, ranging from O.l25k, to 0.51$. Using the strut

F 1 , =

1320
Figure 3 : Flexibilities h and h,in the x and y , directions for a 2-0 system with variable length struts.

2 2 , F, = ( 8 0 5 m ) F = 1.34 F F = (805E405)Fy= 1.7QFy , , Z , , F2= (1200&00) F = 2.0 F F = (450/450) Fy 1.O Fv Figure 4 : Forces in struts at location C.

353

stiffnesses given above, for k, = 11.5 N/pm the range of platform stiffness in the X direction is from 1.43 to 5.75 N/pm, and for k, = 58 N/pm the range is from 7.2 to 29 N/pm. All these values except the last one are much lower than the minimum requirement established in Sec.3. In the Y direction the situation is better. O course for milling applications, stiffness in the f Y direction alone is useless, and it is the low X stiffness values that will create problems. In summary, it may be stated that, in contrast to the stiffness claims often advanced for HX machines, the stiffness at the platform(here, in the 20 presentation, at the tip joint of the two struts) vanes strongly through the workspace. In most places it is much lower than in the MC structure. This is due, on one hand, to the leadscrew drive flexibility augmented by the flexibility of the ball joints and, secondly due to the unfavourable transmission of motion from the strut to the platform. The magnitude of the flexibilities at various points in the workspace is graphically expressed by the h, and h, vectors in Figure 3.
4.2 Acceleration capability. In assessing the acceleration capability of the variable strut length HX we will simplify the analysis by neglecting the mass of the platform joint. This is because its reflected mass at the servomotor is diminished by the square of the transmission ratio of the leadscrew. Thus, we assume that the strut has a maximum achievable acceleration of 1 g, regardless of the mass of the platform. If the two struts must move with different velocities to cause the tool to follow the programmed path, then the faster one accelerates with 1 g and the other one correspondingly less. This results in the values of a, and a, given in Table 2.

structural resonant frequencies, resulting in the use of very low gains in the servo, and leading to very sluggish performance.
5 HEXAPODS WITH CONSTANT STRUT LENGTH, 2D REPRESENTATION

This case is shown in Figure 5. Two struts of equal length are driven in direction X at their base joints B1 and 82 and they are connected at the platform joint P. Motion of point P in X only is produced if B1 and 82 move with equal velocities in the same direction: and it moves in Y only if B1 and 82 move with equal velocities in opposite directions. Point P moves simultaneously in X and Y if B1 and 82 move with different velocities. The configuration of the system always remains one of an isosceles triangle, symmetrical about the Y axis.This constant strut length HX machine provides a larger workspace than the variable strut length HX. The Y range goes from almost zero to the strut length, which we will choose to be 1200 mm. The X range is essentially unlimited, and is simply determined by the length of travel of the base joint carriages and the linear servomotor drives. Not all of the vertical travel is practicaly usable, and we will consider the two extreme cases shown in Figure 5. The composite axial stiffness of the strut is now dependent only on the flexibilities of the two joints, assuming the strut itself to be much stiffer than the joints. Depending on the joint design we now have a) k, = 12.5 N/pm or b) k, = 100 N/ pm. The stiffness parameters for this machine are listed in Table 3 as multiples of the strut stiffness k, and their inverse values, the flexibilities h and h , , are graphically expressed in Figure 6. Obviously, the "relative" stiffnesses and flexibilities are now referred to a higher strut stiffness k,.

I
I
Table 2: Maximum accelerations in the 2D hexapod with variable strut length. We see that the simple planar HX machine is capable of accelerations in the Y direction which are approximately equal to the maximum strut acceleration, while in the X direction the accelerations are higher, reaching 2 g in point A and 4 g in point B. While this appears to be a rather favorable situation, we have seen that stiffnessesin the X direction are rather low. This is especially true at point 8, where milling may not be possible at all.

Case a b

I
I

k a l k
0.125 ..
~~

Wa k
. ..

1.88

0.125

Table 3: Stiff nesses of the 2D hexapod with constant strut length.

4.3 Drive dynamics. The natural frequency of the structural spring-mass system driven by the servo-control system varies with the square root of the stiffness variation. Therefore, for the case of a 250 kg mass at the platform joint, and the stiffnesses obtained with the stiffer joint design, these frequencies range between 16.2 and 32.6 Hz in the X direction and between 46 and 63.9 Hz in the Y direction for motions between points A. B, C, D. This means that overshoots and other steady-state and transient errors will vaty strongly throughout the workspace. It will be dimcult or impossible to provide for feedforward compensation of these varying errors. In the exceptional cases where the expense of feedback derived from the strut endpoints is justified (such as those with an interferometer inside the leadscrew), the control system stability will be strongly affected by these varying

1""
PI
1162

I
I

1162

92

Figure 5 : Constant length strut tool point flexibility

354

We are assuming here that the controller of the linear motor drive makes it very stiff relative to the strut stiffness. However, the unfavourable geometric configuration of the struts again results in rather poor stiffness values for X in a) and for Y in b). Assuming a 200 Nlpm stiffness of one ball joint, the stiffness values in the two cases amount to 1 . Wpm only. 25 Regarding the acceleration capability, we now have a linear motor with a peak force of F =10,000N and a p , mass of M = 34 kg. However it must accelerate a platform joint mass of, say m = 600 kg under not very favourable transmission ratios. Unlike in Sec.4 where the drive was in the struts it is now in the X motions of the base points, and different transformations apply. For platform acceleration in the X direction, the ;ransmission ratio from each of the motors to the point P is 1 1 and :, their actions are added. Therefore, for this case the maximum achievable acceleration in X for both cases a) and b) is approximately 29.94 dsec? = 3 g. The acceleration capabilities in the Y direction are obtained from the transmission ratios shown in Figure 5 relating , the velocities of the base v in the strut 1, v, and of the point P, in direction Y, vy. The acceleration results are given in Table 4 Again, the acceleration. capability . varies strongly with the y position. The actual values achieved will depend on the platform mass and on the force available from the motor.

machined parts. In contrast, for the HX machine, the stiffness varies throughout the workspace. This causes a variation in the tool displacement due to platform weight, which will directly affect the accuracy of machined parts. The tool point displacement at various positions in the workspace is shown in Table 6 assuming a platform mass of 500 kg, and a strut stiffness of 58 Nlmicrometer. We see that the variable stiffness throughout the workspace causes the tool point position to vary by 327 micrometers in the Y direction and 371micrometers in the X-direction. These variations are unsensed if strut displacements are provided by rotary encoders on the leadscrews.

0
311

44 352

Table 6. HX tool point error due to sag for spindle mass of 500kg.

Case a b

ax/g

a /g ,
4. (3

30 .

0.85

Table 4: Acceleration capabilities for the 2D constant length strut hexapod.

6 STATIC POSITIONINGACCURACY OF2D HEXAPODS
6.1 Variable strut length hexapod

For HX machines, the tool position is derived from a kinematic model which includes the joint coordinates on the base and platform and the strut lengths. To facilitate comparisons, we will assume here that calibration methods are available to find the joint coordinates on the base and platformwith sufficient accuracy. For serial machines, leadscrew displacement errors transmit directly into tool point errors. Therefore, if both the X and Y leadscrews have a 1 micrometer error, the .1 tool point error vector has a length of 1 4 4 micrometers. For the HX machine shown in Figure 3, and assuming each leadscrew has a 1 micrometer error in length with the errors opposite in sign, the tool point error is shown in Table 5. We see from this that at every position, if the leadscrew displacement errors are opposite in sign, the total tool point error vector length is greater than for the classical serial MC. Point A
B

6.2 Moving joint hexapod HX machines of the moving base joint type have fundamentally different accuracy issues than the variable strut length types. For these machines; it is a simple and economically acceptable matter to provide highly accurate measurement of the displacement of the joint carriage in the direction of motion with linear scales. However, it may still be very difficult to accurately determine the spatial positions of the joints since it requires instruments capable of measuring not only the straightnesses of the carriage motions, but the relative positions and orientations in space of the carriage axes. A number of moving joint HX designs have been proposed which do not use parallel joint carriages but instead use star shaped or even circular carriages. To measure the relative positions and orientations of these paths in space is not a trivial metrology problem. At this time, there are no instruments in common usage which are capable of performing these measurements with sufficient accuracy for general axis arrangements with lengths of more than 1 meter. The tool displacement due to platform weight is somewhat better for the simple 20 moving joint HX machine, since the configuration is always an isosceles triangle and the struts are somewhat stiffer. Therefore the tool displacement due to spindle weight is always in the Y-direction, and varies from -26to -392micrometers over the total vertical travel, using a strut stiffness of 100 Nlpm and a mass of 500 kg. This variation of 366 micrometers is again unsensed by the feedback system and will appear directly as a part dimensional error.

6x pm 2

OY Pm

Total error, pm

40 . 3.34

0 2 /9 .

2.0 40 . 4.35

O perhaps more importance for this class of HX f machines is the effect of the platform weight on the tool position. In classical machines, the stiffness is essentially constant over the workspace. Therefore, any tool point displacement due to platform weight is the same everywhere, and does not affect the accuracy of

STIFFNESS OF A 3-3 HEXAPOD Recent work has identified the regular 3-3arrangement of the spatial parallel platform as an 'optimum' design with respect to a quality index [7]. The 3-3platform will be utilized to explore transmission of stiffness and accelerations in a spatial HX mechanism. Figure 6 shows a planar cross section of the Cartesian workspace of a typical 3-3 HX based on optimal parameters. The reachable workspace is approximated by a cylinder with radius 0.5 m and height 0.48 m. We will investigate four positions of the top platform center A,B,C, and D with respect to stiffness transmission from the six struts to the tool point located at the center of the top platform. We will only consider
7

355

\\

/I

rest of the frame structure made as weldments or castings can be made many times stiffer. They also have rather high damping ratios, typically 0.1. For the HWvariable strut length machines the struts represent the drives and the whole support structure. They are individually more flexible than feed drives of the MC because of the added flexibility of the ball joints. Furthermore, because of the unfavorable transmission of motions the resulting stiffnesses on the platform are rather low and they vary strongly through the workspace. There is not a single position in which the stiffness in one direction is not less than the stiffness of a single strut. This leads to problems with deflections under cutting forces, under weight forces, with chatter, with overshoots and the general dynamics of drives. The actual numbers show that the HWvariable strut length machine used as a milling machine is strongly inferior to the classical MC concept. The HWconstant strut length machine fares better because of stiffer struts. However, the unfavorable transmissions cause strong variations of stiffness at the platform end. With careful design this concept may perform comparably to the MC in particular applications. 9 REFERENCES Tlusty, J.,Smith, S., Badrawy,S. J., Smith, D.A., Smith, A. P., 1997, Design of a High Speed Milling Machine for Aluminum Aircraft parts, ASME Mfg. Sc. & Eng., Vol. 2, MED-Vol. 6-2:323332. Tlusty. J., 1993, High-speed Machining, Annals Of CIRP, VOl. 42/2/1993, pp.56-59 Pritschow, G., 1998, A Comparison of Linear and Conventional Electromechanical Drives, Annals of the CIRP, 47/2/1998, pp. 541-548. Weck, M.,Giesler, M., Meylahn, A., Stainmer, D., 1998, Parallel Kinematics the Importance of Enabling Technologies, 1'' European American Forum on Parallel Kinematics Machines, CNR-ITIA. Pritschow, G., and Wurst, K.H., 1997, Systematic Design of Hexapods and other Parallel Link Systems, Annals of the CIRP, 46/1/1997, pp.541-548. Heisel, V., 1998, Precision Requirements of Hexapod Machines and Investigation Results, 1' European - American Forum on Parallel Kinematics Machines, CNR-ITIA. Lee, J., Duffy, D., Hunt, K. H., 1998, A Practical Quality Index Based on the Octahedral Manipuiator, The International Journal of Robotics Research, 17/10:1081-1090. Griffis, M. W., 1991, Kinestatic Control: A Novel Theory for Simultaneously Regulating Force and Displacement, PhD Dissertation, University of Florida. Tosatti, L.M., 1997, An Integrated methodology for the Design of parallel Kinematic machines (PKM). Annals of CIRP, Vol. 46/2/1997, pp. 341345 Patel A.J., Ehmann K.F., 1997, Volumetric Error Analysis of a Stewart platform based machine Tool, Annals of CIRP, Vol 46/1/1997, pp. 287-

Figure 6 : 3-3 Regular hexapod workspace and f lexibilities. stiffnesses along three Cartesian directions, and will neglect any angular considerations. The general stiffness mapping of a connection between two bodies in space has been developed and presented elsewhere [8]. This methodology is used to map the stiffnesses of the struts to the stiffnesses of the tool point, located at the center of the top platform. Some assumptions are made. It is assumed that the initial deflected length of any spring element in the leg is zero. Further, the mapping is general and typically requires a full 6x6 stiffness matrix for proper representation. For We purposes of comparison, we develop a factor k&. assume a unit strut stiffness, apply a unit force in the i direction, and calculate the top platform deflection in the i direction. We then calculate the factor based on this deflection. This representation neglects deflections in the other 5 directions caused by application of a force in the i direction. Results for the four selected top platform locations are reported in Table 7. At all locations, the resulting platform stiffnesses are less than the single strut stiffness, except for points C and D in the z direction. When a strut with k, = 11.5 N/m is employed, the resulting top platform stiffnesses range from 4.25 to 14 = 41N/pm, the resulting top platform Wpm. For stiffnesses are from 21.5 to 66.8 N/pm. The values in table 7 would become signifigantly worse if the platform were inclined.

Point
A .. B

kdk,
64 .-.

I
I

k,&

C D

61 43

64 59 37

I
I

kJk,
f2

43

66 1.o 1.15

8 CONCLUSIONS The spindle head is the core of the machine and stiffness of the spindle/holder/tool system is taken as For high speed spindles, low modal reference. stiffnesses at tool end are between 10 and 40 N/pm. For the MC the next flexible elements are ballscrew feed drives. They may be made to 140 N/pm and more. The

290
Huang, T., 1998, The Local Dexterity, Optimal Architecture and Design Criteria of Parallel Machine Tools, Annals of CIRP, Vol. 47/1/1998, pp. 347-351

356