Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T00:48:21.705Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Multibody modeling and vibration testing of 3R planar manipulators: effects of flexible installation frames

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 May 2013

Emiliano Mucchi*
Affiliation:
Department of Engineering, University of Ferrara, Via Saragat 1, I-44122 Ferrara, Italy
Stefano Fiorati
Affiliation:
Department of Engineering, University of Ferrara, Via Saragat 1, I-44122 Ferrara, Italy
Raffaele Di Gregorio
Affiliation:
Department of Engineering, University of Ferrara, Via Saragat 1, I-44122 Ferrara, Italy
Giorgio Dalpiaz
Affiliation:
Department of Engineering, University of Ferrara, Via Saragat 1, I-44122 Ferrara, Italy
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]

Summary

This work presents the experimental validation and updating of a flexible multibody model ideated for taking into account installation conditions of industrial serial planar manipulators without resorting to cumbersome modeling. The flexibility of the frame, the manipulator is fixed, is modeled over the flexibility of joints, which is introduced as lumped stiffness. In particular, the flexible frame is included in the model by using the Component Mode Synthesis methodology, in which only the natural modes of vibration and the static constrain modes are accounted. The flexible multibody model has been developed because these commercial machines are mainly used to perform low-speed tasks, and they are designed by taking into account their flexibility at most in the joints. Unfortunately, there are particular installation conditions in which even low-speed tasks can generate low-frequency vibrations that highly interfere with the task. This aspect is considered here, and how to manage this problem is explained by using the developed multibody model. The model is validated through experimental measurements. The experimental tests consist of several modal analyses, together with acceleration and laser Doppler measurements in operational conditions. This methodology takes into account the installation conditions through the model of flexible frame, and gives a tool for studying ad hoc solutions which prevent the occurrence of unwanted low-frequency vibrations.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Shabana, A. A., Dynamics of Multibody Systems (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Shabana, A. A., “Flexible multibody dynamics: Review of past and recent developments,” Multibody Syst. Dyn. 1, 189222 (1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Siciliano, B. and Khatib, O., Handbook of Robotics (Springer, New York, 2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Aarts, R. G. K. M. and Jonker, J. B., “Dynamic simulation of planar flexible link manipulators using adaptive modal integration,” Multibody Syst. Dyn. 7 (1), 3150 (2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Book, W. J., “Recursive Lagrangian dynamics of flexible manipulator arms,” Int. J. Robot. Res. 3, 87101 (1984).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Fraser, A. R. and Daniel, R. W., Perturbation Techniques for Flexible Manipulators (Kluwer, Massachusetts, MA, 1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Wang, F.-Y. and Gao, Y., Advanced Studies of Flexible Robotic Manipulators (World Scientific, Hackensack, NJ, 2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Mckerrow, P. J., Introduction to Robotics (Addison-Wesley, Boston MA, 1991).Google Scholar
9.Readman, M. C., Flexible Joint Robots (CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 1994).Google Scholar
10.LMS International “LMS Virtual.Lab Motion, Rev 6A,” available at: http://www.lmsintl.com/virtuallab (edition 2006), online.Google Scholar
11.SPINEA, “Twin Spin – Bearing Reducer Catalogue, available at: http://www.spinea.sk (2009), online.Google Scholar
12.Incerti, G., “Trajectory Tracking for SCARA Robots with Compliant Transmissions: A Technique to Improve the Positioning Precision,” Proceedings of 12th World Congress in Mechanism and Machine Science, Besancon, France (2007).Google Scholar
13.Hurty, W. C.Dynamic analysis of structural systems using component modes,” AIAA J. 3 (4), 678685 (1965).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.Craig, R. R. J. and Bampton, M. C. C., “Coupling of substructures for dynamic analyses,” AIAA J. 6 (7), 13131319 (1968).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15.Craig, R. R. J., Structural Dynamics (John Wiley, New York, 1981).Google Scholar
16.Craig, R. R. J., “Substructure methods in vibration,” J. Mech. Des. 117, 207213 (1994).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17.Craig, R. R. J., Hemez, F., Bennighof, J., Kammer, D., Chung, Y.-T. and Pickrel, C., “Roy Craig, Engineering Educator and Pioneer Contributor to Component Mode Synthesis,” In: Proceedings of the 22nd International Modal Analysis Conference (IMAC), Dearborn, MI (2004) pp. 2629.Google Scholar
18.Spanos, T. and Tsuha, W. S., “Selection of component modes for flexible multibody simulation,” J. Guid. Control Dyn. 14 (2), 278286 (1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19.Ewins, D. J., Modal Testing: Theory and Practice (Research Studies Press, Herfordshire, UK, 1984), ISBN: 0-86380-017-3.Google Scholar
20.Heylen, W., Lammens, S. and Sas, P., Modal Analysis Theory and Testing (KUL Press, Leuven, Belgium, 2007).Google Scholar
21.Guillaume, P., Verboven, P., Vanlanduit, S., Van der Auweraer, H. and Peeters, B., “A Poly-Reference Implementation of the Least-Square Complex Frequency-Domain Estimator,” In: Proceedings of the 21st Conference of IMAC, Kissimmee, FL (2003) pp. 183192.Google Scholar
22.Rao, Singiresu S., Mechanical Vibrations (Addison-Wesley, New York, 1995).Google Scholar