International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems

Modelling and Control of Inverse

Dynamics for a 5-DOF Parallel
Kinematic Polishing Machine

Regular Paper



Weiyang Lin
1,2
, Bing Li
1,2,*
, Xiaojun Yang
1,2
and Dan Zhang
1

1 Shenzhen Graduate School, Harbin Institute of Technology, Shenzhen, China
2 Shenzhen Key Lab of Digital Manufacturing Technology, Shenzhen, China
* Corresponding author E-mail: libing.sgs@hit.edu.cn

Received 19 May 2012; Accepted 08 Nov 2012

DOI: 10.5772/54966

2013 Lin et al.; licensee InTech. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use,
distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.


Abstract Currently, about 60% of the finishing works for
freeform parts are done manually, in this paper a parallel
kinematic polishing machine (PKPM) with five degrees of
freedom (DOFs) and with structural configurations of the
type T3R2 (three translations and two rotations) is
presented. The PKPM is a variation of the existing
METROM Pentapod. The PKPM has a large yaw angle
space and, with the aid of an NC rotation table, it can
access any given point of the freeform part. A kinematic
analysis is developed, an inverse dynamic model based on
Kane's equation and the affine projection method is set up
in detail, and a real-time and highly efficient inverse
dynamic algorithm is developed; the simulation results
show that the presented PKPM could achieve an
acceleration which is twice that of gravity. A mixed
2
/


control method is presented and investigated
in order to track the error control of the inverse dynamic
model; the simulation results from different conditions
show that the mixed
2
/


control method could
achieve an optimal and robust control performance. This
work shows that the presented PKPM has a higher
dynamic performance than conventional machine tools.

Keywords Inverse Dynamics, Parallel Kinematic Machine,
Robust Control, Mixed
2
/


Control

1. Introduction
Parts with freeform surfaces, such as blades, impellers,
moulds etc., have been popularly applied in modern
industries. According to the statistics, 60% of the finishing
works for parts with freeform surfaces are done by hand
globally. The manual polishing process is not satisfactory
for the rapid development of modern industry due to its
instability, unreliability, inefficiency and high cost. High
precision and flexibility are the most important avenues to
explore for making the whole polishing industry more
efficient, stable and reliable. High precision is the basis for
the efficient implementation of the finishing process and
flexibility ensures the finishing processes are optimized
1 Weiyang Lin, Bing Li, Xiaojun Yang and Dan Zhang: Modelling and Control
of Inverse Dynamics for a 5-DOF Parallel Kinematic Polishing Machine
www.intechopen.com
ARTICLE
www.intechopen.com
Int. j. adv. robot. syst., 2013, Vol. 10, 314:2013
and their stability and reliability are controlled. Therefore,
the development of an automatic polishing machine is
very important to the manufacturing industry.

Recently, lots of research has focused on the automatic
polishing process. An XYZ Desktop NC machine tool was
designed by Fusaomi Nagata to polish the PET bottle
mould [1]. A 5-DOF polishing machine, consisting of an
XYZ desktop NC machine table and a two-axis polishing
robot, was developed to carry out the polishing task for
freeform surfaces [2,3]. So far, many automatic polishing
systems have been developed based on open architectural
industrial robots [4,5]; both the dynamic performance and
the precision of the industrial robot are quite poor due to
its open-chain architecture.

The parallel manipulators are well known for their high
speed, high structural rigidity and high precision etc.
Parallel kinematic machines based on parallel
manipulators begun to be used increasingly as
innovative machining equipment over the last ten years,
particularly for freeform parts. Much research focusing
on PKMs, such as Delta, Tricept and METROM Pentapod,
can be found in the literature [6-11]. Y. Hu and B. Li used
a robust design method to propose a hybrid kinematic
machine with five DOFs based on the structural
configuration of a 4PUS-1RPU parallel mechanism; both
the kinematic and dynamic performance indices of the
proposed mechanism were carried out [12]. H. Huang, B.
Li et al. proposed a novel adaptive parallel manipulator
with six DOFs and with a large tilting capacity [13]. The
manipulator consists of four identical peripheral limbs
and one doubly actuated centre limb. Due to the special
architecture, the doubly actuated centre limb could have
infinite inverse solutions. In every configuration of the
end-effector, the manipulator can adapt its centre limb to
the position and orientation with the best dexterity. B. Li,
X. Yang et al. analysed the inverse kinematics, dexterity
and developed a prototype for a proposed 5-DOF hybrid
parallel kinematic machine [14]. Y. Li and Q. Xu
introduced the passivity-based robust control method
into the tracking control of the PKM with parametric
uncertainties [15].

The PKM-based polishing system has the characteristics
of high flexibility, lower inertia, high stiffness
performance and ease of control in the polishing process.
The developed polishing system will be one of the most
effective ways to achieve the goals with high precision
and flexibility. D. Zhang designed a 3-DOF parallel
manipulator with a small tilting angle and used an XY
table to finish the freeform surface [16]. J. Zhao and M. Yu
developed a hybrid polishing kinematics machine tool for
freeform surface finishing [17, 18]. Liao Liang et al.
developed a dual-purpose compliant tool-head for PKM
for polishing and deburring [19].

In robotics technology, inverse dynamics modelling is one
of the most important aspects for controlling a robot with
high position precision [20, 21]. The classical computed
torque is widely used in industrial robots for its easy
realization and real-time control, the computed torque
method with static gain is applied to the parallel
manipulator to obtain the real-time tracking controller
[22]. B. Achili et al. used the coupling of sliding modes
and multi-layer perception neural networks to control the
trajectory tracking of a C5 parallel robot without an
inverse dynamic model [23]. H. Abdellatif et al. used a
sliding mode to design the six DOFs parallel robot
controller [24]. A robust

method for tracking error

control with disturbance is discussed in comparison to
common robotic dynamic control [25, 26].

In this paper a parallel kinematic polishing machine with
the motion type of T3R2 and a redundant linear motion
actuator in the moving platform is proposed, the
modelling, and an analysis of the kinematics and the
inverse dynamics of the PKPM are investigated in detail.
This paper is organized as follows: the structural scheme
of the parallel kinematic polishing machine (PKPM) is
presented in section 2; then the kinematic modelling is
developed and a dexterous workspace is obtained in
section 3; in section 4 the inverse dynamics of the PKPM
based on Kanes equation is developed, and the efficient
inverse dynamics algorithm based on Kanes method is
presented; in section 5 the mixed
2
/


control
method is introduced to the PKPM dynamic tracking
error control and the performance of the mixed
2
/



control method is discussed using simulations; the last
section contains the conclusions.
2. Mechanism scheme
In this paper a mechanism scheme for the PKPM with a
structural configuration of 4URHU-1URHR and a
redundant translation is presented. The PKPM is shown
in Fig. 1(a), from the figure we can see that the presented
PKPM is composed of a moving platform, a fixed platform
and five kinematic chains which connect the moving
platform and the fixed platform. In order to control the
polishing force during the polishing process, the linear
motion actuator in the moving platform of the PKPM is
introduced to carry a spindle with the polishing tool
attached. In addition, a numerical control (NC) rotary
table is located in the middle of the fixed platform. The
spindle with the polishing tool attached is installed on the
moving platform.

2 Int. j. adv. robot. syst., 2013, Vol. 10, 314:2013 www.intechopen.com

(a)
1
L
2
L
3
L
4
L
5
L
3
A
1
A
4
A
5
A
2
A
1
D
5
D
4
D 3
D
2
D
fixed platform
moving platform
Linear motion actuator

(b)
Figure 1. PKPM and the illustrative diagram


(a) (b)
Figure 2. 3D model of PKPM and local geometry of the moving platform

The illustrative diagram of the proposed PKPM is shown
in Fig. 1(b). The PKM is composed of five kinematic chains,
the central kinematic chain L1 consists of a universal joint
U, a revolute joint R, a helical joint H and a revolute joint
R, the chain can be denoted as URHR and it has five DOFs.
The chains of L2, L3, L4 and L5 are four identical 6-DOF
kinematic chains denoted by URHU. According to screw
theory, the DOF of the moving platform is the same as the
central kinematic chain L1, which means that the PKM can
provide five DOFs with three translations and two
rotations. The actuator installed on the moving platform
of the PKM provides the redundant linear motion.

A 3D model of the PKPM can be found in Fig. 2(a). The
detailed design of the moving platform is shown in Fig.
2(b), the force sensor and the linear motor are mounted
between the moving platform and the spindle, which are
used to control the polishing force in the polishing process
in order to guarantee that a high surface finish will be
obtained. This paper will focus on the modelling and
analysis of the dynamic performance of the PKPM in the
polishing process.

A famous PKM, the METROM Pentapod, was proposed in
2002 [9]. The PKM structure of the PKPM in this paper is a
variation of the METROM Pentapod. The differences
between the METROM Pentapod and the PKPM can be
described as follows. For the METROM Pentapod, the
revolute joints of the kinematic chains connected to the
moving platform are in a special configuration, the axes of
the revolute joints of the four 6-DOF kinematic chains are
collinear with the axis of the spindle, and the axis of
revolute joint of the central 5-DOF kinematic chain is
perpendicular to the spindle. This special arrangement
means that the cutting moment along the axis of the
spindle acting on the moving platform will only be carried
out by the central kinematic chain, but the other four
kinematic chains are not devoted to bearing the cutting
moment, so the METROM Pentapod has a relatively low
moment-load capability, so the METROM Pentapod is not
very suitable for cases where a high cutting moment is
carried.

The presented PKPM contains two parts: the 5-DOF
parallel kinematic mechanism and the linear motion
actuator, so the PKPM is the redundant parallel
kinematic machine with six driving motors, the
structural configuration of the 5-DOF end-effector is
T3R2, and the redundant linear translation motion is
used to control the polishing force. In order to enlarge
the moment-load capability and the stiffness, a variation
of the METROM
Spindle
3-D force sensor
Linear motor
Moving platform
3 Weiyang Lin, Bing Li, Xiaojun Yang and Dan Zhang: Modelling and Control
of Inverse Dynamics for a 5-DOF Parallel Kinematic Polishing Machine
www.intechopen.com
x
y
z
x
y
z
11
e

12
e

13
e

14
e

15
e

11

12

13

14
=
15
=
O
( ) O P
1
L
13
B
11
B
12
B
14
B
15
B
moving platform
( , , )
p p p
x y z
16
e

16
0 =

a) i=1
x
y
z
x
y
z
1 i
e

2 i
e

3 i
e

4 i
e

5 i
e

6 i
e

1 i

2 i

3 i

4 i

5 i

6 i

O
( )
i i
O D
i
L
3
B
i
1
B
i
2
B
i
4
B
i
5
B
i
moving platform
A
i

b) i=2,3,4,5
Figure 3. General notations of the kinematic chain Li

Pentapod, the PKPM, is developed. The axes of the
revolute joints of all the kinematic chains are distributed
in three parallel lines, which are not coplanar and are
perpendicular to the axis of the spindle, as shown in Fig.
2(b) and Fig. 3. The axis
26
e

and
36
e

of the kinematic
chains L2 and L3 are collinear; the axis
46
e

and
56
e

of
the kinematic chains L4 and L5 are collinear; and the axis
15
e

of the central kinematic chain L1 is in the third line. No

matter what the position and orientation of the moving
platform is, this configuration can ensure that all the
kinematic chains bear the cutting force and moment, so
the PKPM has a higher stiffness and a higher load
capability than those of the METROM Pentapod.
3. Kinematic analysis of the PKPM
3.1 Parametric definitions and coordinate systems
As shown in Fig.3, let P denote a point of a moving
platform, it is also the centre point of the revolute joint R
at the end of kinematic chain L1, the coordinates of P are
, ,
p p p
x y z ; denotes the rotation angle of the moving
platform along the axis
14
e

of the kinematic chain L1;

denotes the rotation angle of the moving platform along
the axis
15
e

. To unify the formula for all the kinematic

chains, the virtual axis
16
e

is introduced to the moving

platform with the rotation angle
16
0 = . In the task
space the variables , , , ,
p p p
x y z are regarded as
generalized variables of the PKPM.

According to the definitions, the generalized variables
and are not defined in the Cartesian coordinate
system, the orientation of the moving platform depends
not only on and , but also depends on the position
( )
, ,
p p p
x y z of the point P, in other words, the
orientation of the moving platform is coupled with
, , , ,
p p p
x y z .

Due to the dynamic equation being set up in the Cartesian
coordinate system, it is necessary to transform the velocity
and acceleration of the generalized variables into
linear/angular velocity and linear/angular acceleration. For
convenience of notation, B
ij
represents the j-th body of
the i-th kinematic chain, where
1
B
i
is the first rotating
joint of the universal joint;
2
B
i
is the stator of the
hollow-shaft motor (fixed to the second rotating joint of the
universal joint);
3
B
i
is the rotor of the hollow-shaft motor;
4
B
i
is the ball-screw;
5
B
i
is the Cardan-member
(moving platform when i=1).

To obtain the velocity and acceleration of the moving
platform described in the Cartesian coordinate system by
the generalized variables, the intermediate variables
11 12 13 14 15
, , , , , which denote the joint angles of the
central kinematic chain, are introduced to simplify the
relationship between the velocity, the acceleration of the
moving platform and the generalized variables.
3.2 Kinematic analysis of the central kinematic chain
Note that A1 (
1 1 1
, ,
A A A
x y z ) denotes the central point of
the universal joint of the central kinematic chain; it is a
fixed point in relation to the global coordinate system. Let
1 x A p
x x = ,
1 y A p
y y = and
1 z A p
z z = ,
with the supplementary equations of
13
( ) l K =
4 Int. j. adv. robot. syst., 2013, Vol. 10, 314:2013 www.intechopen.com
and
2 2 2
x y z
l = + + , we can obtain the following
equation,

11
12
2 2 2
2 2 2
13
14
15
arctan( , )
arcsin( )
y z
x
x y z
x y z
K

+ +

+ +

= +

(1)

where K= P/2 P is the screw pitch,
( )
12 12
cos 0 90 , 90 l >

and ( )
11
90 , 90



Eq. (1) shows that , ,
p p p
x y z only affect
11

12
and
13
, and
11
and
12
rather than
13
will decide the
orientation of the ball-screw. The transformation matrix of
the moving platform relative to , ,
p p p
x y z , and
can be written as,

( , , , , )
0 1
s
p p p p
R P
R x y z
(
=
(

(2)

where
11 12
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
s x y z x
R R R R R = ;
11
( )
x
R ,
12
( )
y
R , ( )
z
R and ( )
x
R denote the
rotation matrices of their corresponding rotation axis, and
P

denotes the vector of point

1
D in the moving
platform.

For a given vector
T
, ,
x y z
v v v v ( =

, an operator v is
introduced to simplify the calculation

0
0
0
z y
z x
y x
v v
v v v
v v
(
(
=
(
(

So the angular velocity of the moving platform can be
expressed as,

T
p s s
R R =

(3)
where

11 12 11 11 12 12
11 12 11 12
T
11 11
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
2 2
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
2 2
( ) ( ) ( ) (
2 2
s x x y z x x y y z x
x y z z x x y z x x
x s x y x
R R R R R R R R R R R
R R R R R R R R R R
R R R R R






= +
+ +
= +




T
11 12
1 11 2 12 3 4
) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
2 2
s s x z x s x
R R R R R R R
C C C C



+ +
= + + +





The angular acceleration of the moving platform can be
written as,

T T
p s s s s
R R R R = +

(4)

where







T T
11 11 11 12
T T T
11 11 11 11 11
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
2 2 2 2
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
2 2 2 2 2
s x s x y x s s x z x s x
x x y y x x s s x y x s
R R R R R R R R R R R R R
R R R R R R R R R R R R




= + + +
| | | |
+ + + +
| |
\ . \ .



2
T T T
11
1 11 2 12 3 4 11 11 11 12 11
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
2 2 2 2 2
( ) ( )
2 2
s x x z z x x s s x z x
s x s s x s
R R R R R R R R R R R R
R R R R R R
C C C C C C

| | | |
+ + + +
| |
\ . \ .
| | | |
+ + + +
| |
\ . \ .
= + + + + +

12 13 11 14 11
22 12 12 23 12 24 12 33 34 44
11 12 s s s s
C C
C C C C C C
R R R R



+ +
+ + + + + +
+ + + +







5 Weiyang Lin, Bing Li, Xiaojun Yang and Dan Zhang: Modelling and Control
of Inverse Dynamics for a 5-DOF Parallel Kinematic Polishing Machine
www.intechopen.com
( ) ( )
T
1 11 2 12 3 4 1 11 2 12 3 4
T T T T
1 1 11 11 1 2 11 12 1 3 11 1 4 11
T T T T
4 1 11 4 2 12 4 3 4 4
T
s s
R R C C C C C C C C
C C C C C C C C
C C C C C C C C



= + + + + + +
= + + +
+ +
+ + + +

According to Eq. (1) the velocity and the acceleration of
11

and
12

can be obtained,


11 2 2
z
z
y
y
p p
y z

=

+

(5)


( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
( )
3 2 2 3 2 2 2 2
11 2
2 2
2 2
z z y p z y y p z y p p z y p p
y z
y z y z y z

+ + + +
=
+

(6)


( )
( )
2 2 2 2
2
12
2
2
y z p x y p x z pz
x y z y z
x y z

+ +
=
+
+ + +

(7)


2 2 2
2 2 2
12
C C C C C C C C C
p p p p p p p p p
p p p
x p y p z p p p p x y p p x z p p y z p p
x y z
x y z x y z x y x z y z = + + + + + + + +

(8)

where
( ) ( )
2 3/ 2
2 2 2 2 2
C
den x y z y z
= + + +


( )
4 2 4 2 2 4 4 2 2 2 2 6 6
C 3 3 2 C
p
y z z x y z y x y x z y z d n x e
+ + + + + + =

( )
3 2 3 3 5 3 2 4
2 C C
p
x y z x y x y x y z x y z d y en
+ + + = +

( )
4 3 2 3 2 5 3 3
C 2 C
p
x z y x z y x z y x z x z d z en
+ = + + +

( ) 2
4 4 2 2
C 2 2 4 C
p
x y x z x y z den
x
+ + =

( ) 2
4 2 2 4 3 2
C 2 C
p
x y x y z x z x z den
y
= +

( ) 2
2 2 4 4 3 2
C 2 C
p
x y z x z x y x y den
z
+ =

( )
2 2 3 2 5 4 3 2
C 2 2 2 2 4 C
p p
x y y z x y x y y z y z den
= +

( )
2 2 3 2 3 2 5 4
C 2 2 4 2 2 C
p p
x z z y x z x z y z z y den
= +

3 3 3
C 2 6 6 C
p p
y z x y z x y z x y z den
= + +



Combining Eq. (3), Eq. (5) and Eq. (7), the angular velocity
of the moving platform can be expressed as,

p p
W q =

(9)

The linear and angular velocity of the moving platform
can be written as,


T
p
p p p
p
v
N x y z N q

= =

(10)
where
3 3 3 3
6 5
0
[ ]
p
I
N
W

=


,
T
T
p
q v =



.

The angular acceleration
p

of the moving platform can

be obtained by Eqs. (4)- (8).

T
p p p
M q q W q = +


(11)
3.3 Velocity analysis of the kinematic mode
A
i
D
i
y
x
z
' y
' x
' z
4
p
i

O
1
A
1
O (P,D )
L
i
1
L
bi
r

Figure 4. Geometric model of the i-th kinematic chain

6 Int. j. adv. robot. syst., 2013, Vol. 10, 314:2013 www.intechopen.com
Fig. 4 is a diagram of the kinematic chain Li (i=2, 3, 4 or 5)
for the closure vector modelling with the centre kinematic
chain L1. The closure equation of the i-th kinematic chain
is


OA A D OP PD ( 2, 3, 4, 5)
i i i i
i + = + =


(12)


Let
4
A D
i i i i
l e =

,
PD
i bi
r =

, where
4 i
e

is the unit
vector along
D A
i i

.

The first-order derivative of Eq. (12) with respect to t can
be written as,

( )
4 4 4 i i i i i p p bi
l e l e v r = +

(13)


In Eq. (13)
4 i

is the angular velocity of component

4
B
i
relative to the global coordinate system;
i
l

is the
extension speed of the i-th kinematic chain;
p
v

is the
velocity of point P fixed on the moving platform relative
to the global coordinate system;
p

is the angular
velocity of the moving platform relative to the global
coordinate system. The angular velocity
4 i

can be
expressed as,

4 4
p
i p i
= +


(14)


where
4
p
i

is the angular velocity of component

4
B
i

in the i-th chain relative to the moving platform, the
ball-screw of the i-th chain and the moving platform are
connected by the universal joint with its rotation axis
being
5 i
e

and
6 i
e

respectively, the direction of the

angular velocity
4
p
i

relative to the moving platform

lies on the plane spanned by
5 i
e

and
6 i
e

, substituting
Eq. (14) to Eq. (13), we can obtain,

( ) ( )
4 4 4 4
p
i i i i i p p bi i i
l e l e v r l e = + +

(15)

Take the inner product with
4 i
e

for both sides of Eq.

(15),
4 4 i p i p bi i
l v e r e =

(16)

Let
( )
4 4 i i i p p bi i i
l e v r l e = +

, we have

( )
4 4
p
i i i i
l e =


(17)
where
4
p
i

is perpendicular to the vector

i

, and
4
p
i

lies on the plane spanned by
5 i
e

and
6 i
e

, so that
4
p
i

is perpendicular to vector
56 5 6 i i i
e e e =

, so the unit
direction vector
4
p
i
n

of
4
p
i

is

( )
4 4 56
p p
i i i i
K n K e = =

(18)

where K is a scalar, substituting Eq. (18) to Eq. (17)

( )
( )
56 4 i i i i i
K e l e =


(19)
Eq. (17) implies
4
0
i i
e =

. Simplifying the numerator

items of Eq. (19), we have,

( ) ( ) ( )
56 4 4 56 4 56 4 56 i i i i i i i i i i i i
e e e e e e e e = =


(20)
Substituting Eq. (20) to Eq. (19), the angular velocity
4
p
i

can be written as,

( )
56
4 56
i i
i i i
e
K
l e e

=

(21)


Combining Eq. (18) and Eq. (21), the vector
4
p
i

is
obtained,

( ) [ ]
56 5 6
4 4
4 56 4 5 6
, ,
p p i i i i i
i i
i i i i i i i
e e e
K n
l e e l e e e

= = =

(22)


[ , , ] denotes a mixed product of three vectors, the
angular velocity of the ball-screw in the global coordinate
system can be written as,

[ ]
5 6
4 4
4 5 6
, ,
p i i i
i p i p
i i i i
e e
l e e e

= + = +

(23)

In order to calculate the angular velocities, the affine
projection method is introduced to solve the affine
coordinates.
4 i

can be expressed as a vector

{ }
1 2 3 i i i

with the affine basis
{ }
1 2 4 i i i
e e e

, which satisfies
1 2 i i
e e

and
2 4 i i
e e

, then
4 1 1 2 2 3 4 i i i i i i i
e e e = + +

.

Combining
1 2 i i
e e

and
2 4 i i
e e

, the affine
7 Weiyang Lin, Bing Li, Xiaojun Yang and Dan Zhang: Modelling and Control
of Inverse Dynamics for a 5-DOF Parallel Kinematic Polishing Machine
www.intechopen.com
coordinates can be obtained,

( )
( )
T T T
1 1 4 4
1 4 2
T
1 4
T T T
4 4 1 1
3 4 2
T
1 4
1
1
i i i i
i i
i i
i i i i
i i
i i
e e e e
e e
e e e e
e e



=

(24)


The angular velocity
1 i

,
2 i

,
3 i

, and
5 i

can be
expressed as follows,

( )
( )
1 1 1
2 4 3 4
3 4 3
5 4 6 6
i i i
i i i i
i i i i
p
i p i i i
e
e
l e k
e e




=

= +

= +

(25)

3.4 Acceleration analysis of the kinematic model
Take the first-order derivative of Eq. (13) with respect to t,
we obtain,

( ) ( )
( )
4 4 4 4 4 4 4
2

i i i i i i i i i i i
p p bi p p bi
l e l e l e l e
a r r


+ =
= + +



(26)

where
4 i

is the angular acceleration of the component

4
B
i
in a global coordinate system, angular acceleration
4 i

can be written as,

4 4
p
i p i
= +

(27)
where
4
p
i

is the angular acceleration of the component

4
B
i
relative to the moving platform,
4
p
i

also lies on the

plane spanned by
5 i
e

and
6 i
e

, substituting Eq. (27) into

Eq. (26) results in

( ) ( )
( ) ( )
4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4
2

p
i i i i i i i i i i i
p p bi i i p p bi
l e l e l e l e
a r l e r


+ =
= + + +



(28)

Take the inner product with
4 i
e

for both sides of Eq.

(28),

( )
( )
4 4 4 4 4
4 4
i i i i i i p i
p bi i p p bi i
l l e e a e
r e r e


=

(29)
Let

( )
( ) ( )
4 4 4 4 4
4
2
i i i i i i i i i
p p bi i i p p bi
l e l e l e
a r l e r


= +
+

,

Eq. (29) can be written as,

( )
4 4
p
i i i i
l e =



(30)


where
4
p
i

is perpendicular to vector
i

, and
4
p
i

is
on the plane spanned by
5 i
e

and
6 i
e

, then
4
p
i

is
perpendicular to vector
56 5 6 i i i
e e e =

, so the unit
direction vector
4
p
i

of
4
p
i

is

( )
4 4 56
p p
i i i i
K K e = =

(31)


Substituting Eq. (31) to Eq. (30)

( )
( )
56 4 i i i i i
K e l e =



(32)


Simplifying Eq. (32) we have

( )
56
4 56
i i
i i i
e
K
l e e

=

(33)

The relative angular acceleration
4
p
i

of the ball-screw
4
B
i
is
[ ]
5 6
4 4
4 5 6
, ,
p p i i i
i i
i i i i
e e
K
l e e e

= =

(34)

We have the angular acceleration of the ball-screw,

[ ]
5 6
4 4
4 5 6
, ,
p i i i
i p i p
i i i i
e e
l e e e

= + = +

(35)


In order to calculate the angular velocities, the affine
projection method is used to solve the affine coordinates.
4 i

can be expressed as a vector { }

1 2 3 i i i

with
the affine basis { }
1 2 4 i i i
e e e

, which satisfies
1 2 i i
e e


and
2 4 i i
e e

, then
4 1 1 2 2 3 4 i i i i i i i
e e e = + +

.

Combining with
1 2 i i
e e

and
2 4 i i
e e

, the affine
coordinates can be obtained
8 Int. j. adv. robot. syst., 2013, Vol. 10, 314:2013 www.intechopen.com
( )
( )
T T T
1 1 4 4
1 4 2
T
1 4
T T T
4 4 1 1
3 4 2
T
1 4
1
1
i i i i
i i
i i
i i i i
i i
i i
e e e e
e e
e e e e
e e



=

(36)


The angular acceleration
1 i

,
2 i

,
3 i

and
5 i

are

( )
1 1 1
2 4 3 4
3 4 3
5 4 6 6
i i i
i i i i
i i i i
p
i p i i i
e
e
l e k
e e




=

= +

= +

(37)

3.5 Jacobian matrix and the workspace analysis
3 i

is the driving angular velocity of the i-th

hollow-shaft motor. From Eq. (25), Eq. (23) and Eq. (10),
3

s
i
, the scale of
3 i

, can be expressed by the

generalized velocities in matrix form,

T
3 3 3
= =

s
i i i i
e J q (38)




with

( )
[ ]
( )
[ ]
[ ]
T
56 4 4 3 3
T T
3 4 4
4 5 6
T
56 4 4 4
T
3 3 4 4 6 5
4 5 6

,
, ,

, ,
i i i
i i i i
i i i i
i bi i i i i bi
i i bi
i i i i
e e e I
J e ke e
l e e e
e r l e e e r
I ke e r N
l e e e

(
+
( + +
(

(39)

then the kinematic Jacobian matrix can be obtained

[ ]
T
1 2 3 4 5
, , , , J J J J J J = (40)

Table 1 contains the basic geometric parameters of the
PKPM, Di and Ei6 are the local coordinates in the moving
platform.

Let ( ) J denote the condition number of the Jacobian
matrix, the dexterous workspace can be searched with the
limitation ( ) J <20 by the bound workspace search
method, the dexterous workspace of the yaw angle [0,
90] and roll angle [-25, 25] is shown in Fig. 5, where Fig.
5(a) is the top view of the dexterous workspace and Fig.
5(b) is the oblique view.

The volume of the dexterous workspace of the PKPM is
0.7 x 0.4 x 0.3 m
3
, in the dexterous workspace the yaw
angle of the moving platform can rotate from 0 to 90,
which means the PKPM is suitable for a large workspace
five-axis machine tool.
A1 =(0.0,0.687,0.223) D1 =(0,0,0) E11 =(1.0,0,0) E16 =(1.0,0,0)
A2=(0.334,0.434,0.223) D2=(0.088,-0.16,-0.02) E21=(0.8192,-0.5736,0) E26=(0.8192,-0.5736,0)
A3=(-0.334,0.434,0.223) D3=(-0.088,-0.16,-0.02) E31=(0.8192,0.5736,0) E36=(0.8192,0.5736,0)
A4=(-0.486,-0.306,0.223) D4=(-0.163,-0.06,-0.105) E41=(-0.7071,0.7071,0) E46=(-0.7071,0.7071,0)
A5=(0.486,-0.30,0.223) D5=(0.163,-0.06,-0.105) E51=(-0.7071,-0.7071,0) E56=(-0.7071,-0.7071,0)
Table 1. Basic geometric parameters


(a) (b)
Figure 5. Dexterous workspace of the PKPM
9 Weiyang Lin, Bing Li, Xiaojun Yang and Dan Zhang: Modelling and Control
of Inverse Dynamics for a 5-DOF Parallel Kinematic Polishing Machine
www.intechopen.com

(a) (b)
Figure 6. Workspace of the PKPM with zero yaw and roll angles

Fig. 6(a) is the top view of the workspace of the PKPM
obtained by fixing the yaw and roll angle of the moving
platform to zero, and Fig. 6(b) is the oblique view. As Fig.
6(a)-(b) shows, the volume of the workspace of the PKPM
is 1.0 x 1.2 x 0.65 m
3
, it is larger than that (0.8x0.8x0.5 m
3
)
of the METROM Pentapod.
4. Inverse dynamics based on Kane's equation
4.1 The Kanes equation method
The Lagranges equation and the Newton-Euler method
are the most common and popular dynamic modelling
methods in robotics. They are very efficient and
convenient for dynamic systems with low degrees of
freedom and few components. The Newton-Euler method
requires an analysis of each component of the robot and
needs to take the internal forces into account. Finally, it
combines the dynamic equations of all the components to
obtain the final dynamic equations. So it needs much
more work in order to deal with lots of internal forces to
obtain the final dynamic equations. The Lagranges
equation based on the energy function does not need to
take the internal forces between the components of the
robot into account, but it requires that we calculate the
second-order derivatives of the Lagrange function.
Therefore, the Lagranges equation is low in efficiency for
a system with high DOFs and lots of components.

The Kanes equation method retains the advantages of the
vector analysis method and the energy method, and also
avoids the drawbacks of Lagranges equation and the
Newton-Euler method. The efficiency of the algorithm
based on Kanes method reflects the high efficiency of the
modelling and the simple expression of the final dynamic
formula. The Kanes equation method does not care about
the internal force, so its dynamic modelling is more
efficient than the Newton-Euler method. Compared to the
Lagranges equation method, the equations of the
dynamic formula of the PKPM based on Kanes equation
method are expressed directly in the linear simple matrix
form, it can be calculated highly efficiently and can easily
be programmed for control.
4.1 Velocity and acceleration of the PKPM components
The mass centre of the body is represented by C; each
body mass centre of the parallel mechanism is essentially
coincident with the geometric centre, so the geometric
centre is regarded as the mass centre of the body. As the
motion of the component
1
B
i
is a fixed-point rotation
motion through their centres of mass, the linear velocity
1 Ci
v

and the acceleration

1 Ci
a

are both zero.

Let the distance of component
2
B
i
deviated from the
centre of the universal joint be
2 Ci
, then the eccentric
vector of the mass centre is
2 2 4 Ci Ci i
r e =

, take the
first-order derivatives of
2 Ci
r

with respect to time t, then

the mass centre velocity can be expressed as follows,

( )
2 2 2 4 4 Ci Ci Ci i i
v r e = =

(41)

The mass centre acceleration of the component
3
B
i
is

( ) ( )
2 2 2 4 4 4 4 4 Ci Ci Ci i i i i i
a v e e = = +

(42)

The mass centre of component
3
B
i
is on the axis of the
ball-screw, suppose its eccentric vector is
3 3 4 Ci Ci i
r e =

,
then the mass centre velocity of component
3
B
i
is

( )
3 3 3 4 4 Ci Ci Ci i i
v r e = =

(43)

The mass centre acceleration of the component
3
B
i
is

( ) ( )
3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 Ci Ci Ci i i i i i
a v e e = = +

(44)

10 Int. j. adv. robot. syst., 2013, Vol. 10, 314:2013 www.intechopen.com
Supposing the total length of the ball-screw is L, the mass
centre vector of the component
4
B
i
is
( )
4 4
2
Ci i i
r L l e =

, the mass centre velocity of the
component
4
B
i
is

( )
4 4 4 4
2
Ci i i i i i
v l e L l e = +

(45)

By taking the first-order derivative of Eq. (45) with respect
to time t, the mass centre acceleration is


( ) ( )
4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4
2
2
Ci i i i i i
i i i i i i
a l e l e
L l e e

= +
+ + (




(46)

Similarly, the mass centre velocity and acceleration of the
component t
5
B
i
are

5 5 5 5 4 4 4 Ci Ci i i i i i i i
v e l e l e =

(47)

( ) ( )
( )
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4
2
Ci Ci i i i i i i i
i i i i i i i i i
a e e l e
l e l e e


= +
+ (

(48)

In order to obtain the partial velocity of Kanes equation,
the angular velocity of each component and the linear
velocity of the mass centre relative to the generalized
velocity
T
p p p
q x y z ( =

can be obtained.
( )
( )
[ ]
( )
[ ]
[ ]
( )
T T
T T T
56 4 4 3 3 56 4 4 4
1 1 1 1 4 4
1 3 3 6 5 2
T
4 5 6 4 5 6
1 4
T
T T T
56 4 4
4 4 4 4 1 1
2 3 3 2
T
1 4

,
, , , ,
1

1
i i i i bi i i i i bi
i i i i i i
i
i i i i i i i i
i i
i i i
i i i i i i
i
i i
e e e I e r l e e e r
e e e e e e
I N q
l e e e l e e e
e e
e e e I
e e e e e e
I
e e

(
+

( = +
(

| |

|
=
|

\ .

( )
[ ]
( )
[ ]
[ ]
( )
[ ]
( )
[ ]
T
3 3 56 4 4 4
3 3 6 5
4 5 6 4 5 6
T T
56 4 4 3 3 56 4 4 4
T T
3 4 4 3 3 4 4
4 5 6 4 5 6

,
, , , ,

,
, , , ,
i bi i i i i bi
i i i i i i i i
i i i i bi i i i i bi
i i i i i bi
i i i i i i i i
e r l e e e r
I N q
l e e e l e e e
e e e I e r l e e e r
ke e I ke e r
l e e e l e e e

(
+
( +
(

(
+
= + +

[ ]
( )
[ ]
( )
[ ]
[ ]
( )
[ ]
( )
6 5
T T
56 4 4 3 3 56 4 4 4
4 3 3 6 5
4 5 6 4 5 6
T T T
6 6 56 4 4 3 3 6 6 56 4 4 4
5
4 5 6

,
, , , ,

,
, ,
i i i i bi i i i i bi
i
i i i i i i i i
T
i i i i i i i i bi i i i i bi
i
i i i i i
N q
e e e I e r l e e e r
I N q
l e e e l e e e
e e e e e I e e e r l e e e r
l e e e l e

(
(

(
+
( = +
(

+
=

[ ]
[ ]
3 3 6 5
4 5 6
, ,
i i i
I N q
e e

( +
(

(49)
( )
[ ]
( )
[ ]
[ ]
( )
[ ]
2
T T
4 56 4 4 3 3 56 4 4 4
2 2 2 4 3 3 6 5
4 5 6 4 5 6
T
4 56 4 4 3 3
3 3 3 4
4 5 6
0

,
, , , ,

,
, ,
Ci
i i i i i bi i i i i bi
Ci Ci Ci i
i i i i i i i i
i i i i i
Ci Ci Ci i
i i i i
v
e e e e I e r l e e e r
v e I N q
l e e e l e e e
e e e e I e
v e
l e e e

=
( | |
+
( | = +
|
(
\ .

( )
[ ]
[ ]
( )
( )
[ ]
( )
( )
[ ]
T
56 4 4 4
3 3 6 5
4 5 6
T T
4 56 4 4 3 3 56 4 4 4
T T
4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3
4 5 6 4 5 6

, ,

2 , 2
, , , ,
bi i i i i bi
i i i i
i i i i i bi i i i i bi
Ci i i i i i bi i i
i i i i i i i i
r l e e e r
I N q
l e e e
e e e e I e r l e e e r
v e e L l e e r L l e I
l e e e l e e e

( | |
+
( | +
|
(
\ .
|
+
= +
\

[ ]
( ) ( )
[ ]
( )( )
[ ]
[ ]
6 5
T T T T
4 5 5 6 6 56 4 4 3 3 4 56 5 5 6 6 4 4 4
T T
5 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 6 5
4 5 6 4 5 6

,
, , , ,
i i Ci i i i i i i i i i Ci i i i bi i i i i bi
Ci i i i i bi i i Ci i
i i i i i i i i
N q
l e e e e e e e I l e e e e e r l e e e r
v e e e e r l e e N
l e e e l e e e

( |
( |
|
(
.
(
+
( = + + +
(

(50)

To simplify the formula expression, we rewrite Eq.
(49) and Eq. (50) as Eq.(51):

( )
( )
, 1,..., 5
=

ij ij
Cij Cij
W q q
i j
v V q q

(51)
Similarly, we can combine Eq. (35), Eq. (37), Eq. (42), Eq.
(44), Eq. (46) and Eq. (48) into the matrix form:

( ) ( )
( ) ( )
,
, 1,..., 5
,

= +

= +

ij ij ij
Cij aij aij
M q q C q q q
i j
a M q q C q q q

(52)
11 Weiyang Lin, Bing Li, Xiaojun Yang and Dan Zhang: Modelling and Control
of Inverse Dynamics for a 5-DOF Parallel Kinematic Polishing Machine
www.intechopen.com
The coefficient matrices
ij
W ,
Cij
V ,
ij
M

,
aij
M depend
on the generalized variables q

, and
ij
C

,
aij
C depend
on both q

and q

.

4.2 Force analysis
(1) Active force and inertia force of the moving platform
The cutting force and moment and gravity act on the
moving platform in the polishing process, so the principal
force of the moving platform is,

t
p p p
F F m g = +



(53)

where
t
p
F

denotes the cutting force simplified to the

moving platform,
p
m refers to the mass of the moving
platform, and g

stands for the gravity acceleration

vector.

The principal moment acting upon the moving platform
can be written as follows,

t
p p
M L =


(54)

where
t
p
L

is the principal moment of the cutting force

simplified to the mass centre of the moving platform.

The generalized inertia force
*
p
F

and the generalized

inertia moment
*
p
M

of the moving platform are written

as

* *
, [ ( )]
p p p p p p p p p
F m a M I I = = +


(55)

where
p
I is the inertia matrix of the moving platform in
the global coordinate system;
p
a

,
p

,
p

are the mass

centre acceleration, angular velocity and the angular
acceleration of the moving platform.

2) Active force and inertia force of each component

The principal forces and moments acting upon
component B
ij
can be expressed as,

1 5 + = =

=

+

f
p ij
ij
f
ij ij
F F i and j
F
m g F otherwise

(56)
1 5
3
+ = =

= + =

f
p ij
f
ij i ij ij
f
ij
M M i and j
M M e M j
M otherwise
(57)

where
ij
m is the mass of B
ij
,
i
M is a driving moment
of the hollow-shaft motor in the i-th kinematic chain,
f
ij
F

and
f
ij
M

, the unknown variables, denote the friction

force and friction torque of the body B
ij
. The PKPM is
driven by the hollow-shaft motors.

The principal inertia force
*
ij
F

and inertia moment

*
ij
M

acting upon component B
ij
can be expressed as

* *
, [ ( )]
ij ij Cij ij ij ij ij ij ij
F m a M I I = = +


(58)

where
ij
I is the inertia matrix of the j-th component in
the i-th kinematic chain in the global coordinate system;
Cij
a

ij

ij

are mass centre acceleration, angular

velocity and angular acceleration of component B
ij
.

Suppose that
0
ij
I
is the moment of inertia about
component B
ij
in its local coordinate system and its
orientational transformation matrix from local coordinate
system to global coordinate system is
ij
R , then the inertia
matrix of component
ij
I in the global coordinate system
is
0 T
ij ij ij ij
I R I R = .
4.3 Inverse dynamics of Kanes equation
Variables , , , ,
p p p
x y z

are selected as the

generalized velocities of the PKPM, so the generalized
driving force and the generalized inertia force can be
expressed based on the partial velocities
( ) s
ij
v

and
( ) s
ij

5,5 5,5
( ) ( )
1, 1 1, 1
( 1, 2, 3, 4, 5)
s s
s ij ij ij ij
i j i j
F F v M s
= = = =
= + =




(59)

5,5 5,5
* * ( ) * ( )
1, 1 1, 1
( 1, 2, 3, 4, 5)
s s
s ij ij ij ij
i j i j
F F v M s
= = = =
= + =




(60)

12 Int. j. adv. robot. syst., 2013, Vol. 10, 314:2013 www.intechopen.com
ij
W
and
Cij
V
denote the partial velocity matrix of
component
B
ij
s linear velocity and angular velocity
relative to the generalized variables
, , , ,
p p p
x y z

,
which is shown in Eq. (51). The partial velocities
( ) s
ij
v

and
( ) s
ij

denote the s-th column vector of

ij
W
and
Cij
V
respectively.

Kanes equation shows that all the algebra sums of the
generalized driving force
s
F

and the generalized inertia

force
*
s
F

in the same partial velocity should be zero.

*
0 ( 1, 2, 3, 4, 5)
s s
F F s + = =

(61)

With the partial velocities
( ) s
ij
v

and
( ) s
ij

, we can derive
the following dynamic equations about the PKPM

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ,
drv drv
J T M q q C q q q F q G q = + + +

(62)

where
T
p p p
q x y z =

denotes the generalized

variables,
[ ]
T
1 2 3 4 5 drv
T T T T T T =

refers to the driving

moment of the hollow-shaft motor,
drv
J
the driving
force Jacobian matrix,
( ) M q

the generalized positive

definite inertia matrix,
( )
, C q q

the Coriolis and

centripetal generalized force matrix,
( )
F q

the
velocity-dependent frictional generalized force vector,
and ( ) G q

the generalized gravitational force. The

friction force
( )
F q

in Eq. (62) is unknown.

4.4 Driving torque simulation of inverse dynamics
Given the geometric parameters of the PKPM as shown in
Table 1, it is easy to calculate the mass and inertia of each
component; the geometric and inertia parameters of the
ball-screw and the hollow-shaft motor are known, and the
inertia of the hollow-shaft motor is 3.8 Kg*m
2
and the limit
torque is 15 Nm. The property parameters of every
component are listed in Table 2.

Suppose the load is just the gravity of the PKPM in the
following inverse dynamic torque simulation. Let the
moving platform make a circular motion on the plane
parallel to the XY plane, and keep both and as zero,
the centre of the moving platform is moving in a circular
trajectory, ( ) ( ) , , cos sin 0.6 =

p p p sim sim
x y z r t r t ,
( ) ( ) , , -sin cos 0 ,
p p p sim sim sim sim
x y z r t t =


( ) ( )
2
, , -cos sin 0 ,
p p p sim sim sim sim
x y z r t t =

sim
stands for the angular velocity and
sim
r refers to
the radius.

The simulation results of the angular velocities and the
driving moments of the motors are shown in Fig. 7

The radius and angular velocity of the circular motion is
set at 0.3 m =
sim
r and 1rad/s =
sim
, so that the
linear velocity is 0.3m/s
sim sim
r = and the linear
acceleration is
2 2
0.3m/s =
sim sim
r . The maximum
angular velocities of the motors have reached 200 rad/s,
but the derived driving moments are less than the
maximum moment of the motor of 6.5 Nm. It shows that
the polishing feedrate of the PKPM could reach 18m/min.
We can also see that the driving characteristic of the
PKPM is quite good as it only needs relatively small
driving moments to drive.


Body Mass(Kg) Inertia (Kg*m
2
) Eccentricity (m)
1
B ( 1...5)
i
i = 6.72 diag(3.89, 5.03, 8.53)*0.01 0
2
B ( 1...5)
i
i = 8.07 diag(2.77, 2.21, 2.42)*0.01 0
3
B ( 1...5)
i
i = 3.84 diag(1.03,1.03,0.38)*0.01 0.08
4
B ( 1...5)
i
i = 19.42 diag(3.44,3.44 .00561) 0
5
B ( 2...5)
i
i = 1.34 diag([1.05, 1.37, 2.09)*0.001 0
15
B 37.22 diag(1.55, 2.0, 0.628) *0.1 0.135
Table 2. Property parameters of each component
.
13 Weiyang Lin, Bing Li, Xiaojun Yang and Dan Zhang: Modelling and Control
of Inverse Dynamics for a 5-DOF Parallel Kinematic Polishing Machine
www.intechopen.com

(a) angular velocities of the motors

(b) driving moment of the motors
Figure 7. Simulation results ( 18 m/min
p
v = ,
2
0.3 m/s
p
a =
)


(a) angular velocities of the motors

(b) driving moment of the motors
Figure 8. Simulation results ( 18 m/min
p
v = ,
2
20 m/s
p
a =
)
Let 0.0045 m =
sim
r , 66.7 rad/s =
sim
, the
polishing feedrate is 18m/min, the acceleration could
reach
2 2
20m/s =
sim sim
r , which is twice the gravity
acceleration. The simulation results are shown in Fig. 8.
From Fig.8 (b) we can see that the driving moments are
less than 6.5 Nm. The result also demonstrates that the
PKPM can bear much higher acceleration, so that the
presented PKPM has a high dynamic performance.
4. Tracking error control based on the inverse dynamics
4.1 Methods for tracking error control
Currently, there exist many control techniques, such as
PID control, computed torque control, slide control, fuzzy
control, robust control and so on. The parallel
manipulator has a complex structure. From Eq.(62) we
know that the dynamic parameters of the parallel
mechanism are time-varying.

In the polishing process the trajectory of the polishing
tool requires it to be smooth, as the sharp motion and
vibration of the polishing tool will deeply affect the
polishing precision. As is well known, the slide mode
control keeps the robotic motion state around the sliding
mode surface, but the switch function of the sliding mode
control could make the robot, at a high-frequency, chatter
around the sliding mode surface; the chattering would
result in a low control accuracy and joint wear occurring
quickly.

The friction component
( )
F q

in the dynamic model of

Eq. (62) is the unknown force acting on the robot, on the
other hand, the system parameters, determined by
theoretical calculation, are not exactly the same as the real
parameters, the difference between the nominal and the
real parameters can be regarded as a perturbation to the
parallel mechanism and there also exist various uncertain
external disturbances in the polishing process. Taking
into account all kinds of disturbances, the control method
for the PKPM should be robust and adaptive to friction
and perturbations; the control law should adapt the
dynamical parameters of the PKPM in different
configurations and velocities in the whole polishing
process.

The control gain of the classical PID control method is a
constant; hence the classical PID control gain does not
satisfy the control of the dynamic parameters in the
trajectory motion, so the adaptive control techniques
should be introduced to compute the real-time dynamic
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
250
time (sec)
A
n
g
u
l
a
r

V
e
l
o
c
i
t
y

O
f

M
o
t
o
r

(
r
a
d
/
s
)

1
2
3
4
5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
time (sec)
D
r
i
v
i
n
g

M
o
m
e
n
t

o
f

M
o
t
o
r

(
N
m
)

M1
M2
M3
M4
M5
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
250
time (sec)
A
n
g
u
l
a
r

V
e
l
o
c
i
t
i
e
s

o
f

M
o
t
o
r
s

(
r
a
d
/
s
)

1
2
3
4
5
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
time (sec)
D
r
i
v
i
n
g

M
o
m
e
n
t

o
f

M
o
t
o
r
s

(
N
m
)

M1
M2
M3
M4
M5
14 Int. j. adv. robot. syst., 2013, Vol. 10, 314:2013 www.intechopen.com
control gain in order to obtain the optimal tracking error
control. The computed torque control is a basic and
effective control method in robotic control; with the
measurement of the position and velocity of the robot it
removes all the nonlinear components of the dynamic
equations, so that the nonlinear dynamic control problem
is changed into a linear control problem. The control laws
of advanced robotic control methods are approximately
based on the computed torque control model. In this
paper the adapted robust control method with computed
torque control is introduced to design the PKPMs
trajectory controller.
4.2 Tracking error model and the mixed H2/H control method
In order to simplify the discussion of designing a motion
controller, the inverse dynamic Eq. (62) can be rewritten
as,

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) , M q q C q q q F q G q = + + +

(63)

where is used to denote
drv drv
J T

and q is used to
denote q

for the purposes of simplification. The

parameters
( ) M q
,
( ) , C q q
and
( ) G q
are divided
into the nominal part and the unknown part,

( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( )

, , ,

M q M q M q
C q q C q q C q q
G q G q G q
= +
= +
= +


(64)

where
( )

M q
,
( )

, C q q
and
( )

G q
are the nominal
parametric matrices, and
( ) M q
,
( ) , C q q
and
( ) G q
are the uncertainties. Let
d

denote a finite
energy exogenous disturbance force,
d

is divided into a
constant disturbance component
c
d
and a variable
disturbance
v
d
, i.e.
c v
d d d
= + , they both are
unknown in the inverse dynamic equation, so Eq. (63)
with a disturbance force can be rewritten as,

( ) ( ) ( )

,
c v
d d
M q q C q q q G q + + = + +

(65)

with

( )
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
,
c
d
v
d
G q
M q q C q q q F q

= + +

(66)


The tracking error of the motion controller decides the
motion precision of a robot or machine. For a given
motion control object, the best way is to build up its
dynamic model with the exact parameters and all the
disturbance information, but in the real world there will
be some information that cannot be exactly measured or
obtained so we need to attenuate the effects of the
unknown parameters and the perturbation on the
tracking error. For a given trajectory of the moving
platform,
d
q
, with its first and second order derivatives,
d
q
and
d
q
, the tracking error vector is defined as,

d
d
q q q
x
q q q
( (
= =
( (

(67)

The minimized control action, which includes the
minimal applied torque and energy consumption on the
motion control, is introduced by R. Johansson [27],
considering a more general control action, a state
transformation is given by

1
0
11 12 2
0 z I
z T x x
T T z
( (
= = =
( (

(68)

The applied torque with a variable u for the assignment
of the control law is introduced into the robust control
design by a minimized control action [26, 27].

( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
1 1 1
12 11 12 0

,

, , ,
T
d
d
M q q T T q T M q C q q B Tx u
C q q q F q G q q q q

= +
+ + +

(69)
Substituting Eq. (69) and Eq. (67) into Eq. (65), the tracking
error model based on unknown parameter matrices and
external disturbances can be obtained,

( ) ( ) ( ) , , ,
T T T
x A x t x B x t u B x t w = + +

(70)
where
( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
1 1
12 11 12
1
0 0
1
1 1
0
1
12
,

0 ,
0

,

T
T
d
T T T
A x t T T
M q C q q
B x t T M q
I
w M q T M q

(
= (

(

(
=
(

=

(71)

Let disturbance
d

denote the sum of the constant

disturbance
c
d
and the variable disturbance
v
d
, the

control method attenuates the effect of the

15 Weiyang Lin, Bing Li, Xiaojun Yang and Dan Zhang: Modelling and Control
of Inverse Dynamics for a 5-DOF Parallel Kinematic Polishing Machine
www.intechopen.com
disturbance
d

, and makes the system into a global

asymptotic stability. The

controller only considers

the attenuation of the perturbation performance but not
the tracking error performance. In contrast, the optimal
control with
2

quadratic optimization only considers

the tracking error performance but not the disturbance;
the effect of the disturbance is always enlarged to the
tracking error of the end-effector in the optimal control,
because the optimal controller is used in the high gain
control system in order to obtain the high responses. A
mixed
2

performance tracking error control

method is proposed to obtained the attenuation of the
disturbance performance and high response performance.

For the given positive definite weight matrices
1
Q
,
2
Q
,
1
R
,
2
R
and an attenuation level , the

tracking
error performance for the positive definite matrix
1 f
Q

can be expressed as,

( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
1 1
2
1 1
0
,
d
f
T
f
t
T T T
J u w x t Q x t
x t Q x t u t Ru t w t w t t
= +
+ +
}


(72)
The
2

optimal tracking error performance for the

positive definite matrix
2 f
Q
is written as,

( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
2 2
2 2
0
,
d
f
T
f
t
T T
J u w x t Q x t
x t Q x t u t R u t t
= +
+ +
}


(73)

Hence, the mixed
2

performance tracking control

problem is to find the a pair
( )
, u w

which satisfies
the minimax problem,

( ) ( ) ( )
1 1 2
, , [0, ]
f
J u w J u w w t L t



(74)


( ) ( ) ( )
2 2 2
, , [0, ]
f
J u w J u w u t L t



(75)

In the mixed
2

tracking error control problem,

we take
1 2
R R R = =
to define the same effects of the
control variable
( ) u t
in both the
2

and

performance indices.

The solution of the minimax problem described by Eq. (74)
and Eq. (75) turns out to solve a coupled nonlinear
time-varying Riccati-like equation, but the nonlinear
Riccati-like equations are too difficult to use in
engineering. The simple solution for the
2

performance tracking error problem is given by
introducing some restrictions [26]. For a desired
disturbance attenuation level , with
0 1 < <
and
the positive definite weighting matrix of

, the
performance index can be written as,

T
11 11 12
1
21 22 22
T
Q Q Q
Q
Q Q Q
(
=
(


(76)


where
22 22
Q q I =
and
T T T
11 22 22 11 12 12
Q Q Q Q Q Q + > + ,
then the weighting matrix R and the state translation
matrix T can be obtained,

2
1
2
R I

| |
=
|

\ .

(77)


0 1/ 2 1/ 2
11 22
0
(1 ) (1 )
I
T
Q Q
(
=
(



(78)


Hence, the mixed
2

optimal applied torque is

( )( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( )
1
12 11
1 1
12 11 12

,

d
M q q T T q C q q
q T T q F q G q T u

= +
+ + +

(79)

with
1 T
0
u R B T x

=

(80)


Eq. (79) and Eq. (80) can be rewritten in the form of a
computed torque,

( )( )
( ) ( ) ( )

,
d v p
d
M q q K q K q
C q q q F q G q

= +
+ + +

(81)

with mixed
2

performance control gain matrices,

( )
( ) ( ) ( )
1 1 1 1
12 11 12 12
1 1 1 1 1
12 11 12 11

,
v
p
K T T M q T R T
K M q C q q T T M q T R T

= +

= +

(82)
Compared to the classical static gain computed torque
control, Eq. (82) shows that the mixed
2

performance control has dynamic gain. Hence, the mixed
16 Int. j. adv. robot. syst., 2013, Vol. 10, 314:2013 www.intechopen.com
2

performance control is more adaptive than the

computed torque control. When the attenuation level
= is reached, the mixed
2

control is
degenerated into the
2

optimal control.
4.3 Simulations with four control methods
In this section the computed torque method, the optimal
control method, the

control method and the mixed

2

control method for tracking the error control of

the PKPM are compared. The classical computed torque
control method does not tell us how to obtain the optimal
control gain
p
k
and
v
k
, so that we select the control gain
200
p
k =
and
25
v
k =
for the computed torque control
method by experience, and select the attenuation level
0.5 = for the

and the mixed

2

method.

The tracking error control focuses on control precision, the
attenuation of disturbance, stability and computed
driving torque. Four control methods are discussed in this
paper. The following simulation is concerned with the
disturbance condition. The disturbance is divided into
two components, the constant component
c
d

and the
variable component
v
d
. Fig. 9 shows the disturbance
inputs in the simulation.
Case 1: Continuous trajectory command input with
disturbance
c
d

and
v
d

The continuous trajectory command input is shown in Fig.
10. Each trajectory component of the generalized variables
of the moving platform is a sinusoidal function relative to
the home configuration [ ]
T
0, 0, 0.8, 0, 0
.

The simulation results of the continuous trajectory
command are shown in Fig. 11(a)-(d). We can see that the
optimal control obtains the highest tracking error
precision and the lowest one is

control. This is
because the optimal controller is only designed to obtain
the high tracking performance and the

controller is
only designed to attenuate the effect of disturbance and
unknown parameters. The mixed
2
/

control has a
higher tracking error precision than those obtained from
computed torque control and

control.

Case 2: Step trajectory command with disturbances
c
d

,
v
d

and torque limit

A step function command is used as the simulations
command input,

t O

c
d
50Kg

O

v
d
50Kg
t
50Kg

(a) Constant disturbance (b) Variable disturbance
Figure 9. Disturbances for simulation


Figure 10. Continuous trajectory command relative to the home position

0 1 2 3 4 5
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
Time (s)
P
o
s
i
t
i
o
n

(
m
)
Continuous Trajectory


x
y
z

17 Weiyang Lin, Bing Li, Xiaojun Yang and Dan Zhang: Modelling and Control
of Inverse Dynamics for a 5-DOF Parallel Kinematic Polishing Machine
www.intechopen.com

(a) Computed torque method

(b) Optimal control

(c)

control

(d) Mixed
2
/

control
Figure 11. Simulation results of continuous trajectory command with disturbances

[ ]
[ ]
T
T
0, 0, 0.8, 0, 0 0
0, 0, 0.7, 0, 0 0
d
t
q
t

<

(83)


The position [ ]
T
0, 0, 0.8, 0, 0 is the origin of the PKPM,
the step command trajectory moves the robot to
[ ]
T
0, 0, 0.7, 0, 0 at initial time
0
t
. The step command is
shown in Fig. 12.
0 1 2 3 4 5
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
Time (s)
D
r
i
v
i
n
g

T
o
r
q
u
e

(
N
m
)
Computed Torque

5
0 1 2 3 4 5
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
x 10
-3
Time (s)
E
r
r
o
r

(
m
)
Tracking Error


e
x
e
y
e
z
e

0 1 2 3 4 5
-4
-2
0
2
4
Time (s)
D
r
i
v
i
n
g

T
o
r
q
u
e

(
N
m
)
Optimal Control

5
0 1 2 3 4 5
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
x 10
-5
Time (s)
E
r
r
o
r

(
m
)
Tracking Error


e
x
e
y
e
z
e

0 1 2 3 4 5
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
Time (s)
D
r
i
v
i
n
g

T
o
r
q
u
e

(
N
m
)
H

Control

5
0 1 2 3 4 5
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
x 10
-3
Time (s)
E
r
r
o
r

(
m
)
Tracking Error


e
x
e
y
e
z
e

0 1 2 3 4 5
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
Time (s)
D
r
i
v
i
n
g

T
o
r
q
u
e

(
N
m
)
Mixed H
2
/H

Control

5
0 1 2 3 4 5
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
x 10
-4
Time (s)
E
r
r
o
r

(
m
)
Tracking Error


e
x
e
y
e
z
e

18 Int. j. adv. robot. syst., 2013, Vol. 10, 314:2013 www.intechopen.com

Figure 12. Step function command
Actually, the driving torque of the hollow-shaft motor is
limited by the current passing through the motor, the
limited torque of the hollow shaft motor is 15 Nm, hence,
we add this torque limit into the dynamic simulation, the
simulation results of the step command input are shown
in Fig. 13(a)-(d) with the constant disturbance
c
d

and
variable disturbance
v
d

.


(a) Computed torque method

(b) Optimal control

(c)

control

(d) Mixed
2
/

control
Figure 13. Simulation results of step trajectory command with disturbances and torque limit
z
t O
0.1
0 1 2 3 4 5
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
Time (s)
D
r
i
v
i
n
g

T
o
r
q
u
e

(
N
m
)
Computed Torque

5
0 1 2 3 4 5
-0.02
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
Time (s)
E
r
r
o
r

(
m
)
Tracking Error


e
x
e
y
e
z
e

0 1 2 3 4 5
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
Time (s)
D
r
i
v
i
n
g

T
o
r
q
u
e

(
N
m
)
Optimal Control

5
0 1 2 3 4 5
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
Time (s)
E
r
r
o
r

(
m
)
Tracking Error


e
x
e
y
e
z
e

0 1 2 3 4 5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
Time (s)
D
r
i
v
i
n
g

T
o
r
q
u
e

(
N
m
)
H

Control

5
0 1 2 3 4 5
-0.02
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
Time (s)
E
r
r
o
r

(
m
)
Tracking Error


e
x
e
y
e
z
e

0 1 2 3 4 5
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
Time (s)
D
r
i
v
i
n
g

T
o
r
q
u
e

(
N
m
)
Mixed H
2
/H

Control

5
0 1 2 3 4 5
-0.15
-0.1
-0.05
0
0.05
0.1
Time (s)
E
r
r
o
r

(
m
)
Tracking Error


e
x
e
y
e
z
e

19 Weiyang Lin, Bing Li, Xiaojun Yang and Dan Zhang: Modelling and Control
of Inverse Dynamics for a 5-DOF Parallel Kinematic Polishing Machine
www.intechopen.com
The computed torque controller can track the step
trajectory command well, but when the disturbance
c
d

and
v
d

appear at time t from 1.25s and 2.5s, the

controller cannot attenuate the effect of the disturbance.

The simulation results of the optimal control with driving
torque limit show that the tracking error is enlarged to
two times that of the step trajectory command input by
the optimal control and the dynamic tracking is unstable,
so that the optimal control method is not suitable for the
step trajectory command.

Because of the disturbance attenuation, the tracking error
with the

control method is insensitive to the

external disturbances, but the responsibility of the

control method is too low to use in tracking the step
trajectory command.

From the figure we can see that the tracking error is still
smooth when the disturbances
c
d

and
v
d

appear at
time t from 1.25s and 2.5s. This implies that the mixed
2

control method has a high attenuation of

external disturbances. Hence, the mixed
2

control
method has a high combination performance of tracking
error control and attenuation of external disturbances.

Considering the worst conditions of the step trajectory
command with disturbances and driving torque limit, the
mixed
2

control exhibits both optimal and robust

control performance, which means that the mixed
2

control method is capable of the attenuation of
disturbance with a high tracking error performance.
5. Conclusions
A 5-DOF PKPM with a motion type of T3R2 and a
redundant linear motion actuator is developed in this
paper, there are two advantages to the structural scheme:
one is the large yaw angle workspace which is suitable for
polishing parts with freeform surfaces; the second is that
the PKPM could perform constant polishing-force control
with the 3D force sensor and linear motion actuator
mounted on the moving platform. This paper focuses on
the inverse dynamic modelling and tracking error control.

The kinematic analysis was developed and a closure
vector method was introduced to express the geometric
relations of the PKPM linkages, which could avoid a lot of
tedious derivations in formulating the linear velocities
and angular velocities. The affine projection method was
presented as a means to deal with the angular velocities
and the angular accelerations projection problem
efficiently, so that the linear velocities and the linear
accelerations at the mass centre are obtained. Based on
these variables an inverse dynamic algorithm based on
Kanes equation is developed: it is highly efficient and
works in real-time to obtain the driving control torque of
the motors. The inverse dynamic driving torque
simulation results show that the parallel kinematic
machine can work at high speeds and high acceleration.
The presented PKPM can achieve an acceleration two
times that of gravity, while the conventional machine tool
can only achieve an acceleration of one time greater than
gravity.

The mixed
2

control approach is introduced for

PKPM tracking error control. The simulation results from
comparing the computed torque method, the optimal
control and the

control method, show that the mixed

2

control method with dynamic control gain has a

high tracking precision performance and attenuation of
disturbances, and a high control performance can also be
obtained even under the worst conditions.
6. Acknowledgements
The work is supported by the National Natural Science
Foundation of China (Grant No. 51175105); it is also
supported by the Shenzhen Key Lab Scheme
(CXB200903090033A).
7. References
[1] F. Nagata, Tani, T. Mizobuchi and T. Hase, Basic
Performance of a Desktop NC Machine Tool with
Compliant Motion Capability, Proceedings of 2008
IEEE International Conference on Mechatronics and
Automation, pp.83-88, 2008
[2] M. Lee, S. Go, J. Jung and M. Lee, Development of a
User-friendly Polishing Robot System, International
Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems,
pp.1914-1919, 1999.
[3] S. Go, M. Lee and M. Park, Development of
Automatic Polishing System and Fuzzy-Sliding Mode
Control Based on Genetic Algorithm, Proceedings of
the American Control Conference, pp.25-27, 2001.
[4] Y.T. Wang and C.P. Wang, Development of a
Polishing Robot System, Emerging Technologies and
Factory Automation, 1999. Proceedings. ETFA '99. 1999
7th IEEE International Conference, pp.1161-1166, 1999.
[5] D. Ge, Y. Takeuchi and N. Asakawa, Dexterous
Polishing of Overhanging Sculptured Surfaces with a
6-Axis Control Robot, IEEE International Conference
on Robotics and Automation, pp.2090-2095, 1995.
[6] F. Caccavale, B. Siciliano and L. Villani, The Tricept
Robot: Dynamics and Impedance Control,
IEEE/ASME Transactions On Mechatronics, vol. 8,
pp.263-268, 2003
20 Int. j. adv. robot. syst., 2013, Vol. 10, 314:2013 www.intechopen.com
[7] S. Krut, V. Nabat, O. Company and F. Pierrot, A
High-speed Parallel Robot for SCARA Motions,
International conference on robotics & Automation, New
Orleans, LA. pp.4109-4115, 2004
[8] T. Sun and Y. Song, Comparison between A 4-DOF
Hybrid Module and Tricept Module Focusing on
Inverse Kinematics and Stiffness, International
Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics, Guilin, China,
pp.1597-1602, 2009.
[9] M. Weck and D. Stainmer, Parallel Kinematic Machine
Tools - Current State and Future Potentials, CIRP
Annals, vol.51, pp.671-683, 2002.
[10] Q. Xu and Y. Li, "An Investigation on Mobility and
Stiffness of a 3-DOF Translational Parallel
Manipulator via Screw Theory," Robotics and
Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, vol. 24, no. 3,
pp.402-414, 2008.
[11] Q. Xu and Y. Li, Design and Analysis of a New
Singularity-Free Three-Prismatic-Revolute
Cylindrical Translational Parallel Manipulator,
Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers.
Part C, Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science, vol.
221, no. 5, pp. 565-576, 2007.
[12] Y. Hu and B. Li, Robust design and analysis of
4PUS1RPU parallel mechanism for a
five-degree-of-freedom hybrid kinematic machine
Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers,
Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture, vol.225,
pp.685-698, 2011.
[13] H. Huang, B. Li, Z. Deng and H. Hu, A 6-DOF
adaptive parallel manipulator with large tilting
capacity, Robotics and Computer-Integrated
Manufacturing, vol. 28, pp.275283, 2012.
[14] B. Li and X. Yang, Kinematics analysis of a novel
parallel platform with passive constraint chain, Int.
J. Design Engineering, vol.1, pp.316-332, 2008.
[15] Y. Li and Q. Xu, "Dynamic Modeling and Robust
Control of a 3-PRC Translational Parallel Kinematic
Machine," Robotics and Computer-Integrated
Manufacturing, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 630-640, 2009.
[16] D. Zhang, L. Wang and S. Y. T. Lang, Parallel
Kinematic Machines: Design, Analysis and
Simulation in an Integrated Virtual Environment,
Transactions of the ASME, vol. 127, pp.580-588, 2005.












[17] M. Yu and J. Zhao, A study of the inverse dynamics
of a hybrid polishing kinematical machine tool based
on the flexible multi-body systems, International
Journal of Computer Applications in Technology, vol. 29,
pp.191-194, 2007.
[18] M. Yu and J. Zhao, Research on the inverse dynamics
of the flexible multi-body systems for the hybrid
polishing kinematics machine tool, Materials Science
Forum, vols. 532-533, pp.53-58, 2006.
[19] L. Liao, F. Xi and K. Liu, Modeling and control of
automated polishing/deburring process using a
dual-purpose compliant toolhead, International
Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture vol. 48,
pp.1454-1463, 2008.
[20] O. Ibrahim and W. Khalil, Inverse Dynamic
Modeling of Serial-Parallel Hybrid Robots,
International Conference on Intelligent Robots and
Systems, Beijing, China, pp.2156-2161, 2006.
[21] M. Tsai and W. Yuan, Inverse dynamics analysis for a
3-PRS parallel mechanism based on a special
decomposition of the reaction forces, Mechanism and
Machine Theory, vol. 45, pp.1491-1508, 2010.
[22] W. Shang and S. Cong. Nonlinear computed torque
control for a high-speed planar parallel manipulator,
Mechatronics, vol. 19, pp.987-992, 2009.
[23] B. Achili , B. Daachi, Y. Amirat and A. Ali-cherif, A
robust adaptive control of a parallel robot,
International Journal of Control, vol. 83, pp.2107-2119,
2010.
[24] H. Abdellatif, J. Kotlarski, T. Ortmaier and B.
Heimann, Practical model-based and robust control
of parallel manipulators using passivity and sliding
mode theory, Robotics 2010: Current and Future
Challenges, pp.63-84, 2010.
[25] B.S. Chen, T.S. Lee and J.H. Feng, A nonlinear H
control design in robotic systems under parameter
perturbation and external disturbance, International
Journal of Control, vol. 59, pp.439-461, 1994.
[26] B.S. Chen and Y.C. Chang, Nonlinear mixed H2/H
control for robust tracking design of robotic systems,
International Journal of Control, vol. 67, pp.837-857, 1997.
[27] R. Johansson, Quadratic Optimization of Motion
Coordination and Control, IEEE Transactions On
Automatic Control, vol. 35, pp.1197-1208, 1990.


21 Weiyang Lin, Bing Li, Xiaojun Yang and Dan Zhang: Modelling and Control
of Inverse Dynamics for a 5-DOF Parallel Kinematic Polishing Machine
www.intechopen.com