4.6 Article

Design of Four-DoF Compliant Parallel Manipulators Considering Maximum Kinematic Decoupling for Fast Steering Mirrors

期刊

ACTUATORS
卷 10, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/act10110292

关键词

fast steering mirror; compliant parallel manipulator; constraint map; 4-DoF; decoupling

资金

  1. Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan [MOST 105-2221-E-006-265-MY5]
  2. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities of China [N180304019]
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51975108]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper focuses on the design of a four-degree-of-freedom compliant parallel manipulator to meet the requirements of FSM. Using a constraint map method, four required DoF are proposed and their kinematics are analytically estimated. A normalization-based compliance matrix is derived to validate the mobility of the system.
Laser beams can fluctuate in four directions, which requires active compensation by a fast steering mirror (FSM) motion system. This paper deals with the design of four-degrees-of-freedom (DoF) compliant parallel manipulators, for responding to the requirements of the FSM. In order to simplify high-precision control in parallel manipulators, maximum kinematic decoupling is always desired. A constraint map method is used to propose the four required DoF with the consideration of maximum kinematic decoupling. A specific compliant mechanism is presented based on the constraint map, and its kinematics is estimated analytically. Finite element analysis demonstrates the desired qualitative motion and provides some initial quantitative analysis. A normalization-based compliance matrix is finally derived to verify and demonstrate the mobility of the system clearly. In a case study, the results of normalization-based compliance matrix modelling show that the diagonal entries corresponding to the four DoF directions are about 10 times larger than those corresponding to the two-constraint directions, validating the desired mobility.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据