'HYHORSPHQW RI D )LYHGULYH 3DUDOOHO

.LQHPDWLFV 0DFKLQH
6yirCrrHvxryahhhvhqYhv6yhq

AVI968DPIU@FIDF@S

6qhPhyh!

!%@vihThv

@hvy)hhhv5rxvxrr

67TUS68U

Uuryqrhhyyryxvrhvphpuvrqrryrqvurhuhqvqvrhihvvt
pyurvqrtrrssrrqsururhqpx6yutuvuryhrrhr
psvthvshhyyryxvrhvphpuvrvuurrqvrhqurrqrtrrssrrq
rrqrryrquryvsvqvrhvurhy
Pvrhihvyyvthpuvrhxrsvsrsururrhtyhqrtrr
ssrrquhsurhvhqurhvvqyrhv7rphrsuhurvivyv
shhhyyryxvrhvphpuvrvuysvrqvrhvsvrr

Dhhyyryxvrhvphpuvrqrryrqurxhpruhrvrqvssrr
shpirhqurrsurvvqvrviypxrqvhvvurpiruhphir
vpvirqvurryvtxhprvrhyy

6rpsvthvshhyyryxvrhvphpuvrvuysvrqvrhhquvtu
xhprhvuhirrqrryrqUurpsvthvyvrvrhpivpuhrq
xhpruvpuvpvqrrqirhqhhtrhqurhphvrhvvryrprq
vpuhhuhurvssrsurhpuvrvhyphvhvv

Purhqhhtrsurpsvthvvurvvsurxhiyrrpyrur
rhuvpuvurphrssurhhyyryxvrhvphpuvr

F@`XPS9T)QhhyyryFvrhvpCvturrqhpuvvt9rvtvrr

Dqpv

The present document exposes the current state of the art in the application of
parallel kinematics mechanisms to the machine tool field and presents one solution
developed by Tekniker Research Centre that introduces important innovations.
Parallel kinematics structures present very important advantages in comparison with
the serial kinematics structures: less inertia to be moved, reduction of mechanical
components (linear scales, sliders, etc.), higher stiffness (for same inertia) and
theoretically can reduce the positioning error. If considered from the economical
point of view, all these arguments are even important because they can suppose a
big reduction in the price of the whole mechanism [GOS 95].
On the other hand, parallel kinematics machines present some important
disadvantages, compared to conventional machines, like the difficulty due to 6 axis
control, the inexistence of inherent Cartesian axes and the lack of previous
experience outside the field of robotics.
The complex control explains why these mechanisms had not been considered
before: the mechanics needed improved electronics that were not available until a
few years ago. The new generation of improved numeric controls has made possible
the development of parallel kinematics based mechanisms able to move with the
required precision, speed and acceleration.
Regarding the lack of experience outside robotics, many other sectors are investing
big amounts in the R&D of parallel kinematics based positioners, milling machines,
etc.
The first prototypes were based on configurations used for other purposes: flight
simulators, wheel test benches, etc. and used 6 drives to control 5 axes. Latter
prototypes have reduced the number of drives and the number of axes to be
controlled trying to find new solutions for the machine tool industry and the last
tendency shown in the last machines mixes parallel and serial kinematics trying to
extract the best properties of both architectures.
The prototypes developed until present moment present excellent design solutions
and have brought out very important innovations, but there are some drawbacks that
they have not solved up to now: the shape of their workspace is very far from being
prismatic and the volume of the machine is very big in comparison with the
prismatic workpiece that they can machine.
SEYANKA project tries to improve the architecture of the parallel kinematics
machines applied to the machine tool industry facing the main problems of machine
size and workspace shape.

Thrsur6

All the current parallel kinematics mechanisms are inspired by one mechanism
called Stewart Platform. This configuration was developed in 1949 by WBtu that
constructed a pneumatics test bench based on parallel kinematics. Later 9 Trh
[STE 65] adapted the mechanism to the development of flight simulators and this
application was so important that his name has been adopted for that mechanism.
The parallel kinematics machines are quite known in other areas outside the
machine-tool field: robotics, flight simulators, etc. In these areas the group of
reachable points of the space, that is the working volume or workspace, is essential
to perform any action and that supposes that it must comply with specific conditions
for each application.
The application of parallel kinematics mechanisms inside the machine tool sector
wasnt possible until just a few years ago due to the lack of speed enough in the
electronics at that time. The improvement experimented in the field of electronics in
the last years has originated the development of new faster and cheaper
microprocessors, regulators, etc. So the latest numeric controls perform a very fast
control of 6 axes that makes possible the development of the new parallel kinematics
based milling machine prototypes and that is the reason why the introduction of the
parallel kinematics into the machine tool sector is being performed in the last years.
The first public presentations of parallel kinematics based milling machines were
performed in the International Machine Tool Show of Chicago in 1994. Ingersoll
and Giddings & Lewis presented their first prototypes named Octahedral and
Variax. Since that moment many companies entered in the research and
development of new improved prototypes (18 of them presented in EMO Machine
Tool Show in Hannover, 1997).
 Hhpuvrvu%9vr$6v

In the field of flight simulators the working volume must be such that the
movements of a plane in the air must be simulated, that is the X, Y and Z
movements and the three rotations: roll, pitch and jaw. For this purpose, the most
extended configuration is the Stewart platform (also known as Gough platform).
Such configuration shows very advantageous characteristics for that application, in
which the optimum shape of the workspace would be a sphere. The front and top of
the working volume for a conveniently dimensioned Stewart Platform are hexagons
(not straight sides but pieces of arc, see fig. 1) that can be almost regular. The
confined spherical volume can be very big and that means that the configuration is
good for flight simulation.
In the field of robotics, the parallel kinematics machines are used for several
applications. They are used as motion systems in robots, as controllers in robotic
arms, etc. applications in which the workspace should be almost spherical to present
limitations similar to the real physical process. Stewart platform complies with such

characteristics and so, it is also the most popular parallel structures in these
applications.

Avtr  TrhQyhsXxvtWyr

Inside the Machine tools sector, the Stewart Platform has been also used in many
prototypes of milling machines [ARO 97]: Hexel, Geodetics, Itia, Okuma, etc. In all
these designs the main spindle is assembled on the moving platform while the
workpiece is fixed to the floor table.

Avtr! TrhQyhsrqvururhqsBrqrvpyrshqCrryvtu

The kinematics and the control for such systems have been widely studied by
different authors (all the developments performed in the field of Robotics were
directly suitable to the new machines) being probably the most standardised
configuration.
Anyway, analysing the characteristics of this platform, some machine-tool
companies have appreciated that there could be other configurations whose
properties could suit better the needs of a milling machine. The Stewart platform
configuration, used in a conventional milling machine, can carry many advantages
but presents some disadvantages that must be solved to get a competitive milling
machine.
The first disadvantage is the size of the machine: all the prototypes based on the
Stewart Platform present huge dimensions in comparison with the workspace they
provide. The second weak point of these designs is due to the stiffness, speed and
acceleration variations that these structures present along the working volume, that
are much bigger than in serial kinematics designs.
Another important drawback for this architecture is the existence of singular points
(axes or planes) in which the platform has got null stiffness in some direction. These
points are very dangerous because the parallel kinematics machine can be damaged.
Every configuration can show such positions that are usually avoided because other
limitations like actuator length, joint angle or actuator crosses appear before.
The first attempts to solve these problems are directed to increase the
workspace/machine-volume ratio and reduce the variations. Some designs proposed
in this direction were performed by important American Companies like Ingersoll
and Giddings & Lewis. The design of Giddings & Lewis [KIE 95] was based on
other configuration used in flight simulation and basically was very similar to the
Stewart Platform. The actuators are longer and so the maximum stiffness is reduced
but the physical properties are much more balanced. In this architecture the working
volume is reduced and that is the reason why other configurations have been
adopted in the last prototypes.
778/2
Autor: Autor
Fecha: 0/00/00 0:00

Avtr" IrpsvthvrqiBvqqvtGrvyrshqDtryyvtu

The configuration proposed by Ingersoll [ROM 98] (see fig. 4) or by IFW (Crhp
supported by Siemens and INA) [PAG 97] are some of the configurations that reach
better workspace/machine volume ratios, due to the division of the actuators joints at
two heights in the spindle and two heights in the structure.

Avtr# Pphurqhy9rryrqiDtryy

Both solutions are still being improved because they dont count with the support
that was available for the Stewart platform. The first analysis claim that, apart from
improved working volume, the physical properties are also more balanced all over
the volume and the maximum stiffness is not reduced.

Avtr$ Crhp9rryrqiDAXhqrqiDI6hqTvrr

The prototype developed by IFW (fig. 5) is very interesting from any point of view.
The workspace is quite big, although the actuators cross part of it, reducing the
useful working volume.
The shape of the working volume in these designs is almost similar to the volume
shown above for the Stewart platform, they show a 120 symmetry (see figs. 1, 2, 4,
5) and the workspace is much bigger in these configurations than in the Stewart
platform. Inside this volume, the new parallel kinematics machines reduce and even
eliminate the singular points.
All mentioned machines have served to stand out very important advantages that
these architectures can supply. From the economical point of view, they dont use
linear scales, linear guides or expensive sliders moving at high speed, and so the
prize of mass production could be very reduced. Moreover, the mechanical and
dynamical properties of all these designs are really interesting and quite a lot of
investigators think that these architectures could reach the highest levels of stiffness,
speed and acceleration.
All these machines are excellent designs and the performance of them all is
excellent but still they are not commercial solutions. Compared to the usual serialkinematics milling machines, the precision is much lower [NEU 97] (10 times
lower), for the same workspace the machine is much bigger (3 or 4 times bigger)
and the stiffness, though being very high in some areas, is not acceptable to perform
any machining in the extremes of the working volume.
All these facts have make many people think that parallel-kinematics based milling
machines are not suitable for the machine tool sector at present. So, most of the
machine tool manufacturers have not invested much money in the development of
new parallel kinematics machines and just a few research centres and Universities
have gone on their research. One exception to this tendency is Japan: in Japan the
machine tool manufacturers are investing big amounts in the R&D of parallel
kinematics based machines and the first commercial solutions are already available
(Okuma, Hitachi Seiki, Honda).

Avtr% Hvxh%Yurhq9rryrqiHvxh

Trying to keep the same architecture and solve all the problems of precision and
stiffness all over the volume, there are some prototypes that have incorporated linear
guides in the design of the actuators.
The model of Mikromat (fig. 6) has served to analyse the performance of these
architectures when there are thermal charges. The thermal problems are very
common in all kind of milling machines and the analysis of the error produced due
to these charges is very important.
Using encoders, the thermal deformations cant be measured, but using scales and
linear actuators, these effects can be measured and even reduced. On the other hand,
all the economical advantages of the machines disappear in this design, because it
supposes very important costs.
!Hhpuvrvu"9vr"6v

There are some prototypes (Triaglide, Linapod, Urane SX, etc., see fig. 7) that
control just 3 d. o. f., fixing the other 3. These solutions are very interesting although
they dont provide solutions for 5 axes milling.
The main target of all these models is to take advantage of the low inertia moved in
these architectures and the reduction of the costs due to all the elements avoided:
sliders, linear guides, scales, and so on.
There are many models involved in this tendency. The problem in the design of such
configurations resides in the way to fix the value of the 3 non-controlled degrees of
freedom. Usually the 3 searched degrees of freedom are the three Cartesian
translations, so that the milling machine produced can be independent from other
serial mechanisms (sliders and so on). The first model based on this idea was the
Linapod [PRI 97] (see fig. 7)

Avtr& Gvhqyrs"qshqVhrTYSrhyvtu

The Linapod fixed 3 d. o. f. just joining the actuators by pairs. And each couple of
actuators was controlled by just one actuator moving in the Z direction. The idea is
very good because the design was very stiff and also the control was easier.
The prototype seems very interesting and many other prototypes based on the same
idea are being introduced by many companies, universities and research centres. The
difference in all these prototypes is the way to fix the movement. The model
presented by Renault in the EMO of Paris 99 (see fig. 7) and the model PA35 of
Hitachi Seiki (see fig. 8) could be included in the same group.
Hitachi Seiki has taken this concept to a final product that they offer in their
catalogues. The machine is able to reach accelerations o 1.5 G and speeds of 100
m/min.

Avtr' Q6"$9rryrqiCvhpuvTrvxv

"HhpuvrvuHvrqFvrhvp

According to the exposed problems, the current investigation efforts are focalised in
the increase of precision, reduce of machine size and increase of mean stiffness.
Most of the newest designs reduce the number of actuators to control, so the CNC
can be fed faster and the precision can be improved. Also, fixing some degrees of
freedom with very stiff kinematics chains, the stiffness can be higher than 6 d. o. f.
designs.
Some machines reduce even 4 d. o. f., but that suppose that there are only 2 d. o. f.
and the mechanism cant be used as a 3 axes milling machine, unless other

movement is introduced. So, these designs combine the parallel kinematics (fixing
some degrees of freedom) with the serial kinematics in order to improve the
capabilities of the machine.

Avtr( 9hH!qs rvhyrr

Such combination can be performed by many ways and so there are many
prototypes that are very different whose capabilities are not completely studied in
most cases.
Most of mentioned designs fix the value of the three rotations and sometimes one of
the Cartesian translations, conforming high speed milling machines that can move in
three (see fig. 9) or two (pantographs) Cartesian directions: Honda (fig. 10), DynaM [WZL 97] (fig. 9), Ulises (Fatronic), Tricept [NEU 99] (Neos Robotics AB), etc.

Avtr 

Uvpr " qs 

qs rvhyrr

hvhy v ur rrr 9rvt s Cqh) !

These parallel kinematics machines present very reduced workspace (the parallel
kinematics machines with 2 d. o. f. Present just a planar workspace) and dont
suppose real solutions to perform the milling process. These prototypes are usually
complemented by other serial-kinematics mechanisms (see figs. 9 and 10) that serve
to feed and/or position the workpiece and constitute 3D and 5D milling machines. In
all these prototypes, the workspace/machine-size ratio is not very advantageous.
Apart from these hybrid systems, there is another group of parallel kinematics
machines that mix the serial and the parallel kinematics to achieve 3 or 6 d. o. f.
trying to combine all the available techniques to control the serial kinematics
systems and incorporate the advantages that can be supplied by the parallel
kinematics. The hexaglide (see fig. 11) developed by IWF [HEB 97] controls 6
linear axes to provide the 6 d. o. f.

Avtr

CrhtyvqrqrryrqiDs

#Qhhyyryxvrhvph

Parallel kinematics machines may be classified according to following table:

Dtryy

Crry

%qvrhq$hv

Xvuyvrhtvqr

CrhpDAS

Brqrvp

Qhhyyry

BvqqvtGrv

xvrhvp
Xvuyvrhtvqr

CrhtyvqrDXA

Xvuyvrhtvqr

TrhxhU@FIDF@S

Xvuyvrhtvqr

$qvrhq$hv

CvhpuvTrvxv

GvhqrDTX
"qvrhq"hv
Xvuyvrhtvqr

VhrSrhy

UvhtyvqrDXA

$hv

Xvuyvrhtvqr

Uvpr

Hvrqxvrhvp
Cqh

"hv

Xvuyvrhtvqrvrhv

9hHXaG

VyvrAhvx

Avtr !

Drvrprurhq

!Ir8svthvvu$9vr$6v)Trhxh

Seyanka is a high-speed, 5 axes milling machine designed by Tekniker as a

prototype to demonstrate the suitability of the parallel kinematics structures to the
development of high speed milling machines.

Avtr "

Trhxh

The project started in April 1998, and the machine was finished in February 2000. In
this time kinematics and dynamics of the machine were widely analysed and the
prototype was designed and manufactured. The public presentation of the machine
was performed in the machine tool show of Bilbao: BIEMH 2000 (March, 13th
18th).
Seyanka is a new concept of design, trying to work out some of the drawbacks found
in parallel kinematics machines.
! UhtrrqPiwrpvr

Taking into account all the arguments exposed about the current problems of the
first parallel kinematics machines used as milling machines, Seyanka is one of the
new prototypes that tries to apply the parallel kinematics to the machine tool
industry, solving the problems of past attempts. The design proposed by Tekniker is
based on two important ideas that must be pointed out:

 The milling machine sector is based on Cartesian Co-ordinate Systems and all
the hardware, software, programming languages, machining operations, etc. assume
a prismatic shape working volume for the machine that must be considered. The
most common operations are straight machinings and the usual workpieces are
prismatic. So the milling machine must be programmable in Cartesian co-ordinates
and must supply a prismatic-shaped workspace [MER 95].
Any parallel kinematics machine controls 6 axes while any milling operation can
be done controlling only 5 axes: three translational axes and two rotational axes
(azimuth and elevation). The rotation of the moving platform around the axis of the
spindle doesnt have to be controlled because the spindle performs that rotation
during the machining process, that degree of freedom can always be fixed to reduce
the number of axes to be controlled and increase the stiffness.
The first idea is very important because any structure presenting a 120 symmetry,
will not make use of big part of the working volume if only the inscribed prismatic
shape is considered in order to use the mechanism as a milling machine.
The second idea implies that one of the actuators is not necessary to use a parallel
kinematics machine as a milling machine. If the rotation of the platform around the
spindle axis is fixed somehow, the parallel kinematics machine can still be used as
milling machine to produce 5 axes milling processes.
The main targets sought by Tekniker in the development of Seyanka are the
following:

6vq ur htr s h ryr rh qvr ur qrvt rrq v ihv h

rhhiytqxhpr

6vqurrvrprsvtyhvvvqrurxhpr

6vqhyvrhtvqr

Drurhpuvrsvxhprhrhhv

6hpuurhpuvrhiyrurrh

9vrvvturhpuvrsuvturrqvyyvtsyvtuhrvhy

So, the first innovation introduced by Tekniker in Seyanka is the configuration of

the actuators in the initial position: in other designs, with 120 symmetry, but in
Seyanka with a 90 symmetry. This configuration is much more suitable for a
milling machine because so the Working Volume is almost prismatic shaped (not
planar sides but parts of ellipsoids, see fig. 14).
As can be seen in the figure (fig. 14), the prismatic volume inscribed in the
workspace of Seyanka covers most of it [MER 93], being very suitable for the
milling process because nearly all the workspace can be used when programming in
the prismatic shape inscribed.

Avtr #

XxhprsTrhxh

Seyanka is a 5 axes milling machine, and only needs 5 actuators to control the
movements in these axes, so there is one d. o. f. that has been fixed. As was
mentioned above the d. o. f. that was removed is the rotation of the spindle group
around the spindle axis. And that constraint was performed using a very rigid
constant-length, scissors-shape kinematics chain that avoids the rotation and
supports efforts and torsional torques. This chain has been dimensioned to avoid any
disturbance on the prismatic workspace and to avoid the existence of singular points.
!!Hhpuvr8svthv

Figure 15 shows the position and number of actuators. In the initial position, four of
the actuators are disposed in two perpendicular planes in the X and Y directions and
that means that during the movement they will reach the positions limited by the
arcs shown in fig. 14. The vertical actuator is the most solicited because it has to
support always the weight of the spindle group and is positioned in the Z-axis. The
kinematics chain is disposed trying to keep the symmetry with respect to a plane
disposed at 45 of the XZ plane.
!"XxhprhqHhpuvrTvr

Parallel kinematics machines have smaller workspace than serial machines with the
same machine size. SEYANKA prototype has also smaller workspace than
conventional serial machines, but its workspace is bigger than typical workspace in
parallel kinematics machines. Following table shows table-area / machine-floor-area
ratio and workspace-volume/machine-size ratio for different kind of machines.

Avtr $

6phvvvTrhxh

6rhhv

8rvhyrvhyvyyvthpuvr

8yhvphyhhyyryvyyvthpuvr

T@`6IF6vyyvthpuvr

Avtr %

Wyrhv

%



!

6rhhqWyrhvphv

!#Tvssr

The stiffness of a parallel kinematics structure depends on the stiffness of its

components: actuators, moving platform, supporting structure and joints [DR 99].
The supporting structure is important not only for these machines but also in the
serial kinematics configurations. The difference between the structure of a parallel
kinematics and a serial kinematics machine resides mainly in the number and
distribution of rigid fields all over the structure. The serial kinematics structure
needs a high stiffness all over the stroke of the sliders and also in all the basements
of the moving parts while a parallel kinematics structure must be very rigid only in
those points of the structures in which the actuators are attached.

Most of the prototypes of parallel kinematics milling machines are not serious
attempts directed to industrialisation and so the stiffness of the machine is not
considered essential while the kinematics and dynamics are studied widely. Only the
machine-tool manufacturers have considered the structure as a very important point
to be considered. In the development of Seyanka Tekniker intends to provide a real
milling machine that will be close to the industrialisation phase.
The structure was conformed welding UPN beams and the stiffness of the whole
structure was studied using FEM techniques (NASTRAN), the stiffness of the
structure itself studied with these tools foresaw a minimum stiffness of 77 N/m in
the Z direction, that was very good to support the rest of the mechanism.

Avtr &

HvtQyhssT@`6IF6

Regarding the moving platform, in a milling machine it consists of the spindle and
some kind of structure that connects the joints in the extreme of the actuators to the
spindle. Such structure can be as rigid as the designer wants, but the inertia of the
spindle group must be specially considered in the dynamics of the machine. In
Seyanka, the moving Platform consists of a steel cylinder with some welded plates
to mate the U-joints of the actuators (see fig. 17). The main spindle can be
assembled inside the cylinder. It is a very stiff structure and is not very heavy, being
the mass of the platform very small in comparison to the mass of the spindle.
The joints are one of the weakest points of the stiffness in these mechanisms. The
movement of the parallel kinematics supposes rotations and displacements with a
common point for the axes of them all and that implies the need of U-joints or
universal joints (2 or 3 rotations as d. o. f.). The commercial joints supplied by
different companies are directed to power transmission labours in which the back-

slash effect is advantageous to provide a softest transmission, but they are not
suitable for in a parallel kinematics machine because that effect produces errors and
loss of stiffness. Some manufacturers (i. e. INA) have designed a special series of
joints for parallel kinematics that provide high stiffness and high precision. Even
using these components, the joints are one of the weakest points of any parallel
kinematics machine. The stiffness they provide rounds 50 N/m what supposes an
important decrease in the stiffness of the whole structure.
Seyanka counts with special joints developed in Tekniker, whose stiffness is bigger
than commercially supplied ones. The stiffness of the U-joints manufactured in
Tekniker is close to 70 N/m.
Finally, the actuators (also named legs or arms) are the other weak points in a
parallel kinematics structure. Usually they consist of ballscrews, bearings, pulleys
and the motor is usually supported on the exterior structure of the assembly. The
stiffness of the actuator depends on the quality of the assembly, and the stiffness of
each of the components. Inside the group, the joint ballscrew-nut is one of the
weakest points.
Seyanka counts with tailor-made ballscrews supplied by manufacturers of the
Basque Country and the assembly and guidance have been done using pre-loaded
components of the highest quality and precision available in the market. Although
being pre-loaded transmissions the stiffness of these components is the lowest of the
whole structure and reduces around 8 times the stiffness of the parallel kinematics
machine.
The stiffness of the structure depends on the position and orientation in which the
moving platform is placed [GOS 90]. Those positions in which the actuators are
longest present lowest stiffness while positions in which the length of the actuators
is smallest show highest stiffness (see fig. 18).

Avtr '

Avt

#Tvssr v ur a hvv h rpv pyr ur vqqyr sur

vhvpuhrvtvtvqhphhqwvVv)r

As can be seen in fig. 18, the stiffness measured in the tip of the spindle axis, where
the tool will be assembled is much bigger in those regions in which the X and Y
actuators are shortest. This can be appreciated in the stiffness measured in any other
direction. Measuring the stiffness in the worse position (outer extreme in the lowest
section), the values foreseen using FEM were the following:
F

&#

I

&"

I

!

I

The real stiffness has been measured using dynamometers, and the real values are
quite similar to the FEM predicted results:
F

&!

I

&(

I

I

&"

The stiffness of Seyanka is similar to that of 3 axis high speed milling machines for
light materials while allowing 5-axis control at high speed and acceleration.
!$Pur8uhhprvvpsTrhxh

Main Features

Xxvtyr)

###

Trrq)

%v

6ppryrhv)

8I8)



A6BPS'&

Headstock features

Hhvrrq)

"

Qr)

'$xXh!"

Ur)

#Ih!
!&Ih"

Hhvyqvhrr)

%

Xrvtu)

(xt

8yvt)

Givphrqvutrhr

'yvshr $xXspyvtr

Actuators:

9vr hr pu vu rhr htr Uur uhr h ryr s

vvsrrqihpx

7hyyprhr&ytvuqvhrr!$hqvpu!

"8pyv

Parallel kinematics machines provide new solutions for the machine tool sector.
These structures can provide improved capabilities, not reachable with current serial
architectures, but it will be necessary to make a very important effort in the research
of this kind of machines so that the current levels of precision and stiffness can be
satisfied.
The Stewart platform, though being the most documented parallel kinematics
mechanism, has served to study the application of this kind of structures to the
machine tool sector but is not easily suitable for machining labours because its size
and the shape of the workspace it can reach are not easily defined by means of
Cartesian co-ordinate systems.
The new designs based only on parallel kinematics are allowing a better knowledge
of these mechanisms and are achieving excellent results and specifications but they
are still far from being market competitive solutions. Those configurations that
combine parallel and serial kinematics are very interesting from the mechanical
point of view but currently their cost (apart from other properties like precision,
homogeneity, etc.) is still very high to consider them as valid solutions for market
introduction.
The main objectives that Tekniker considers as strategic in the development of the
new designs for industrialisation are the following: rqpv s hpuvr p
hpuvr

svxhpr

hrh

hv

vrr

vpvirq

vhvp

xhprvvhvhpuvrhiyrhpprvrrrpvvvprhr

In order to comply with these objectives, the main innovations that the prototype
developed by Tekniker claims are the usage of only five drives, the achievement of
an almost prismatic workspace, the improvement in the workspace/machine-size
ratio and the easy access to the work table.

#Srsrrpr

[STE 65] STEWART, D., A Platform with Six Degrees of Freedom, UK Institution of
Mechanical Engineers Proceedings vol. 180, pt. 1, n 15, 1965-1966.
[HEB 97] HEBSACKER, M., HONEGGER, M., The IWF Hexaglide A New
Concept for High Speed Machining, IWF, ETH-Zentrum, April 1997.

[MER 95] MERLET, J. P., "Designing a parallel robot for a specific workspace", INRIA
Research Report n 2527, April 1995.
[GOS 90] GOSSELIN, C., Stiffness mapping for parallel manipulators. IEEE Trans. On
robotic and Automation, vol. 6, n 3, p. 377-382, June 1990.
[MER 93] MERLET, J. P., "Orientation Workspace of a Parallel Manipulator with a
Fixed Point", ICAR, p. 141-146, November 1993.
[WZL 97] WECK, M., "Dyna-M compact, stiff, highly dynamic", WZL RWTH
Aachen, September 1997.
[PRI 97] PRITSCHOW, G., WURST, K. H., "Linapod A Concept for Modular Parallel
Link Machines", ISW University of Stuttgart, 1997.
[NEU 99] NEUMANN, K., "Tricept times", Neos Robotics AB, n 1, 1999.
[ROM 98] ROMBERG, J., Machines for die and mold making Trends and outlook.
Colloquium Tool and Die Making for the Future, 98.
[GOS 95] GOSSELIN, C., RICARD, R., A Comparison of Architectures of Parallel
Mechanisms for Workspace and Kinematic Properties. Design Engineering Technical
Conferences, ASME, vol. 1, DE-Vol. 82, p. 951-958, 1995.
[ARO 97] ARONSON, R., Hexapods: Hot or Ho Hum?, Manufacturing Engineering, p.
60-64, October 1997.
[PAG 97] PAGE, M., Hexapods: still st the development stage?, Metalworking
Production, p. 32-33, November 1997.
[NEU 97] NEUGEBAUER, R., SCHWAAR, M., WIELAND, F., Accuracy of ParallelStructured Machine Tools. Fraunhofer Institut Werkzeugmaschinen und Umformtechnik,
paper n 78, 1997.
[KIE 95] KIECKHAFER, L., SHELDON, P., McGUIRE, M., A Revolutionary New
Machining Center, EDE, n 19, 1995.
[DR 99] DRSCHMIED, F., Assemblies for Parallel Kinematics. INA reprint from
Werkstatt und Betrieb, vol. 5, 1999.