This dissertation has presented analyses methodology of the mechanism gimbal and stabilizer system for the radar image sansor, using the parallel mechanical structure, Delta Hexaglide, for the better performance of payload capability and control response.
Chapter 2 provides a methodology for parallel manipulator design. This methodology consists of procedures for building a parallel manipulator from the primitive limbs. By defining the active limb, we found that the fully-symmetric parallel manipulator employing structurally identical active limbs can only yield two, three and six D.O.F.. The semi-symmetric parallel manipulator which employs structurally different limbs can yield four and five D.O.F..
The task-oriented, parallel manipulators are suitable for specified tasks through introducing proper passive limbs. The saturated limb may be used as the suspension or measurement means through collaboration with dampers and transducers. This chapter has also demonstrated several examples on 3- D.O.F. task-oriented, parallel manipulators, namely the parallel manipulated Cartesian machine, wobble machine, rotation machine, and cobra-head machine. It is believed that many other useful parallel manipulators can be explored further according to this methodology.
Chapter 3 has shown a complete solution for the design optimization problem subjected to constant input force for the general turning-block as well as swinging-block mechanisms with a special reference to the average mechanical energy. The results were given for two types of applications, L > R and L < R. No optimal solution exists
64
in the L < R category. The rule-of-thumb design procedures allow the engineer to correlate the optimal mechanical advantage with the swing angle span ε of the output link. Nevertheless, the workspace associated with the L/R ratio is submitted to the designer in advance, and the optimal design procedure need not be further verified. The D/R ratio, which affects the assessed cost of the linear actuator, can be easily determined from the given swing span ε. Additional multi-objective optimization of the total cost-performance for different L/R ratios, and ε values, may be performed for different applications in the future.
Therefore the optimized gimbal mechanism has been determined and presented with a prototyped model.
In Chapter 4, the transmitter is located on the center of the robotic working area. Receivers are installed on every robot’s end effector, and the human body, then select any receiver to move toward one of the robot’s virtual boundary. After the safety envelope Level 2 is entered, the robots are sensed and turned into the slower speed, 25 cm/sec. When any object falls inside the robot’s virtual boundary, the stop command can be issued from the computer via the Ethernet. The individual robot controller uses the robot language to perform its safeguard functions. The robotic centralized monitoring and control computer maintains the client-server communication functions.
Therefore the stop command can be sent to the data buffers. The delay time on network system will impact to the accuracy of the safeguard system. There is an internal counter activated when Windows system boots. It’s a high-resolution counter that provides high-resolution elapsed times. The frequency of the counter depends on the hardware performance of the processor. The value of the frequency and the
65
present counter can be obtained from Win32 API easily. We can send the data of the net memory in one computer to the others and account the value of the counter. When someone receives this data, it sends back the data to the sender. The sender accounts the value of the counter again when it received this. The difference between two values is divided by the frequency, and this value is the network delay.
The experimental result of the network delay for the different size of the transmitted data between two robotic controllers is shown in Figure 18. Figure 19 shows the network delay for the different size of the transmitted data among multiple robotic controllers.
The other eminent delay is derived from the update rate for the VR software in the central monitoring system simulation loop. In this thesis, the VR update rate is between 15 and 20 frames/second.
Therefore the delay time generated from the VR software simulation loop is no greater than 67ms. The frame rate can be upgraded via either improving the 3D graphic engine or eliminating the graphic polygon number. For the two-robot system, the network delay time (including the agent server) is less than 5.4ms for the case of 256k-byte data transmission, according to Figure 18. For the six-robot system, the network delay (including the agent server) is less than 5.8ms, according to Figure 19. In the typical motor specification, the robot inertial delay for a speed of 25 cm/sec, with no greater than 10 N.m static friction motor torque, is less than 50 ms. Finally, the total delay for the entire multi-robotic safeguard system (six-robot system) is 67ms (VR induced delay) + 5.8ms (network delay) + 50ms (inertial delay), which is no greater than 0.15 second. At the robot safe speed of 25 cm/sec, the robot will advance less than 0.15×25 = 3.75cm,
66
which is acceptable for the 25cm of the safety envelope Level 3 protection of the safeguard system.
Remote supervision is becoming more and more important now.
In the thesis, the approach combined Java, World Wide Web and the service model is generated accordingly. Java has some characteristics, such as portability, security, memory segmentation, and object orientation. Due to these advantages, remote supervision is suitable to be implemented with Java.
The case one of this thesis indicates that using applet of Java to remote supervision is convenient and efficient. Most portions of Java are similar to C++, so modifying the C++ to Java is not difficult.
Because the applet is merged in home page, we can get some benefits from the home page. In a program, there must have help to describe some information about it. If the information is out of date, it must be updated. But the task in a program is more difficult than that is in a home page. A home page can dynamically display the proper information.
From the two cases, we can say that constructing a remote supervision architecture by service model is not hard, because we use PC-based to archive our purpose, rather than using special facilities, or special network card. What we emphasize is to use current network resources and facilities to make remote supervision. And the results of those two cases are in accordance with our expectations. With the increasing network bandwidth, the remote robot supervision system will become more practical in the future.
Chapter 5 has presented the analyses of the workspace and dexterity. The workspaces were analyzed by introducing the marching
67
cube method which permits workspace evaluation including the workspace volume as well as the shape complexity. The comparisons for the various Delta Hexaglide mechanisms due to different parametric designs were made. In addition to the analysis result, the degeneration, cavity, and island of workspace (refer to section 3.2 Workspace Examples) can also be presented in the form of 3D graphics for extensive studies.
The integrated analysis result has been shown using well-known software tools including MATLAB and OpenGL. The trade-off between the available workspace volume, the shape complexity, and the dexterity may be visualized. A multi-objective optimal design is in.this study, which has also derived the inverse kinematics required by the marching cube method algorithm and the singular values required by the Delta Hexaglide platform dexterity analysis. Finally, we have presented a design of the Delta Hexaglide platform due to the optimal workspace. With the analyses of the workspace and dexterity, the radome design specification has been determined, the safeguard system using virtual reality (VR) programming to perform the workspace boundary determination for the area ouside of the workspace has been designed, and the workspace optimization for the stabilizer has been implemented.
This stabilizer system form the degree freedom analysis is designed with considerations of vehicle space limitation and safety issues. We consider the robot safeguard with virtual boundary techniques, and the other space adjustments,. Therefore the stabilizer needs to be rebuilt in the three-dimension Cartesian space by the VR technique, and the dexterity problem can be verified and optimize the
68
platform design.
By using a six D.O.F. motion base to compensate for the position error, the airborne sensor pointing direction can be stabilized, and the real-time motion compensation for the image radar can be performed accordingly.
69
References
[1] Walter G. Carrara, Ron S. Goodman, Ronald M. Mfajewski,
“Spotlight Synthetic Aperture Radar, Signal Process Algorithms,”
Artech House, Boston/London, 1995.
[2] C. John, Jr. Kirk, “Motion Compensation For Synthetic Aperture Rada,” IEEE Transactions on Aerospac and Electronic Systems, Vol. AES-aa, No. 3, May 1975, pp. 338-348.
[3] D. Stewart, “A Platform with Six Degrees of Freedom,” Proc. Inst.
Mech. Eng. London, Vol. 180, 1965, pp. 371-386.
[4] Bo Li, and David Hullunder, “Self-Turning Controller for Nonlinear Inertial Stabilization System,” IEEE Transactions On Control System Technology, Vol. 6, No. 3, May 1998.
[5] Wu-Jong Yu, Chih-Fang HUNG and Wei-Hua CHIENG, ”Design of Swinging-Block and Turning- Block Mechanism with Special Reference to the Mechanical Advantage,” JSME. Int. J. Series C, Vol. 47, No. 1, 2004, pp. 363-368.
[6] W-J Yu, C-F Huang, W-H Chieng, C-Y Gau , “ The Integrated Application and Research of the Industrial Robotic Safeguard System with Ethernet,” IOSH, Journal of Institute of Occupation Safety and Health, Vol. 10, No. 3, 2002, pp. 218-230.
[7] D. Stewart, “A Platform with Six Degrees of Freedom,”
Proceedings of the Institute of Mechanical Engineers, London, Vol. 180, No. 5, 1966, pp. 371-386.
[8] X. Kong and C.M. Gosselin, “Generation and Forward Displacement Analysis of Two New Classes of Analytic 6-SPS Parallel Manipulators,” Journal of Robotic Systems, Vol. 18, No.
6, 2001, pp. 295-304.
70
[9] N.D. Perreira, “Motions, Efforts, and Actuations in Constrained Dynamic Systems: A Multilink Closed Chain Example,” Journal of Robotic Systems, Vol. 16, No. 7, 1999, pp. 363-385.
[10] F. Hao, J.M. McCarthy, “Conditions for Line-Based Singularities in Spatial Platform Manipulators,” Journal of Robotic Systems, Vol. 15, No. 1 , 1998, pp. 43-55.
[11] J.J. Hall, and R.L. Williams II, “Inertial Measurement Unit Calibration Platform,” Journal of Robotic Systems, Vol. 17, No.
11, 2000, pp. 623-632.
[12] D. Zhang, L. Wang,and S.Y.T. Lang, “Parallel Kinematic Machines: Design, Analysis and Simulation in an Integrated Virtual Environment,” ASME J. of Mechanical Eng., Vol. 12, No.
3, 2005, pp. 580-588.
[13] J. Hollingum, “Features: Hexapods to Take Over?,” Ind. Robot, Vol. 24, No. 6, 1997, pp. 428-431.
[14] M. Valenti, “Machine Tools Get Smarter,” ASME J. of Mechanical Eng., Vol. 117, No. 11, 1995, pp. 70-75.
[15] G. Yang, I.M. Chen, W.K. Lim ,and S.H. Yeo, “Kinematic design of modular reconfigurable in-parallel robots,” Autonomous Robots, Vol. 10, No. 1, 2001, pp. 83-89.
[16] R. Cohen, M.G. Lipton, M.Q. Dai, and B. Benhabib, “Conceptual design of a modular robot,” ASME J. of Mechanical Design, Vol.
114, No. 2, 1992, pp. 117-125.
[17] D. Schmitz, P. Khosla, and T. Kanade, “The CMU reconfigurable modular manipulator system,”. Technical Report CMU-RI-TR-88-7, Carnegie Mellon University, 1988.
[18] Y. Fang and L.W. Tsai, “Structure Synthesis of a Class of 4-DoF 71
and 5-DoF Parallel Manipulators with Identical Limb Structures,” Journal of Robotics Research, Vol. 21, No. 9, 2002, pp. 799-810.
[19] J. Angeles, “The Qualitative Synthesis of Parallel Manipulators, Proc. of Fundamental Issues and Future Research Directions for Parallel Mechanisms and Manipulator,” Quebec, Canada, 2002, pp. 160-169.
[20] R.O. Ambrose, “Design, Construction and Demonstration of Modular, Reconfigurable Robots,”. PhD thesis, University of Texas at Austin, U.S.A, 1991.
[21] L.W. Tsai, “Mechanism design: Enumeration of kinematic structures according to function,” CRC Press, 2000.
[22] G. Liu, Y. Lou, and Z. Li, “Singularities of Parallel Manipulators:
A Geometric Treatment,” IEEE Trans. On Robotics and Automation, Vol. 19, No. 4, 2003, pp. 579-594.
[23] Raymond A.Adee, Newton; Ellis E. Adee, Minneapolis,
“Fold-back Implement Frame having Angle Adjustment,” US Patent 4,236,585, Dec.2, 1980.
[24] Yasuo Shimizu; Junji Yuzuriha, “Variable Ratio Steering System,” US Patent 5,174,407, Dec.29, 1992.
[25] Masaru Abe; Yoshimichi Kawamoto, “Front and Rear Wheel Steering System For a Vehicle,” US Patent 5,199,523, Apr.6, 1993.
[26] Naoki Ito, “Variable Zoom Lens Hood,” US Patent 5,745,803, Apr.28, 1998.
[27] Henry Arthur Hopgood, “Rotary Drive Mechanism,” US Patent 5,882,026, Mar.16, 1999.
72
[28] Lloyd W. Rogers, Jr; John I. Moceanu, Sterling Hights, “Linkage for Vehical Door Latch” US Patent 5,253,906, Oct.19, 1993.
[29] Patrick H.O’Brien; Willian J. Zabritski; “Multispeed Shift Linkage Control,”US Patent 4,018,099, Apr.19, 1977.
[30] Hammer Bengt Olof (DE),“Freight Truck Loading Mechanism”
Patent Number: DE19840151, Mac.03, 1999.
[31] Ullrich Christian (DE), “Pivoting equipment carrier, especially to support desk lamps,” Patent Number: DE19600879, Jul.17, 1997.
[32] Lung-Wen Tsai, “Mechanism Design: Enumeration of Kinematic Structures According to Function,” ISBN 0-8493-0901-8, TJ175.
T78, 2000, pp. 16,119-120.
[33] F. Freudenstein, and E. J. F. Primrose, “The Classical Transmission- Angle Problem,” Proc. Conf. Mechanism Synthesis, Inst. Mech. Engrs., London, 1973, pp. 105-110.
[34] K.C. Gupta, “Design of Four-Bar Function Generators with Mini-Max Transmission Angle,” ASME Journal of Engineering for Industry, Vol. 99, No. 2, 1997, pp. 360-366.
[35] F. Freudenstein, “Designing Crank and Rocker Links with Optimum Force Transmission,” Product Engineering, 1978, pp.
45-47.
[36] T. E. Shoup, , and B. J. Pelan, “Design of Four-Bar Mechanisms for Optimum Transmission Angle and Optimum Structure Error,”
Proceedings of the Second OSU Applied Mechanism Conference, Stillwater, Okla ,1971, pp.4.1-4.9.
[37] L. W. Tsai, “Design of Drag-Link Mechanisms with Optimum Transmission Angle,” ASME Journal of Mechanisms, Transmissions, and Automation in Design, Vol. 105, No.2 , 1983,
73
pp. 254-259.
[38] L. W. Tsai, “Design of Drag-Link Mechanisms with Minimax Transmission Angle Deviation,” ASME Journal of Mechanisms, Transmissions, and Automation in Design, Vol. 105, No.2, 1983, pp. 686-691.
[39] B. S. Dhillon, “Robot Reliability and Safety,” Springer-Verlag, New- York, 1991.
[40] J. J.Craig, “Introduction to Robotics Mechanics and Control,”
2nd ed. Addison Wesley, 1989.
[41] J. H. Graham, etc., “A Safety and Collision Avoidance System for Industrial Robots,” IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications, Vol.IA-22, No.1, January/February, 1986, pp. 195-203.
[42] J. H. Graham, “Safety, Reliability, and Human Factors in Robotic Systems,” Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1991, pp. 116-131.
[43] Artbur Dumas, “Programming WinSock,” SAMS, 1995.
[44] N. Tarek, Saadawi, et al., “Fundamentals of Telecommunication Networks,” John Wiley & Sons, 1994.
[45] D.E. Corner, and D.L. Stevens, “Internetworking with TCP/IP:
Vol. III: Client-Server Programming and Applications,” BSD Socket Version, Prentice-Hall, Englewdood Cliffs, N.J. 1993.
[46] D.E. Corner, and D.L.Stevens, “Internetworking with TCP/IP:
Vol. II: Design, Implementation, and Internals, BSD Socket Version,” Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J. 1991.
[47] A. Shay William, “Understanding Data Communications and Networks,” PWS Publishing Company, 1995.
[48] R. Bell Mark, and Terrell Rob, “The Mac Web server book: tools
& techniques for building your Internet site,” Ventana 74
Communications Group, 1996.
[49] Gardner Jim, and Linseman Anne, “Scott Nicol, and Chris Retterath: MKS LEX & YACC,” 1992.
[50] D. Thomas Michael, et al., “Java Programming for the Internet: A Guide to Creating Dynamic,” Interactive Internet Application, Ventana Communications Group, 1996.
[51] Danielle Bird, et al, “Special Edition Using Java,” Que Corporation, 1996.
[52] Aaron E. Walsh, “Foundations of Java Programming for the World Wide Web,” IDG Books Worldwide, 1996.
[53] D. Stewart, “A platform with six degrees of freedom, Proceedings Institution of Mechanical Engineers (Part - I),” Vol. 180, No. 15, 1965, pp. 371-386.
[54]Z. Ji, “Workspace Analysis of Stewart Platforms via Vertex Space, Journal of Robotic System,” Vol. 11, No. 7, 1994, pp. 631 - 639.
[55]O. Masory and J. Wang, “Workspace evaluation of Stewart platforms, Advanced Robotics,” Vol. 9, No. 4, 1995, pp. 443-461.
[56] J. P. Merlet, “Determination of 6D workspace of Gough-Type parallel manipulator and comparison between different geometries,” The Internal Journal of Robotics & Research, Vol.
18, No. 9, 1999, pp. 902-916.
[57] J. P. Merlet, “Guaranteed in-the-workspace improved trajectory/
surface/ volume verification for parallel robots,” Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, PVP-Vol. 4, 2004, pp. 4103 - 4108.
[58] C. Gosselin, “Determination of the Workspace of 6-DOF Parallel Manipulator,” Journal of Mechanical Design, PVP-Vol. 112, 1990,
75
pp. 331-336.
[59] M. Honegger, Codourey, and E. Burdet, “Adaptive control of the Hexaglide, a 6 DOF parallel manipulator,” Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Albuquerque, 1997, pp. 543-548.
[60] M. Suzuki, K. T. S. Watanabe, T. Tooyama, and K. Hattori,
“Development of milling machine with parallel mechanism,”
Toyota Technical Review, Vol. 47, No. 1, 1997, pp. 125-130.
[61] G. Pritschow, and K. H. Wurst, “Systematic design of Hexapods and parallel link systems,” Annals of the CIRP, Vol. 46, No. 1, 1997, pp. 291-295.
[62] B. R. Hopkins, and R. L. Williams II, , “KinematicsDesign and Control of 6-PSU Platform,” Industrial Robot: An International Journal, Vol. 29, No. 5, 2002, pp. 443-451.
[63] Y. Wang, W. S. Newman, and R. Stoughton, “Workspace Analysis of the ParaDex Robot - A Novel, Close-Chain, Kinematically – Redundant Manipulator,” IEEE International Conference on Rob.
& Automation, 2000, pp. 2392-2397.
[64] I. A. Bonev, and J. Ryu, “Workspace Analysis of 6-PRRS Parallel Manipulators Based on the Vertex Space Concept,” ASME Design Technical Conferences, DETC99/DAC-8647, Las Vegas, NV, September 12-15, 1999.
[65] J. P. Kim, and J. Ryu, “Closed-Form Dynamics Equations of 6-DOF PUS Type Parallel Manipulators,” ASME Design Technical Conferences, 26th Biennial Mechanisms Conference, Baltimore, MD, September 10-13, 2000.
[66] B. R. Hopkins, and R. L. Williams II, “MODIFIED 6-PSU 76
PLATFORM,” ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences, September 29 - October 2, Montreal, Canada, 2002.
[67] K. A. B. Rao, P. V. M. Rao, and S. K. Saha, “Workspace and Dexterity Analysis of Machine Tools,” Proceeding of the IEEE International Conference on Robots & Automation, Taipei, Taiwan, September 14-19, 2003.
[68] S. Stoughton Robert, and T. Tatsuo Arai, “A modified Stewart platform manipulator with improved dexterity,” Robotics and Automation, IEEE Transactions on, Vol. 9, No. 2, 1993, pp.
166-173.
[69] C. A. Klein, and B. E. Blaho, “Dexterity measures for the design and control of kinematically redundant manipulators,” Int. J.
Robot. Res., Vol. 6, No. 2, 1987, pp. 72-78.
[70] H. Pittens, and R. P. Podhorodeski, “A family of Stewart platforms with optimal dexterity,” J. Robot. Syst., Vol. 10, No. 4, 1993, pp. 463-479.
[71] D. Giovannetti, and M. Blum, “Design of a Hexapod Motion Cueing System for the NASA Ames Vertical Motion Simulator,”
AIAA Modeling and Simulation Technologies Conference and Exhibit 5-8 August, Monterey, Califormina, 2002.
[72] W. E. Lorensen, and H. E. Cline, “Marching Cubes: A High Resolution 3D Surface Construction Algorithm,” Computer Graphics (Proceedings of SIGGRAPH '87),Vol. 21, No. 4, 1987, pp. 163-169.
[73] G. M. Nielson, and B. Hamann, “The Asymptotic Decider:
Resolving the Ambiguity in Marching Cubes,” Proc. IEEE Visualization, 1992, pp. 83-91.
77
[74] S.V. Matveyev, “Resolving the topological ambiguity in approximating the isosurface of scalar function,” Visualization and Machine Vision, Proceedings, IEEE Workshop on, June, 1994, pp. 18-21.
[75] S. Matveyev, “Approximation of Isosurface in the Marching Cube: Ambiguity Problem,” Proc. IEEE Visualization, 1994, pp.
288-292.
[76] B. Natarajan, “On Generating Topologically Consistent Isosurfaces from Uniform Samples,” The Visual Computer, PVP-Vol. 11, 1994, pp. 52-62.
[77] E. Chernyaev, “Marching Cubes 33: Construction of Topologically Correct Isosurfaces,” Technical Report CN/ 95-17, CERN, 1995, http://wwwinfo.cern.ch/asdoc/psdir/mc.ps.gz.
78
Figures
Planned Ground Path Line-of-sight Range Deviation =
∫
VLOSdtPlanned Flight Path Actual Flight Path
X α Y β
Z γ
~~
Figure 1. Vehicle and Sensor relation.
79
Stabilizer
Sensor
2-axis gimbal
air cushion
Figure 2. Sensor, Gimbal, stabilizer, air cushion.
joint link
Figure 3. The limb
Uncontrollable rotation
Figure 4. SS triad.
80
Floating Actuator Ground
actuator
Figure 5. Type of actuators.
: Link :Ground link : Passive joint
: Artificial joint : Active joint
: Artificial joint
: Link
Figure 6. (a) Kinematic structure (b) corresponding graph.
81
End effector
: Limb
:Ground link :Artificial joint
: link
Figure 7. Reduced graph of parallel manipulation.
: S joint : P joint : U joint
Figure 8. (a) Tripod-based PKM (b) Stewart platform (Hexapod).
82
Universal joint
Figure 9. Example of a 5-dof SSPM.
Linear transducer
Figure 10. DDB measurement as Saturated limb.
83
Limb Selection Given F
F = 4 or 5?
Task-oriented?
SSPM in Table 4 FSPM in Table 3 TOPM in Table 5
no yes
yes no
Figure 11. Determination of parallel manipulator type.
84
Select limbs (Table 1 and 2) Ground
prismatic joint
Floating prismatic joint
yes Ground
actuator?
no
Dimensional design
Determine parallel manipulator type
Saturated
Limb? Select S6 (Table 1 and 2) yes
Figure 12. Limb Selection.
85
Figure 13. Cartesian machine.
86
Rol Pitch Z
87
Figure 14. Wobble machine.
88
Figure 15. Rotation machine.
Figure 16. Cobra-head machine.
(a) (b)
89
(c)
Figure 17 Different types of Hexaslide platform: (a) Hexaglide, (b) HexaM, and (c) Linapod.
Figure 18 Delta Hexaglide platform.
(a)
(b)
Figure 19 (a) Kinematic structure and (b) photograph of the Delta Hexaglide platform mechanism (Courtesy: IMON Inc.).
90
Figure 20. Oscillating-cylinder engine mechanism.
91
Figure 21. RRRP kinematics inversion.
Figure 22a. The real sensor pedestal picture.
Ground link Moving frame
Linear actuator
Linear guide Frame center
Figure 22b. Kinematic structure of turning-block mechanism.
92
α φ θ
Frame center φ − 900
Fi Fo
L R
S
φ α θ
Frame center
R L
S
Figure 23. Force transmitted and kinematic structure of (a) Turning-block and (b) Swinging-block mechanism.
93
Frame
θο ε
ε
R
Figure 24. Dimensional design for turning block mechanism.
94
95
Frame 30
30o
64.34o
L=2 R=1
Figure 25. Example of turning-block illustrated configuration.
:D/R
96
Figure 26. ε versus D/R and ε versus η
Figure 27. ε versus R/L versus θο. ε(degree)
R/L θο(degree)
: η
ε (degree)
Figure 28. The active multi-robotic safeguard system arichitecture.
97
Y
X Z
v
u
w
i
k
j
Object B Object B Virtual Boundary Object A
Loc2 Loc1
Loc
O
Reference Coordinate System
Object B Hazard Zone
Figure 29. The coordinate system for the robotic collision detection.
98
X Z Y
px
( , , )py pz
θ3 X
arm lower L
arm upper L
θ1
θ2
Figure 30. The industrial U-type robot.
99
Figure 31. The Parallel-linked robot system.
100
Multi-Axis Control Buttons
Graphic Display Control
Graphic Display Control