tdehaeze/dehaeze26_cubic_architecture_decoupling
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Initial commit

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Thomas Dehaeze
2025-11-26 10:30:18 +01:00
commit c72817bdcc
96 changed files with 6076 additions and 0 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

567
paper/dehaeze26_cubic_architecture.org Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,567 @@
#+TITLE: Decoupling Properties of the Cubic Architecture
:DRAWER:
#+LANGUAGE: en
#+EMAIL: dehaeze.thomas@gmail.com
#+AUTHOR: Dehaeze Thomas
#+BIND: org-latex-image-default-option "scale=1"
#+BIND: org-latex-image-default-width ""
#+LaTeX_CLASS: scrreprt
#+LaTeX_CLASS_OPTIONS: [a4paper, 10pt, DIV=12, parskip=full, bibliography=totoc]
#+LATEX_HEADER: \input{preamble.tex}
#+LATEX_HEADER_EXTRA: \input{preamble_extra.tex}
#+LATEX_HEADER_EXTRA: \bibliography{dehaeze26_cubic_architecture.bib}
#+BIND: org-latex-bib-compiler "biber"
:END:
#+latex: \clearpage
* Build :noexport:
#+NAME: startblock
#+BEGIN_SRC emacs-lisp :results none :tangle no
(add-to-list 'org-latex-classes
'("scrreprt"
"\\documentclass{scrreprt}"
("\\chapter{%s}" . "\\chapter*{%s}")
("\\section{%s}" . "\\section*{%s}")
("\\subsection{%s}" . "\\subsection*{%s}")
("\\paragraph{%s}" . "\\paragraph*{%s}")
))
;; Remove automatic org heading labels
(defun my-latex-filter-removeOrgAutoLabels (text backend info)
"Org-mode automatically generates labels for headings despite explicit use of `#+LABEL`. This filter forcibly removes all automatically generated org-labels in headings."
(when (org-export-derived-backend-p backend 'latex)
(replace-regexp-in-string "\\\\label{sec:org[a-f0-9]+}\n" "" text)))
(add-to-list 'org-export-filter-headline-functions
'my-latex-filter-removeOrgAutoLabels)
;; Remove all org comments in the output LaTeX file
(defun delete-org-comments (backend)
(loop for comment in (reverse (org-element-map (org-element-parse-buffer)
'comment 'identity))
do
(setf (buffer-substring (org-element-property :begin comment)
(org-element-property :end comment))
"")))
(add-hook 'org-export-before-processing-hook 'delete-org-comments)
;; Use no package by default
(setq org-latex-packages-alist nil)
(setq org-latex-default-packages-alist nil)
;; Do not include the subtitle inside the title
(setq org-latex-subtitle-separate t)
(setq org-latex-subtitle-format "\\subtitle{%s}")
(setq org-export-before-parsing-hook '(org-ref-glossary-before-parsing
org-ref-acronyms-before-parsing))
#+END_SRC
* Notes :noexport:
** Journal
https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/mechanicaldesign
Guide: https://www.asme.org/publications-submissions/journals/information-for-authors/journal-guidelines/writing-a-research-paper
#+begin_quote
Research papers undergo full peer review. Authors are encouraged to prepare concise manuscripts that convey clearly the significance of the work. Research Papers do not have a specified length but are usually 8,000 to 12,000 words with 5-8 figures or tables.
#+end_quote
** TODO [#B] Add more content from the PhD thesis?
Maybe add:
- [[file:~/Cloud/work-projects/ID31-NASS/phd-thesis-chapters/B1-nass-geometry/nass-geometry.org::*Review of Stewart platforms][Review of Stewart platforms]]
- [[file:~/Cloud/work-projects/ID31-NASS/phd-thesis-chapters/B1-nass-geometry/nass-geometry.org::*Effect of geometry on Stewart platform properties][Effect of geometry on Stewart platform properties]]
* Introduction :ignore:
The Cubic configuration for the Stewart platform was first proposed by Dr. Gough in a comment to the original paper by Dr. Stewart [[cite:&stewart65_platf_with_six_degrees_freed]].
This configuration is characterized by active struts arranged in a mutually orthogonal configuration connecting the corners of a cube, as shown in Figure ref:fig:detail_kinematics_cubic_architecture_example.
Typically, the struts have similar length to the cube's edges, as illustrated in Figure ref:fig:detail_kinematics_cubic_architecture_example.
Practical implementations of such configurations can be observed in Figures ref:fig:detail_kinematics_jpl, ref:fig:detail_kinematics_uw_gsp and ref:fig:detail_kinematics_uqp.
It is also possible to implement designs with strut lengths smaller than the cube's edges (Figure ref:fig:detail_kinematics_cubic_architecture_example_small), as exemplified in Figure ref:fig:detail_kinematics_ulb_pz.
#+name: fig:detail_kinematics_cubic_architecture_examples
#+caption: Typical Stewart platform cubic architectures in which struts' length is similar to the cube edges's length (\subref{fig:detail_kinematics_cubic_architecture_example}) or is taking just a portion of the edge (\subref{fig:detail_kinematics_cubic_architecture_example_small}).
#+attr_latex: :options [htbp]
#+begin_figure
#+attr_latex: :caption \subcaption{\label{fig:detail_kinematics_cubic_architecture_example}Classical Cubic architecture}
#+attr_latex: :options {0.49\textwidth}
#+begin_subfigure
#+attr_latex: :scale 1
[[file:figs/detail_kinematics_cubic_architecture_example.png]]
#+end_subfigure
#+attr_latex: :caption \subcaption{\label{fig:detail_kinematics_cubic_architecture_example_small}Alternative configuration}
#+attr_latex: :options {0.49\textwidth}
#+begin_subfigure
#+attr_latex: :scale 1
[[file:figs/detail_kinematics_cubic_architecture_example_small.png]]
#+end_subfigure
#+end_figure
Several advantageous properties attributed to the cubic configuration have contributed to its widespread adoption [[cite:&geng94_six_degree_of_freed_activ;&preumont07_six_axis_singl_stage_activ;&jafari03_orthog_gough_stewar_platf_microm]]: simplified kinematics relationships and dynamical analysis [[cite:&geng94_six_degree_of_freed_activ]]; uniform stiffness in all directions [[cite:&hanieh03_activ_stewar]]; uniform mobility [[cite:&preumont18_vibrat_contr_activ_struc_fourt_edition, chapt.8.5.2]]; and minimization of the cross coupling between actuators and sensors in different struts [[cite:&preumont07_six_axis_singl_stage_activ]].
This minimization is attributed to the fact that the struts are orthogonal to each other, and is said to facilitate collocated sensor-actuator control system design, i.e., the implementation of decentralized control [[cite:&geng94_six_degree_of_freed_activ;&thayer02_six_axis_vibrat_isolat_system]].
These properties are examined in this section to assess their relevance for the nano-hexapod.
The mobility and stiffness properties of the cubic configuration are analyzed in Section ref:ssec:detail_kinematics_cubic_static.
Dynamical decoupling is investigated in Section ref:ssec:detail_kinematics_cubic_dynamic, while decentralized control, crucial for the NASS, is examined in Section ref:ssec:detail_kinematics_decentralized_control.
Given that the cubic architecture imposes strict geometric constraints, alternative designs are proposed in Section ref:ssec:detail_kinematics_cubic_design.
The ultimate objective is to determine the suitability of the cubic architecture for the nano-hexapod.
* Static Properties
<<ssec:detail_kinematics_cubic_static>>
** Stiffness matrix for the Cubic architecture
Consider the cubic architecture shown in Figure ref:fig:detail_kinematics_cubic_schematic_full.
The unit vectors corresponding to the edges of the cube are described by equation eqref:eq:detail_kinematics_cubic_s.
\begin{equation}\label{eq:detail_kinematics_cubic_s}
\hat{\bm{s}}_1 = \begin{bmatrix} \frac{\sqrt{2}}{\sqrt{3}} \\ 0 \\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} \end{bmatrix} \quad
\hat{\bm{s}}_2 = \begin{bmatrix} \frac{-1}{\sqrt{6}} \\ \frac{-1}{\sqrt{2}} \\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} \end{bmatrix} \quad
\hat{\bm{s}}_3 = \begin{bmatrix} \frac{-1}{\sqrt{6}} \\ \frac{ 1}{\sqrt{2}} \\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} \end{bmatrix} \quad
\hat{\bm{s}}_4 = \begin{bmatrix} \frac{\sqrt{2}}{\sqrt{3}} \\ 0 \\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} \end{bmatrix} \quad
\hat{\bm{s}}_5 = \begin{bmatrix} \frac{-1}{\sqrt{6}} \\ \frac{-1}{\sqrt{2}} \\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} \end{bmatrix} \quad
\hat{\bm{s}}_6 = \begin{bmatrix} \frac{-1}{\sqrt{6}} \\ \frac{ 1}{\sqrt{2}} \\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}} \end{bmatrix}
\end{equation}
#+name: fig:detail_kinematics_cubic_schematic_cases
#+caption: Cubic architecture. Struts are represented in blue. The cube's center by a black dot. The Struts can match the cube's edges (\subref{fig:detail_kinematics_cubic_schematic_full}) or just take a portion of the edge (\subref{fig:detail_kinematics_cubic_schematic})
#+attr_latex: :options [htbp]
#+begin_figure
#+attr_latex: :caption \subcaption{\label{fig:detail_kinematics_cubic_schematic_full}Full cube}
#+attr_latex: :options {0.48\textwidth}
#+begin_subfigure
#+attr_latex: :scale 0.9
[[file:figs/detail_kinematics_cubic_schematic_full.png]]
#+end_subfigure
#+attr_latex: :caption \subcaption{\label{fig:detail_kinematics_cubic_schematic}Cube's portion}
#+attr_latex: :options {0.48\textwidth}
#+begin_subfigure
#+attr_latex: :scale 0.9
[[file:figs/detail_kinematics_cubic_schematic.png]]
#+end_subfigure
#+end_figure
Coordinates of the cube's vertices relevant for the top joints, expressed with respect to the cube's center, are shown in equation eqref:eq:detail_kinematics_cubic_vertices.
\begin{equation}\label{eq:detail_kinematics_cubic_vertices}
\tilde{\bm{b}}_1 = \tilde{\bm{b}}_2 = H_c \begin{bmatrix} \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \\ \frac{-\sqrt{3}}{\sqrt{2}} \\ \frac{1}{2} \end{bmatrix}, \quad
\tilde{\bm{b}}_3 = \tilde{\bm{b}}_4 = H_c \begin{bmatrix} \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \\ \frac{ \sqrt{3}}{\sqrt{2}} \\ \frac{1}{2} \end{bmatrix}, \quad
\tilde{\bm{b}}_5 = \tilde{\bm{b}}_6 = H_c \begin{bmatrix} \frac{-2}{\sqrt{2}} \\ 0 \\ \frac{1}{2} \end{bmatrix}
\end{equation}
In the case where top joints are positioned at the cube's vertices, a diagonal stiffness matrix is obtained as shown in equation eqref:eq:detail_kinematics_cubic_stiffness.
Translation stiffness is twice the stiffness of the struts, and rotational stiffness is proportional to the square of the cube's size $H_c$.
\begin{equation}\label{eq:detail_kinematics_cubic_stiffness}
\bm{K}_{\{B\} = \{C\}} = k \begin{bmatrix}
2 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 2 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 2 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & \frac{3}{2} H_c^2 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & \frac{3}{2} H_c^2 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 6 H_c^2 \\
\end{bmatrix}
\end{equation}
However, typically, the top joints are not placed at the cube's vertices but at positions along the cube's edges (Figure ref:fig:detail_kinematics_cubic_schematic).
In that case, the location of the top joints can be expressed by equation eqref:eq:detail_kinematics_cubic_edges, yet the computed stiffness matrix remains identical to Equation eqref:eq:detail_kinematics_cubic_stiffness.
\begin{equation}\label{eq:detail_kinematics_cubic_edges}
\bm{b}_i = \tilde{\bm{b}}_i + \alpha \hat{\bm{s}}_i
\end{equation}
The stiffness matrix is therefore diagonal when the considered $\{B\}$ frame is located at the center of the cube (shown by frame $\{C\}$).
This means that static forces (resp torques) applied at the cube's center will induce pure translations (resp rotations around the cube's center).
This specific location where the stiffness matrix is diagonal is referred to as the "Center of Stiffness" (analogous to the "Center of Mass" where the mass matrix is diagonal).
** Effect of having frame $\{B\}$ off-centered
When the reference frames $\{A\}$ and $\{B\}$ are shifted from the cube's center, off-diagonal elements emerge in the stiffness matrix.
Considering a vertical shift as shown in Figure ref:fig:detail_kinematics_cubic_schematic, the stiffness matrix transforms into that shown in Equation eqref:eq:detail_kinematics_cubic_stiffness_off_centered.
Off-diagonal elements increase proportionally with the height difference between the cube's center and the considered $\{B\}$ frame.
\begin{equation}\label{eq:detail_kinematics_cubic_stiffness_off_centered}
\bm{K}_{\{B\} \neq \{C\}} = k \begin{bmatrix}
2 & 0 & 0 & 0 & -2 H & 0 \\
0 & 2 & 0 & 2 H & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 2 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 2 H & 0 & \frac{3}{2} H_c^2 + 2 H^2 & 0 & 0 \\
-2 H & 0 & 0 & 0 & \frac{3}{2} H_c^2 + 2 H^2 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 6 H_c^2 \\
\end{bmatrix}
\end{equation}
This stiffness matrix structure is characteristic of Stewart platforms exhibiting symmetry, and is not an exclusive property of cubic architectures.
Therefore, the stiffness characteristics of the cubic architecture are only distinctive when considering a reference frame located at the cube's center.
This poses a practical limitation, as in most applications, the relevant frame (where motion is of interest and forces are applied) is located above the top platform.
It should be noted that for the stiffness matrix to be diagonal, the cube's center doesn't need to coincide with the geometric center of the Stewart platform.
This observation leads to the interesting alternative architectures presented in Section ref:ssec:detail_kinematics_cubic_design.
** Uniform Mobility
The translational mobility of the Stewart platform with constant orientation was analyzed.
Considering limited actuator stroke (elongation of each strut), the maximum achievable positions in XYZ space were estimated.
The resulting mobility in X, Y, and Z directions for the cubic architecture is illustrated in Figure ref:fig:detail_kinematics_cubic_mobility_translations.
The translational workspace analysis reveals that for the cubic architecture, the achievable positions form a cube whose axes align with the struts, with the cube's edge length corresponding to the strut axial stroke.
These findings suggest that the mobility pattern is more subtle than sometimes described in the literature [[cite:&mcinroy00_desig_contr_flexur_joint_hexap]], exhibiting uniformity primarily along directions aligned with the cube's edges rather than uniform spherical distribution in all XYZ directions.
This configuration still offers more consistent mobility characteristics compared to alternative architectures illustrated in Figure ref:fig:detail_kinematics_mobility_trans.
The rotational mobility, illustrated in Figure ref:fig:detail_kinematics_cubic_mobility_rotations, exhibits greater achievable angular stroke in the $R_x$ and $R_y$ directions compared to the $R_z$ direction.
Furthermore, an inverse relationship exists between the cube's dimension and rotational mobility, with larger cube sizes corresponding to more limited angular displacement capabilities.
#+name: fig:detail_kinematics_cubic_mobility
#+caption: Mobility of a Stewart platform with Cubic architecture. Both for translations (\subref{fig:detail_kinematics_cubic_mobility_translations}) and rotations (\subref{fig:detail_kinematics_cubic_mobility_rotations})
#+attr_latex: :options [htbp]
#+begin_figure
#+attr_latex: :caption \subcaption{\label{fig:detail_kinematics_cubic_mobility_translations}Mobility in translation}
#+attr_latex: :options {0.48\textwidth}
#+begin_subfigure
#+attr_latex: :scale 1
[[file:figs/detail_kinematics_cubic_mobility_translations.png]]
#+end_subfigure
#+attr_latex: :caption \subcaption{\label{fig:detail_kinematics_cubic_mobility_rotations}Mobility in rotation}
#+attr_latex: :options {0.48\textwidth}
#+begin_subfigure
#+attr_latex: :scale 1
[[file:figs/detail_kinematics_cubic_mobility_rotations.png]]
#+end_subfigure
#+end_figure
* Dynamical Decoupling
<<ssec:detail_kinematics_cubic_dynamic>>
** Introduction :ignore:
This section examines the dynamics of the cubic architecture in the Cartesian frame which corresponds to the transfer function from forces and torques $\bm{\mathcal{F}}$ to translations and rotations $\bm{\mathcal{X}}$ of the top platform.
When relative motion sensors are integrated in each strut (measuring $\bm{\mathcal{L}}$), the pose $\bm{\mathcal{X}}$ is computed using the Jacobian matrix as shown in Figure ref:fig:detail_kinematics_centralized_control.
#+name: fig:detail_kinematics_centralized_control
#+caption: Typical control architecture in the cartesian frame
[[file:figs/detail_kinematics_centralized_control.png]]
** Low frequency and High frequency coupling
As derived during the conceptual design phase, the dynamics from $\bm{\mathcal{F}}$ to $\bm{\mathcal{X}}$ is described by Equation eqref:eq:detail_kinematics_transfer_function_cart.
At low frequency, the behavior of the platform depends on the stiffness matrix eqref:eq:detail_kinematics_transfer_function_cart_low_freq.
\begin{equation}\label{eq:detail_kinematics_transfer_function_cart_low_freq}
\frac{{\mathcal{X}}}{\bm{\mathcal{F}}}(j \omega) \xrightarrow[\omega \to 0]{} \bm{K}^{-1}
\end{equation}
In Section ref:ssec:detail_kinematics_cubic_static, it was demonstrated that for the cubic configuration, the stiffness matrix is diagonal if frame $\{B\}$ is positioned at the cube's center.
In this case, the "Cartesian" plant is decoupled at low frequency.
At high frequency, the behavior is governed by the mass matrix (evaluated at frame $\{B\}$) eqref:eq:detail_kinematics_transfer_function_high_freq.
\begin{equation}\label{eq:detail_kinematics_transfer_function_high_freq}
\frac{{\mathcal{X}}}{\bm{\mathcal{F}}}(j \omega) \xrightarrow[\omega \to \infty]{} - \omega^2 \bm{M}^{-1}
\end{equation}
To achieve a diagonal mass matrix, the center of mass of the mobile components must coincide with the $\{B\}$ frame, and the principal axes of inertia must align with the axes of the $\{B\}$ frame.
#+name: fig:detail_kinematics_cubic_payload
#+caption: Cubic stewart platform with top cylindrical payload
#+attr_latex: :width 0.6\linewidth
[[file:figs/detail_kinematics_cubic_payload.png]]
To verify these properties, a cubic Stewart platform with a cylindrical payload was analyzed (Figure ref:fig:detail_kinematics_cubic_payload).
Transfer functions from $\bm{\mathcal{F}}$ to $\bm{\mathcal{X}}$ were computed for two specific locations of the $\{B\}$ frames.
When the $\{B\}$ frame was positioned at the center of mass, coupling at low frequency was observed due to the non-diagonal stiffness matrix (Figure ref:fig:detail_kinematics_cubic_cart_coupling_com).
Conversely, when positioned at the center of stiffness, coupling occurred at high frequency due to the non-diagonal mass matrix (Figure ref:fig:detail_kinematics_cubic_cart_coupling_cok).
#+name: fig:detail_kinematics_cubic_cart_coupling
#+caption: Transfer functions for a Cubic Stewart platform expressed in the Cartesian frame. Two locations of the $\{B\}$ frame are considered: at the center of mass of the moving body (\subref{fig:detail_kinematics_cubic_cart_coupling_com}) and at the cube's center (\subref{fig:detail_kinematics_cubic_cart_coupling_cok}).
#+attr_latex: :options [htbp]
#+begin_figure
#+attr_latex: :caption \subcaption{\label{fig:detail_kinematics_cubic_cart_coupling_com}$\{B\}$ at the center of mass}
#+attr_latex: :options {0.48\textwidth}
#+begin_subfigure
#+attr_latex: :width 0.95\linewidth
[[file:figs/detail_kinematics_cubic_cart_coupling_com.png]]
#+end_subfigure
#+attr_latex: :caption \subcaption{\label{fig:detail_kinematics_cubic_cart_coupling_cok}$\{B\}$ at the cube's center}
#+attr_latex: :options {0.48\textwidth}
#+begin_subfigure
#+attr_latex: :width 0.95\linewidth
[[file:figs/detail_kinematics_cubic_cart_coupling_cok.png]]
#+end_subfigure
#+end_figure
** Payload's CoM at the cube's center
An effective strategy for improving dynamical performances involves aligning the cube's center (center of stiffness) with the center of mass of the moving components [[cite:&li01_simul_fault_vibrat_isolat_point]].
This can be achieved by positioning the payload below the top platform, such that the center of mass of the moving body coincides with the cube's center (Figure ref:fig:detail_kinematics_cubic_centered_payload).
This approach was physically implemented in several studies [[cite:&mcinroy99_dynam;&jafari03_orthog_gough_stewar_platf_microm]], as shown in Figure ref:fig:detail_kinematics_uw_gsp.
The resulting dynamics are indeed well-decoupled (Figure ref:fig:detail_kinematics_cubic_cart_coupling_com_cok), taking advantage from diagonal stiffness and mass matrices.
The primary limitation of this approach is that, for many applications including the nano-hexapod, the payload must be positioned above the top platform.
If a design similar to Figure ref:fig:detail_kinematics_cubic_centered_payload were employed for the nano-hexapod, the X-ray beam would intersect with the struts during spindle rotation.
#+name: fig:detail_kinematics_cubic_com_cok
#+caption: Cubic Stewart platform with payload at the cube's center (\subref{fig:detail_kinematics_cubic_centered_payload}). Obtained cartesian plant is fully decoupled (\subref{fig:detail_kinematics_cubic_cart_coupling_com_cok})
#+attr_latex: :options [htbp]
#+begin_figure
#+attr_latex: :caption \subcaption{\label{fig:detail_kinematics_cubic_centered_payload}Payload at the cube's center}
#+attr_latex: :options {0.49\textwidth}
#+begin_subfigure
#+attr_latex: :width 0.95\linewidth
[[file:figs/detail_kinematics_cubic_centered_payload.png]]
#+end_subfigure
#+attr_latex: :caption \subcaption{\label{fig:detail_kinematics_cubic_cart_coupling_com_cok}Fully decoupled cartesian plant}
#+attr_latex: :options {0.49\textwidth}
#+begin_subfigure
#+attr_latex: :width 0.95\linewidth
[[file:figs/detail_kinematics_cubic_cart_coupling_com_cok.png]]
#+end_subfigure
#+end_figure
** Conclusion
The analysis of dynamical properties of the cubic architecture yields several important conclusions.
Static decoupling, characterized by a diagonal stiffness matrix, is achieved when reference frames $\{A\}$ and $\{B\}$ are positioned at the cube's center.
Note that this property can also be obtained with non-cubic architectures that exhibit symmetrical strut arrangements.
Dynamic decoupling requires both static decoupling and coincidence of the mobile platform's center of mass with reference frame $\{B\}$.
While this configuration offers powerful control advantages, it requires positioning the payload at the cube's center, which is highly restrictive and often impractical.
* Decentralized Control
<<ssec:detail_kinematics_decentralized_control>>
** Introduction :ignore:
The orthogonal arrangement of struts in the cubic architecture suggests a potential minimization of inter-strut coupling, which could theoretically create favorable conditions for decentralized control.
Two sensor types integrated in the struts are considered: displacement sensors and force sensors.
The control architecture is illustrated in Figure ref:fig:detail_kinematics_decentralized_control, where $\bm{K}_{\mathcal{L}}$ represents a diagonal transfer function matrix.
#+name: fig:detail_kinematics_decentralized_control
#+caption: Decentralized control in the frame of the struts.
[[file:figs/detail_kinematics_decentralized_control.png]]
The obtained plant dynamics in the frame of the struts are compared for two Stewart platforms.
The first employs a cubic architecture shown in Figure ref:fig:detail_kinematics_cubic_payload.
The second uses a non-cubic Stewart platform shown in Figure ref:fig:detail_kinematics_non_cubic_payload, featuring identical payload and strut dynamics but with struts oriented more vertically to differentiate it from the cubic architecture.
#+name: fig:detail_kinematics_non_cubic_payload
#+caption: Stewart platform with non-cubic architecture
#+attr_latex: :width 0.6\linewidth
[[file:figs/detail_kinematics_non_cubic_payload.png]]
** Relative Displacement Sensors
The transfer functions from actuator force in each strut to the relative motion of the struts are presented in Figure ref:fig:detail_kinematics_decentralized_dL.
As anticipated from the equations of motion from $\bm{f}$ to $\bm{\mathcal{L}}$ eqref:eq:detail_kinematics_transfer_function_struts, the $6 \times 6$ plant is decoupled at low frequency.
At high frequency, coupling is observed as the mass matrix projected in the strut frame is not diagonal.
No significant advantage is evident for the cubic architecture (Figure ref:fig:detail_kinematics_cubic_decentralized_dL) compared to the non-cubic architecture (Figure ref:fig:detail_kinematics_non_cubic_decentralized_dL).
The resonance frequencies differ between the two cases because the more vertical strut orientation in the non-cubic architecture alters the stiffness properties of the Stewart platform, consequently shifting the frequencies of various modes.
#+name: fig:detail_kinematics_decentralized_dL
#+caption: Bode plot of the transfer functions from actuator force to relative displacement sensor in each strut. Both for a non-cubic architecture (\subref{fig:detail_kinematics_non_cubic_decentralized_dL}) and for a cubic architecture (\subref{fig:detail_kinematics_cubic_decentralized_dL})
#+attr_latex: :options [htbp]
#+begin_figure
#+attr_latex: :caption \subcaption{\label{fig:detail_kinematics_non_cubic_decentralized_dL}Non cubic architecture}
#+attr_latex: :options {0.48\textwidth}
#+begin_subfigure
#+attr_latex: :width 0.95\linewidth
[[file:figs/detail_kinematics_non_cubic_decentralized_dL.png]]
#+end_subfigure
#+attr_latex: :caption \subcaption{\label{fig:detail_kinematics_cubic_decentralized_dL}Cubic architecture}
#+attr_latex: :options {0.48\textwidth}
#+begin_subfigure
#+attr_latex: :width 0.95\linewidth
[[file:figs/detail_kinematics_cubic_decentralized_dL.png]]
#+end_subfigure
#+end_figure
** Force Sensors
Similarly, the transfer functions from actuator force to force sensors in each strut were analyzed for both cubic and non-cubic Stewart platforms.
The results are presented in Figure ref:fig:detail_kinematics_decentralized_fn.
The system demonstrates good decoupling at high frequency in both cases, with no clear advantage for the cubic architecture.
#+name: fig:detail_kinematics_decentralized_fn
#+caption: Bode plot of the transfer functions from actuator force to force sensor in each strut. Both for a non-cubic architecture (\subref{fig:detail_kinematics_non_cubic_decentralized_fn}) and for a cubic architecture (\subref{fig:detail_kinematics_cubic_decentralized_fn})
#+attr_latex: :options [htbp]
#+begin_figure
#+attr_latex: :caption \subcaption{\label{fig:detail_kinematics_non_cubic_decentralized_fn}Non cubic architecture}
#+attr_latex: :options {0.48\textwidth}
#+begin_subfigure
#+attr_latex: :width 0.95\linewidth
[[file:figs/detail_kinematics_non_cubic_decentralized_fn.png]]
#+end_subfigure
#+attr_latex: :caption \subcaption{\label{fig:detail_kinematics_cubic_decentralized_fn}Cubic architecture}
#+attr_latex: :options {0.48\textwidth}
#+begin_subfigure
#+attr_latex: :width 0.95\linewidth
[[file:figs/detail_kinematics_cubic_decentralized_fn.png]]
#+end_subfigure
#+end_figure
** Conclusion
The presented results do not demonstrate the pronounced decoupling advantages often associated with cubic architectures in the literature.
Both the cubic and non-cubic configurations exhibited similar coupling characteristics, suggesting that the benefits of orthogonal strut arrangement for decentralized control is less obvious than often reported in the literature.
* Cubic architecture with Cube's center above the top platform
<<ssec:detail_kinematics_cubic_design>>
** Introduction :ignore:
As demonstrated in Section ref:ssec:detail_kinematics_cubic_dynamic, the cubic architecture can exhibit advantageous dynamical properties when the center of mass of the moving body coincides with the cube's center, resulting in diagonal mass and stiffness matrices.
As shown in Section ref:ssec:detail_kinematics_cubic_static, the stiffness matrix is diagonal when the considered $\{B\}$ frame is located at the cube's center.
However, the $\{B\}$ frame is typically positioned above the top platform where forces are applied and displacements are measured.
This section proposes modifications to the cubic architecture to enable positioning the payload above the top platform while still leveraging the advantageous dynamical properties of the cubic configuration.
Three key parameters define the geometry of the cubic Stewart platform: $H$, the height of the Stewart platform (distance from fixed base to mobile platform); $H_c$, the height of the cube, as shown in Figure ref:fig:detail_kinematics_cubic_schematic_full; and $H_{CoM}$, the height of the center of mass relative to the mobile platform (coincident with the cube's center).
Depending on the cube's size $H_c$ in relation to $H$ and $H_{CoM}$, different designs emerge.
In the following examples, $H = 100\,mm$ and $H_{CoM} = 20\,mm$.
** Small cube
When the cube size $H_c$ is smaller than twice the height of the CoM $H_{CoM}$ eqref:eq:detail_kinematics_cube_small, the resulting design is shown in Figure ref:fig:detail_kinematics_cubic_above_small.
\begin{equation}\label{eq:detail_kinematics_cube_small}
H_c < 2 H_{CoM}
\end{equation}
# TODO - Add link to Figure ref:fig:nhexa_stewart_piezo_furutani (page pageref:fig:nhexa_stewart_piezo_furutani)
This configuration is similar to that described in [[cite:&furutani04_nanom_cuttin_machin_using_stewar]], although they do not explicitly identify it as a cubic configuration.
Adjacent struts are parallel to each other, differing from the typical architecture where parallel struts are positioned opposite to each other.
This approach yields a compact architecture, but the small cube size may result in insufficient rotational stiffness.
#+name: fig:detail_kinematics_cubic_above_small
#+caption: Cubic architecture with cube's center above the top platform. A cube height of 40mm is used.
#+attr_latex: :options [htbp]
#+begin_figure
#+attr_latex: :caption \subcaption{\label{fig:detail_kinematics_cubic_above_small_iso}Isometric view}
#+attr_latex: :options {0.36\textwidth}
#+begin_subfigure
#+attr_latex: :width 0.9\linewidth
[[file:figs/detail_kinematics_cubic_above_small_iso.png]]
#+end_subfigure
#+attr_latex: :caption \subcaption{\label{fig:detail_kinematics_cubic_above_small_side}Side view}
#+attr_latex: :options {0.30\textwidth}
#+begin_subfigure
#+attr_latex: :width 0.9\linewidth
[[file:figs/detail_kinematics_cubic_above_small_side.png]]
#+end_subfigure
#+attr_latex: :caption \subcaption{\label{fig:detail_kinematics_cubic_above_small_top}Top view}
#+attr_latex: :options {0.30\textwidth}
#+begin_subfigure
#+attr_latex: :width 0.9\linewidth
[[file:figs/detail_kinematics_cubic_above_small_top.png]]
#+end_subfigure
#+end_figure
** Medium sized cube
Increasing the cube's size such that eqref:eq:detail_kinematics_cube_medium is verified produces an architecture with intersecting struts (Figure ref:fig:detail_kinematics_cubic_above_medium).
\begin{equation}\label{eq:detail_kinematics_cube_medium}
2 H_{CoM} < H_c < 2 (H_{CoM} + H)
\end{equation}
This configuration resembles the design proposed in [[cite:&yang19_dynam_model_decoup_contr_flexib]] (Figure ref:fig:detail_kinematics_yang19), although their design is not strictly cubic.
#+name: fig:detail_kinematics_cubic_above_medium
#+caption: Cubic architecture with cube's center above the top platform. A cube height of 140mm is used.
#+attr_latex: :options [htbp]
#+begin_figure
#+attr_latex: :caption \subcaption{\label{fig:detail_kinematics_cubic_above_medium_iso}Isometric view}
#+attr_latex: :options {0.36\textwidth}
#+begin_subfigure
#+attr_latex: :width 0.9\linewidth
[[file:figs/detail_kinematics_cubic_above_medium_iso.png]]
#+end_subfigure
#+attr_latex: :caption \subcaption{\label{fig:detail_kinematics_cubic_above_medium_side}Side view}
#+attr_latex: :options {0.30\textwidth}
#+begin_subfigure
#+attr_latex: :width 0.9\linewidth
[[file:figs/detail_kinematics_cubic_above_medium_side.png]]
#+end_subfigure
#+attr_latex: :caption \subcaption{\label{fig:detail_kinematics_cubic_above_medium_top}Top view}
#+attr_latex: :options {0.30\textwidth}
#+begin_subfigure
#+attr_latex: :width 0.9\linewidth
[[file:figs/detail_kinematics_cubic_above_medium_top.png]]
#+end_subfigure
#+end_figure
** Large cube
When the cube's height exceeds twice the sum of the platform height and CoM height eqref:eq:detail_kinematics_cube_large, the architecture shown in Figure ref:fig:detail_kinematics_cubic_above_large is obtained.
\begin{equation}\label{eq:detail_kinematics_cube_large}
2 (H_{CoM} + H) < H_c
\end{equation}
#+name: fig:detail_kinematics_cubic_above_large
#+caption: Cubic architecture with cube's center above the top platform. A cube height of 240mm is used.
#+attr_latex: :options [htbp]
#+begin_figure
#+attr_latex: :caption \subcaption{\label{fig:detail_kinematics_cubic_above_large_iso}Isometric view}
#+attr_latex: :options {0.36\textwidth}
#+begin_subfigure
#+attr_latex: :width 0.9\linewidth
[[file:figs/detail_kinematics_cubic_above_large_iso.png]]
#+end_subfigure
#+attr_latex: :caption \subcaption{\label{fig:detail_kinematics_cubic_above_large_side}Side view}
#+attr_latex: :options {0.30\textwidth}
#+begin_subfigure
#+attr_latex: :width 0.9\linewidth
[[file:figs/detail_kinematics_cubic_above_large_side.png]]
#+end_subfigure
#+attr_latex: :caption \subcaption{\label{fig:detail_kinematics_cubic_above_large_top}Top view}
#+attr_latex: :options {0.30\textwidth}
#+begin_subfigure
#+attr_latex: :width 0.9\linewidth
[[file:figs/detail_kinematics_cubic_above_large_top.png]]
#+end_subfigure
#+end_figure
** Platform size
For the proposed configuration, the top joints $\bm{b}_i$ (resp. the bottom joints $\bm{a}_i$) and are positioned on a circle with radius $R_{b_i}$ (resp. $R_{a_i}$) described by Equation eqref:eq:detail_kinematics_cube_joints.
\begin{subequations}\label{eq:detail_kinematics_cube_joints}
\begin{align}
R_{b_i} &= \sqrt{\frac{3}{2} H_c^2 + 2 H_{CoM}^2} \label{eq:detail_kinematics_cube_top_joints} \\
R_{a_i} &= \sqrt{\frac{3}{2} H_c^2 + 2 (H_{CoM} + H)^2} \label{eq:detail_kinematics_cube_bot_joints}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
Since the rotational stiffness for the cubic architecture scales with the square of the cube's height eqref:eq:detail_kinematics_cubic_stiffness, the cube's size can be determined based on rotational stiffness requirements.
Subsequently, using Equation eqref:eq:detail_kinematics_cube_joints, the dimensions of the top and bottom platforms can be calculated.
* Conclusion
:PROPERTIES:
:UNNUMBERED: t
:END:
The analysis of the cubic architecture for Stewart platforms yielded several important findings.
While the cubic configuration provides uniform stiffness in the XYZ directions, it stiffness property becomes particularly advantageous when forces and torques are applied at the cube's center.
Under these conditions, the stiffness matrix becomes diagonal, resulting in a decoupled Cartesian plant at low frequencies.
Regarding mobility, the translational capabilities of the cubic configuration exhibit uniformity along the directions of the orthogonal struts, rather than complete uniformity in the Cartesian space.
This understanding refines the characterization of cubic architecture mobility commonly presented in literature.
The analysis of decentralized control in the frame of the struts revealed more nuanced results than expected.
While cubic architectures are frequently associated with reduced coupling between actuators and sensors, this study showed that these benefits may be more subtle or context-dependent than commonly described.
Under the conditions analyzed, the coupling characteristics of cubic and non-cubic configurations, in the frame of the struts, appeared similar.
Fully decoupled dynamics in the Cartesian frame can be achieved when the center of mass of the moving body coincides with the cube's center.
However, this arrangement presents practical challenges, as the cube's center is traditionally located between the top and bottom platforms, making payload placement problematic for many applications.
To address this limitation, modified cubic architectures have been proposed with the cube's center positioned above the top platform.
Three distinct configurations have been identified, each with different geometric arrangements but sharing the common characteristic that the cube's center is positioned above the top platform.
This structural modification enables the alignment of the moving body's center of mass with the center of stiffness, resulting in beneficial decoupling properties in the Cartesian frame.
* Bibliography :ignore:
#+latex: \printbibliography[heading=bibintoc,title={Bibliography}]