|
|
|
@@ -1,22 +1,27 @@ |
|
|
|
%&tex |
|
|
|
As the previous development cycle was aborted prematurely, that cycle did not finish. |
|
|
|
The second cycle is picks up at the feature selection step in the Development Cycle. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\subsection{Feature Selection} |
|
|
|
The implementation of the end-effector proofed to be impractical. |
|
|
|
This means that only two features are left. |
|
|
|
The updated table in \autoref{tab:featurestab2} shows that the next step would be the SCARA. |
|
|
|
The SCARA has a higher risk/time factor and covers more tests. |
|
|
|
The updated table in \autoref{tab:featurestab2} shows the updated feature comparison. |
|
|
|
Compared with the previous feature selection in \autoref{tab:firstfeatureselection}, the number of tests for the SCARA decreased and the Risk/Time increased. |
|
|
|
This is because System Test \ref{test_tool_change} relied on both the SCARA and the End-effector and is no longer applicable. |
|
|
|
Based on the feature comparison, the next component to implement is the SCARA. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\begin{table}[] |
|
|
|
\caption{} |
|
|
|
\label{tab:featurestab2} |
|
|
|
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|l|l|} |
|
|
|
\hline |
|
|
|
Feature & Dependees & Tests & Risk & Time & Risk/Time \\ \hline |
|
|
|
SCARA & - & 3 & 40\% & 10 days & 4 \\ \hline |
|
|
|
End-effector & SCARA & 2 & 60\% & 8 days & 7.5 \\ \hline |
|
|
|
SCARA & - & 2 & 50\% & 12 days & 4.2 \\ \hline |
|
|
|
Carriage & - & 2 & 30\% & 10 days & 3 \\ \hline |
|
|
|
\end{tabular} |
|
|
|
\end{table} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\subsection{Rapid Development} |
|
|
|
\subsection{Rapid Development of SCARA} |
|
|
|
At the end of this implementation the SCARA is able to write the first characters |
|
|
|
This will be achieved by working through different levels of detail. |
|
|
|
Where each level adds more detail to the model. |
|
|
|
@@ -34,7 +39,11 @@ |
|
|
|
Together with the physics model there will be a solid 3D CAD model. |
|
|
|
The CAD model helps to check with dimensions and possible collisions of objects. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\subsubsection{Basics} |
|
|
|
\subsection{Variable Approach} |
|
|
|
The following steps is to increase the detail of the model. |
|
|
|
This is done according to the steps in the previous section. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\subsubsection{Basics implementation} |
|
|
|
\begin{marginfigure} |
|
|
|
\centering |
|
|
|
\begin{tikzpicture} |
|
|
|
@@ -68,29 +77,60 @@ |
|
|
|
The second detail iteration adds the basic physics of the model. |
|
|
|
This model was in the form of a double pendulum, with to powered joints. |
|
|
|
The ideal motors in the joints made it that it could move with almost infinite speed. |
|
|
|
To get a better idea of the forces in the model, the ideal motors are replaced with a beter motor model. |
|
|
|
To get a better idea of the forces in the model, the ideal motors are replaced with a better motor model. |
|
|
|
As the system did not operate with infinite gain anymore it the path planning was updated as well. |
|
|
|
A simple PID controller was implemented to make SCARA follow a square path. |
|
|
|
A simple PID-controller was implemented to make the SCARA follow a rectangular path. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\begin{marginfigure} |
|
|
|
\centering |
|
|
|
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{graphics/scara_20sim_model.png} |
|
|
|
\caption{3D plot of the current implementation. The rectangular shapes represent are the linkages and implemented as rigid bodies. |
|
|
|
The sphere on the origin and the one between both linkages represent the actuated joints. |
|
|
|
There is no inertia implemented for these joints.} |
|
|
|
\label{fig:scara_20sim} |
|
|
|
\end{marginfigure} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now that the model forms a basic with the non-ideal motors, basic physics and a controllaw, it can be used to make some estimates. |
|
|
|
The model followed the required path in the specified amount out time. |
|
|
|
With this, the minimum required torque could be calculated. |
|
|
|
Which is then used to dimension the motors. |
|
|
|
The current implementation can be seen in \autoref{fig:scara_20sim}. |
|
|
|
Now that the model forms a basic with the non-ideal motors, basic physics and a control law, it can be used to make some estimates. |
|
|
|
The model was configured to follow the required path in the specified amount out time according to System Test \ref{test1}. |
|
|
|
The torque required gave a rough estimate of the required actuation force of the motors. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\subsubsection{Detailed design decisions} |
|
|
|
The basic model gave some good insight and information about the dynamic behavior of the system. |
|
|
|
However, the current configuration is very simple but requires a motor in the joint. |
|
|
|
In \autoref{fig:scaradesign}, this setup is shown as configuration 1. |
|
|
|
The disadvantage is that a motorized joint is heavy and has to be accelerated with the rest of the arm. |
|
|
|
Other configurations in \autoref{fig:scaradesign} move the motor to a static position. |
|
|
|
Configuration 2 is a double arm setup, but has quite limited operating range. |
|
|
|
Due to a singularity in the system when both arms at the top are in line with each other. |
|
|
|
Configuration 3 also has such a singularity, but due to the extended top arm this point of singularity is outside of the operating range. |
|
|
|
However, this configuration requires one axis with two motorized joints on it. |
|
|
|
Even though this is possible, it does increase the complexity of the construction. |
|
|
|
By adding an extra linkage, the actuation can be split as shown in configuration 4. |
|
|
|
\begin{figure} |
|
|
|
\centering |
|
|
|
\includegraphics[width=0.875\linewidth]{graphics/scara_design.pdf} |
|
|
|
\caption{Four different SCARA configurations. The colored circles mark which of the joints are actuated. Configuration 3 has two independently actuated joints on the same position.} |
|
|
|
\label{fig:scaradesign} |
|
|
|
\end{figure} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\subsubsection{Advanced Model} |
|
|
|
The basic model contains all elementary components and detail can be added for different components. |
|
|
|
The first step was to improve the motor models. |
|
|
|
Up to now it was a primitive model with a source of effort, resistance and gyrator in series. |
|
|
|
For the design it was decided to go with a stepper motor. |
|
|
|
The advantage of a stepper motor is the holding torque, such that the motor can be forced in a certain angle. |
|
|
|
With the new motors the controller was updated, to accommodate for the behavior of the steppers. |
|
|
|
The actuation of the arm is done with stepper motors. |
|
|
|
The advantage of stepper motors over simple DC-motors is that they hold a specific position. |
|
|
|
There is no extra feedback loop required to compensate for external forces. |
|
|
|
However, they are heavier and more expensive. |
|
|
|
But the extra mass is probably beneficial as adds momentum to the base. |
|
|
|
Reducing the counter movement of the base when the arm is actuated. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The next step was to upgrade the model to a full three dimensional dynamics. |
|
|
|
Although the SCARA model itself is valid in only two dimensions, having the SCARA suspended from wires required the full dimensions. |
|
|
|
\subsubsection{Implementing details} |
|
|
|
The first step was to replace the DC-motor with a stepper motor model. |
|
|
|
This based on a model by \textcite{karadeniz_modelling_2018}. |
|
|
|
The controller is updated as well, to accommodate for the behavior of the steppers, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The next step is to implement a dynamic model of the configuration (4) as shown in \autoref{fig:scaradesign}. |
|
|
|
The dynamics of the SCARA are based on a serial link structure \autocite{dresscher_modeling_2010}. |
|
|
|
This allowed for a simple, yet quick implementation of the dynamics. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\subsubsection{3D modeling} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\subsubsection{3D Modeling} |
|
|
|
With a full dynamics model in 20-sim, the next step was to design the system in OpenSCAD. |
|
|
|
Although 20-sim has a 3D editor, it is significantly easier to build components with OpenSCAD. |
|
|
|
Furthermore, for prototyping the OpenSCAD objects can be exported for 3D printing. |
|
|
|
@@ -103,4 +143,3 @@ |
|
|
|
\label{fig:scad_carriage} |
|
|
|
\end{figure} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
\subsection{Variable Approach} |