Front. Mech. Eng.
2014, 9(3): 233–241
DOI 10.1007/s11465-014-0312-z
RESEARCH ARTICLE
S. SHANKAR GANESH, A.B. KOTESWARA RAO
Stiffness of a 3-degree of freedom translational parallel
kinematic machine
© Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014
Abstract In this paper, a typical 3-degree of freedom (3-
DOF) translational parallel kinematic machine (PKM) is
studied and analyzed whose tool platform has only
translations along X-, Y- and Z-axes. It consists of three
limbs, each of which have arm and forearm with prismatic-
revolute-revolute-revolute (PRRR) joints. Inverse kine-
matics analysis is carried out to find the slider coordinates
and joint angles for a given position of tool platform.
Stiffness modeling is done based on the compliance
matrices of arm and forearm of each limb. Using the
stiffness modeling the variations of minimum and max-
imum translational stiffness in the workspace are analyzed.
For various architectural parameters of the 3-DOF PKM
the tendency of variations on the minimum and maximum
stiffness over the entire workspace is studied; and also the
deflections of the tool platform along X, Y, and Z directions
with respect to various forces are presented.
Keywords 3-DOF translational PKM, inverse kine-
matics, stiffness modeling, translational stiffness
1 Introduction
Parallel kinematic machine (PKM) attracts more research-
ers and manufacturers as an alternative to the conventional
serial manipulators, because it offers several advantages
over its serial counterparts like high dynamic performance
and structural rigidity. However, the design of PKM is a
difficult task and it needs further research for its wide
acceptance in industries. PKMs are finding applications in
assembly and manufacturing in the recent past. Most of the
research is being carried out on 6-degree of freedom (6-
DOF) PKMs. However, they suffer from the problems of
Received July 12, 2014; accepted July 31, 2014
✉
S. SHANKAR GANESH ( ), A.B. KOTESWARA RAO
Department of Mechanical Engineering Gayatri Vidya Parishad College
of Engineering, Visakhapatnam 530048, India
E-mail: shankar_1500@rediffmail.com
relatively small workspace, complex forward kinematics,
complicated universal and spherical joints and design
difficulties. Hence researchers are diverting attention
towards parallel mechanisms with less than 6-DOF since
it costs less. 2-DOF and 3-DOF mechanisms offer
attractive performance characteristics for manufacturing
applications [1]. For example, Lee and Shah [2] analyzed a
3-DOF parallel manipulator with 3-revolute-prismatic-
spherical (RPS) chains. Yang et al. [3] developed a low-
cost driving simulator using the 3-RPS manipulator.
Ceccarelli [4] proposed a 3-DOF parallel manipulator
called CaPaMan in which each leg mechanism is made up
of a planar parallelogram, a prismatic joint and a ball joint.
However, these manipulators have coupled motion
between the position and orientation of the end-effector.
Recent research on 3-DOF parallel manipulators has been
leaning toward the decoupling of the position and
orientation of the end-effector and the elimination of
complicated multi-DOF joints. Three-DOF parallel manip-
ulators with a rotational or translational moving platform
have been investigated. The classical 3-RRR spherical
manipulator was studied in detail by Gosselin and Angeles
[5]. Other spatial parallel manipulators with a rotational
moving platform, called rotational parallel manipulators
(RPMs), had been proposed [6–9]. The structural synthesis
of 3-DOF RPMs had been carried out by Fang and Tsai
[10]. For translational parallel manipulator (TPM), Clavel
[11] invented a simple and fast parallel manipulator called
the DELTA robot, which was analyzed in more detail by
Pierrot et al. [12]. Tsai et al. [13,14] designed a 3-DOF
TPM that employs only revolute joints and planar
parallelograms. Tsai [15] presented the design of a spatial
3-universal-prismatic-universal manipulator and pointed
out the conditions that lead to pure translational motion.
The existing planar 2-DOF parallel mechanisms are the
well-known five-bar mechanism with prismatic actuators
or revolute actuators. The output of the mechanism is the
translational motion of a point on the end-effector [16].
Stiffness is one of the most important performances of
parallel manipulators, particularly for those which are used
234 Front. Mech. Eng. 2014, 9(3): 233–241

as machine tools, since higher stiffness allows higher

machining speeds and feeds while providing the desired
precision, surface finish and tool life. The stiffness of a
PKM in some configurations in the usable workspace
might be lower than desirable. Therefore, it is quite
necessary to carry out the stiffness modeling and evaluate
the stiffness of a PKM in the usable workspace. In previous
work, much work focused on the formulation of stiffness
maps of the Stewart platforms. Gosselin et al. [17,18] and
Svinin et al. [19] investigated the stiffness of Stewart
platform and the mapping between the driving force and
the platform deformation based on the Jacobian matrix.
Further, some dedicated investigation was carried out for
the computation of stiffness bound [20]. Particular
attention in this work was placed on finding the maximum
and minimum stiffness. It is not easy to derive the overall
stiffness matrix of less DOF PKMs. For a 3-DOF PKM,
Huang et al. [21] decomposed the whole machine structure
into two substructures, and formulated the stiffness model
of each substructure by means of virtual work principle.
Ceccarelli et al. [22] established a stiffness model of the 3-
DOF CaPaMan parallel manipulator by taking into account
the kinematic and static features of the three legs. Li et al.
[23] derived intuitively the stiffness matrix of a 3-PUU
(three-prismatic-universal–universal) PKM based upon an
alternative approach considering actuations and con-
straints.
In order to ensure the stiffness performance, it is useful
to perform stiffness control and optimization. Kim et al.
[24] used two approaches to study the adjustable stiffness
characteristics of a 3-DOF parallel mechanism. Kock et al.
[25] presented a 2-DOF parallel manipulator with actua-
tion redundancy for active-stiffness applications, and the
decoupled control was used to ensure the end-effector
stiffness. Chakarov [26] studied the stiffness control
scheme of a parallel manipulator with actuation redun-
dancy, and the control scheme was divided into passive
stiffness control, feedback stiffness control and antagonis-
tic stiffness control.
This paper presents inverse kinematics, stiffness model-
ing and stiffness analysis in the entire workspace of a
typical 3-DOF translational PKM [27]. The variations of
minimum and maximum translational stiffness in the entire
workspace are analyzed. For various architectural para-
meters the tendency of variations on the minimum and
maximum stiffness over the entire workspace of the 3-DOF
PKM is studied and also the deflections of the tool platform
in X-, Y- and Z-direction with respect to various forces are
presented.
2 Kinematic analysis
The kinematic sketch of the translational PKM under study
is shown in Fig. 1. The origin of the fixed reference frame
XYZ is located at point O. The mobile platform is
Fig. 1 Kinematic sketch of 3-DOF PKM
symbolically represented by a square, whose side length
2Lp is defined by points B1, B2 and B3. The sliders Ai, for i
= 1 to 3, move on the guide rods or lead screws laid along/
parallel to X-, Y- and Z-axis, respectively. The 3 revolute
joint axes in each limb are located at points Ai, Mi and Bi,
respectively, and are parallel to the respective prismatic
joint axes. Point P represents the centre of the tool
platform. The revolute joints in the first kinematic chain (i
= 1) restrict the rotation of the mobile platform about Y and
Z axes; the revolute joints in the second kinematic chain (i
= 2) restrict the rotation of the mobile platform about Z and
X axes; the revolute joints in the third kinematic chain (i =
3) restrict the rotation of the mobile platform about X and Y
axes. Thus, the mobile platform can have only translational
motion along X-, Y- and Z- axis. The lengths of arm and
forearm in each limb are L1i and L2i, respectively i = 1, 2
and 3. Let the starting point of ith slider be d0i and the
sliding distance is defined as di–d0i, for i = 1, 2 and 3.
For a given position of the center of the tool platform,
i.e., P =(x, y, z), in the XYZ coordinate frame, the set of two
joint angles for each limb, namely, θ1i and θ2i, for i = 1 to 3,
that define the possible postures of each limb are found
(Fig. 2).
For the first limb shown in Fig. 2(a), the y and z
coordinates of P are expressed as
y – LP ¼ L11 cos
11 þ L21 cos
21 (1)
z ¼ L11 sin
11 þ L21 sin
21 (2)
Solving the Eqs. (1) and (2), the joint angles of the first
limb are obtained as
( )
½ðy – Lp Þ2 þ z2  – ðL211 þ L221 Þ

21 ¼ arccos (3)
2L11 L21
 S. SHANKAR GANESH et al. Stiffness of a 3-DOF translational PKM
Fig. 2 Schematic diagrams of (a) the first limb; (b) the second limb; (c) the third limb

11 ¼ a tan2ðz,y – Lp Þ – atan2ðL21 sin
21 ,L11
þ L21 cos
21 Þ (4)
For the second limb shown in Fig. 2(b), the z and x
coordinates of P are expressed as
z ¼ L12 cos
12 þ L22 cos
22 (5)
x – LP ¼ L12 sin
12 þ L22 sin
22 (6)
Solving the Eqs. (5) and (6), the joint angles of the
second limb are
( )
½ðx – Lp Þ2 þ z2  – ðL212 þ L222 Þ

22 ¼ arccos (7)
2L12 L22

12 ¼atan2ðx,x – Lp Þ
– a tan2ðL22 sin
22 ,L12 þ L22 cos
22 Þ (8)
For the third limb shown in Fig. 2(c), the x and y
coordinates of P are expressed as
x þ LP – D1 ¼ L13 cos
13 þ L23 cos
23 (9)
y – D2 ¼ L13 sin
13 þ L23 sin
23 (10)
Solving the Eqs. (9) and (10), the joint angles of the third
limb are
 
ðx þ LP þ D1 Þ2 þ ðy – D2 Þ2 – ðL213 þ L223 Þ

23 ¼ arccos
2L13 L23
(11)

13 ¼atan2ðy – D2 , x þ Lp – D1 Þ
– atan2ðL23 sin
23 ,L13 þ L23 cos
23 Þ
(12)
where, L11 ¼ L12 ¼ L13 ¼ L1 ; L21 ¼ L22 ¼ L23 ¼ L2 .
Actuation of the ith slider along its axis, while holding
the other two sliders, moves the tool platform along a line
parallel to the respective axis. Thus, the workspace of
PKM would be a rectangular parallelepiped with dimen-
sions equal to the stroke lengths of the sliders and parallel
235
to the Cartesian axes as shown in Fig. 3
The workspace volume of the PKM, which is the 3-
dimensional space reachable by the tool platform, is given
as
WSV ¼ SLX  SLY  SLZ (13)
where SLX, SLY and SLZ are the stroke lengths of each
slider in X, Y, and Z direction, respectively.
The stoke lengths of PKM are: SLX= 0.4 m; SLY= 0.4 m;
SLZ = 0.3 m.
The workspace of the PKM understudy is considered
as a rectangular parallelepiped of dimensions of 0:4m
0:4m  0:3m, i.e., WSV ¼ SLX  SLY  SLZ ¼ 0:4m 
0:4m 0:3m.
3 Stiffness modeling
The deformation of the limbs of the PKM can be
determined by applying Hook’s law [28]:
fFg ¼ ½KfQg (14)
where, {F} is the external load vector applied to the limbs
and {Q} is the vector denoting deformation of the limbs.
Consider the free body diagram of a limb shown in Fig. 4,
which is made up of two solids and called arm and forearm.
When the limb is subjected to an external load, the arm and
the forearm are subjected to a torsion and flexion
deformation. The component loads depend on the limb
opening angle (α). The methodology used for the modular
design of the robot determines the stiffness matrix of the
limb. First, the compliance matrix of the PKM limb arm
and forearm are calculated using Eq. (15). The PKM
stiffness matrix is deduced by the assembly of 3 legs, due
to revolute joints. The leg can only have a force parallel to
its revolute joint axis, and there is no moment component
parallel to these axes.
The 33 compliance matrix of the ith limb maps 3 loads
to the 3 displacements and is expressed as
½Si ¼ ½S f i þ ½U i T ½S a i ½U i  (15)
236 Front. Mech. Eng. 2014, 9(3): 233–241

Fig. 3 Auto-Cad model and kinematic sketch of 3-DOF PKM with workspace

Fig. 4 Free body diagram of ith limb

2 3
where, [Sa]i and [Sf]i are the compliance matrix of the arm L32i L22i
6 3EI 0
and the forearm, respectively; [Ui] is the transition matrix
6 2EI 77
between the arm coordinate system at point Mi and the 6 L2i 7
forearm coordinate system at point Bi and is given by ½S f i ¼ 6
60 0 7 7 (18)
6 2 GJ 7
2 3 4 L L2i 5
1 0 0 2i
0
6 7 2EI EI
½U i  ¼ 4 – L2i sin αi – cos αi – sin αi 5 (16)
L2i cos αi sin αi – cos αi where, G is the modulus of rigidity; E is the Young’s
modulus; J is the polar moment of inertia; and I is the
The length of the arm and forearm are L1i and L2i, second moment of area. Substitution of Eqs. (17) and (18)
respectively, for i = 1, 2 and 3; α is the opening angle in Eq. (15) provides the compliance matrix of the limb. It
between the arm and forearm. may be noted that the compliance matrix is reversible and
The arm and forearm compliance matrix are found by [S]–1 can be expressed as
Castigliano’s method as 2 3
2 3 3 k11 k12 k13
L1i L21i 6 7
½Ki ¼ ½Si– 1 ¼ 4 k21 k22 k23 5 (19)
6 3EI 0 2EI 7
6 7
6 L 7 k31 k32 k33
6
½S a i ¼ 6 0 1i
0 7 (17)
GJ 7
6 2 7 Using the reversible compliance matrix [K] given by Eq.
4 L L1i 5
1i
0 (19), the local stiffness matrix of the ith leg/limb, [KL], can
2EI EI be obtained as
 S. SHANKAR GANESH et al. Stiffness of a 3-DOF translational PKM 237

2 3 2 3
k11 0 0 0 k12 k13 krx,tx krx,ty krx,tz
6 7 6
60 0 0 0 0 0 7 ½K rt  ¼ 4 kry,tx kry,ty kry,tz 7
5 (25)
6 7
6 7
60 0 0 0 0 0 7 krz,tx krz,ty krz,tz
½K Li i¼1 ¼6
60
7 (20)
6 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 in which kt,xy denotes the component of translational
6 7
6k k23 7 stiffness in XY plane, i.e., the force necessary along X-axis
4 21 0 0 0 k22 5
per unit deflection along Y-axis; kr,xy denotes the
k31 0 0 0 k32 k33 component of rotational stiffness in XY plane, i.e., the
It may be noted that the local stiffness matrix of the ith torque necessary about X-axis per unit rotation about Y-
limb is singular. This is due to passive joints which are axis; and ktx,ry denotes the component of combined
commonly seen in most of the PKM’s and the supple- translational-rotational stiffness in XY plane, i.e., the
mental zeros are the characteristics of the remaining limbs force necessary along X-axis per unit rotation about Y-axis.
of the PKM under study. The stiffness matrix of each limb
about global X, Y, and Z axes can be obtained from
4 Results of stiffness analysis
½K Gi  ¼ ½T i T ½K Li ½T i  (21)
A MATLAB source code is developed to find the stiffness
where, the 66 transformation matrix [Ti] is given as
in the workspace, for a given dimensions of the PKM. For
" #
½Ri  O the purpose of study and analyses, the dimensions
½T i  ¼ (22) provided in Table 1 are considered. These are obtained
O ½Ri  by authors through optimization of the performance
where [Ri] is the rotation transformation matrix of the three characteristics of PKM understudy [27]. The variations
limbs, i = 1, 2 and 3; and O is a 33 null matrix. Since the of minimum and maximum translational stiffness in top
three limbs are connected to the tool platform in parallel, plane, middle plane and bottom plane with in the
the global stiffness matrix of the PKM can be found from workspace are shown in Fig. 5.
The minimum and maximum variations of translation
X
3 stiffness with in top plane, middle plane and bottom plane
½K G  ¼ K Gi (23) of Z plane are presented in Table 2. It may be noted that the
i¼1 variation of minimum translational stiffness is more in top
The global stiffness matrix varies depending on the plane; whereas the variation of maximum stiffness is more
position of the tool platform within the workspace as well in bottom plane.
as the direction of the applied force on it. For various architectural parameters of the 3-DOF PKM,
" # the tendency of variation on the minimum and maximum
½K t  ½K tr  translational stiffness over the entire workspace is shown
½K G  ¼ (24) in Fig. 6. It can be observed from Fig. 6 the increase of arm
½K rt  ½K r 
and forearm lengths decreases both minimum and max-
where in ½K t  denotes 33 translational stiffness matrix; imum translational stiffness; and also the increase of
½K r  denotes 33 rotational stiffness matrix; ½K tr  and ½K rt  distance of the Z-slider from the origin, i.e., D1, decreases
denote 33 combined translational and rotational stiffness both minimum and maximum translational stiffness;
matrices. whereas the increase of radius of platform size increases
2 3 the both minimum and maximum translational stiffness.
kt,xx kt,xy kt,xz
6 7
½K t  ¼6 7
4 kt,yx kt,yy kt,yz 5,
Table 1 Dimensions of the 3-DOF translational PKM
Parameters Values
kt,zx kt,zy kt,zz Length of the arm (L1)/m 0.681
2 3
kr,xx kr,xy kr,xz Length of the arm (L2)/m 0.557
6 7
½K r  ¼6 7
4 kr,yx kr,yy kr,yz 5,
Distance of the Z-slider from the origin (D1)/m 1.190
Offset of the Z-slider from the X-axis (D2)/m 0.257
kr,zx kr,zy kr,zz Starting point of the X-slider (XI)/m 0.259
2 3
ktx,rx ktx,ry ktx,rz Starting point of the Y-slider (YI)/m 0.271
6 7
½K tr  ¼6 7
4 kty,rx kty,ry kty,rz 5,
Starting point of the Z-slider (ZI)/m -0.682
Length of the platform (Lp)/m 0.100
ktz,rx ktz,ry ktz,rz
238 Front. Mech. Eng. 2014, 9(3): 233–241

Fig. 5 Variation of minimum and maximum translational stiffness at the (a) top plane; (b) middle plane; (c) bottom plane

The variation of deflection for a force of 50 N applied to more in Z-direction.

the tool platform along X, Y and Z directions at the middle The increase of force applied in X, Y and Z directions in
plane of Z-plane as shown in Fig. 7. The minimum and the entire workspace increase the mean deflection shown in
maximum deflections at the middle plane are shown in Fig. 8. It may be noted that the increase in mean deflection
Table 3. It may be noted that the variation of deflection is in X and Y direction is almost the same.
 S. SHANKAR GANESH et al. Stiffness of a 3-DOF translational PKM 239

Table 2 Minimum and maximum translational stiffness at the top, middle and bottom plane
Plane Minimum of minimum stiffness Maximum of minimum stiffness Minimum of maximum stiffness Maximum of maximum
/(kN$m–1) /(kN$m–1) /(kN$m–1) stiffness/(kN$m–1)
Top 855.1 1074.6 1036.8 1661.7
Middle 790.7 931.5 918.5 1661.7
Bottom 709.6 799.8 855.5 1661.7

Fig. 6 Effect of minimum and maximum translational stiffness for various architectural parameters (a) L1; (b) L2; (c) D1; (d) Lp

Fig. 7 Variation of deflection for a force 50 N applied at the tool platform in X, Y and Z directions at the middle plane of Z-plane
240 Front. Mech. Eng. 2014, 9(3): 233–241
Table 3 Variation of deflection for a force of 50 N applied to the tool platform in X, Y and Z directions at the middle plane
Direction
Minimum
X-direction 0.0537
Y-direction 0.0535
Z-direction 0.0301
Fig. 8 Increase of force applied in X, Y and Z directions
5 Conclusions
In this paper, kinematics and stiffness modeling of a typical
3-DOF PKM are carried out. Stiffness analysis is done in
order to find the stiffness characteristics within the entire
workspace. The variations of minimum and maximum
stiffness are studied. For various architectural parameters
the effect of minimum and maximum stiffness is presented.
The variations of deflections with respect to the force
applied in X, Y and Z directions are analyzed. The results
obtained are very useful for future machining applications.
References
1. Merlet J P. Parallel Robots. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic
Publishers, 2000
2. Lee K, Shah D K. Kinematics analysis of a three degrees of freedom
in-parallel actuated manipulator. IEEE Journal of Robotics and
Automation, 1988, 4(3): 361–367
3. Yang P H, Waldron K J, Orin D E. Kinematics of a Three Degrees-
of-Freedom Motion Platform for a Low-Cost Driving Simulator. In:
Lenarcic J, Parenti-Castelli V, eds. Recent Advances in Robot
Kinematics. London: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1996: 89–98
4. Ceccarelli M. A new 3 D.O.F. spatial parallel mechanism.
Mechanism and Machine Theory, 1997, 32(8): 895–902
Deflection/mm
Maximum
0.0632
0.0584
0.0584
5. Gosselin C, Angeles J. The optimum kinematic design of a spherical
3-DOF parallel manipulator. Journal of Mechanical Automation
Desigh, 1989, 111(2): 202–207
6. Karouia M, Herve J M. A 3-DOF tripod for generating spherical
rotation. In: Lenarcic J, Stanisic M M, eds. Advances in Robot
Kinematics. London: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2000, 395–402
7. Vischer P, Clavel R. Argos: A novel 3-DOF parallel wrist
mechanism. The International Journal of Robotics Research, 2000,
19(1): 5–11
8. Di Gregorio R. A new parallel wrist using only revolute pairs: The
3-RUU wrist. Robotica, 2001, 19(3): 305–309
9. Zlatanov D, Bonev I, Gosselin C M. Constraint singularities of
parallel mechanisms. In: Proceedings of the 2002 IEEE International
Conference on Robotics & Automation. Washington D C, 2002,
496–502
10. Fang Y F, Tsai L W. Structure synthesis of 3-DOF rotational parallel
manipulators. IEEE Transaction on Robotics and Automation, 2004,
20(1): 117–121
11. Clavel R. DELTA, a fast robot with parallel geometry. In:
Proceedings of 18th International Symposium on Industrial Robots.
New York: Springer-Verlag, 1988, 91–100
12. Pierrot F, Reynaud C, Fournier A. DELTA: A simple and efficient
parallel robot. Robotica, 1990, 8(02): 105–109
13. Tsai L W, Walsh G C, Stamper R. Kinematics of a novel three DOF
translational platform. In: Proceedings of the 1996 IEEE Interna-
tional Conference on Robotics and Automation. Minneapolis MN:
IEEE, 1996, 3446–3451
 S. SHANKAR GANESH et al. Stiffness of a 3-DOF translational PKM
14. Tsai L W. US Patent, 5656905, 1997-08-12
15. Tsai L W. Kinematics of a three-DOF platform with three extensible
limbs. In: Lenarcic J, Parenti-Castelli V, eds. Recent Advances in
Robot Kinematics. Berlin: Springer Netherlands, 1996, 401–410
16. Wang J S, Tang X Q. Analysis and dimensional design of a novel
hybrid machine tool. International Journal of Machine Tools &
Manufacture, 2003, 43(7): 647–655
17. Gosselin C M. Stiffness mapping for parallel manipulators. IEEE
Transactions on Robotics and Automation, 1990, 6(3): 377–382
18. Gosselin C, Angeles J. A global performance index for kinematic
optimization of robotic manipulators. Journal of Mechanical Design,
1991, 113(3): 220–226
19. Svinin M M, Hosoe S, Uchiyana M. On the stiffness and stability of
Gough-Stewart platforms. In: Proceedings of IEEE International
Conference on Robotics and Automation. 2001, 3268–3273
20. El-Khasawneh B S, Ferreira P M. Computation of stiffness and
stiffness bounds for parallel link manipulators. International Journal
of Machine Tools & Manufacture, 1999, 39(2): 321–342
21. Huang T, Zhao X Y, Whitehouse D J. Stiffness estimation of a
tripod-based parallel kinematic machine. IEEE Transactions on
Robotics and Automation, 2002, 18(1): 50–58
22. Ceccarelli M, Carbone G. A stiffness analysis for CaPaman (Cassino
241
Parallel Manipulator). Mechanism and Machine Theory, 2002, 37
(5): 427–439
23. Li Y, Xu Q. Stiffness analysis for a 3-PUU Parallel Kinematic
Machine. Mechanism and Machine Theory, 2008, 43(2): 186–200
24. Kim W K, Lee J Y, Yi B J. Analysis for a planar 3 degree-of-
freedom parallel mechanism with actively adjustable stiffness
characteristics. In: Proceedings of 1997 IEEE International
Conference on Robotics and Automation. IEEE, 1997, 2663–2670
25. Kock S, Schumacher W. A parallel x–y manipulator with actuation
redundancy for high-speed and active-stiffness applications. In:
Proceedings of 1998 IEEE International Conference on Robotics
and Automation. IEEE, 1998, 2295–2300
26. Chakarov D. Study of the antagonistic stiffness of parallel
manipulators with actuation redundancy. Mechanism and Machine
Theory, 2004, 39(6): 583–601
27. Ganesh S S, Koteswara Rao A B. Error analysis and optimization of
3-DOF translational parallel kinematic machine. Frontiers of
Mechanical Engineering, 2014, 9(2): 120–129
28. Ganesh S S, Koteswara Rao A B, Darvekar S. Multi-objective
optimization of 3-DOF translational parallel kinematic machine.
Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology, 2013, 27(12):
3797–3804