ArticleMicromachines2022
Optimal Design for 3-PSS Flexible Parallel Micromanipulator Based on Kinematic and Dynamic Characteristics.
Article in Micromachines, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Compliance and Kinetostatics of a Novel 2PRS-2PSS Compliant Parallel Micromanipulator: Modeling and Analysis.Micromachines · 2024Article
- Long-Travel 3-PRR Parallel Platform Based on Biomimetic Variable-Diameter Helical Flexible Hinges.Micromachines · 2024Article
- Editorial for the Special Issue on Flexible Micromanipulators and Micromanipulation.Micromachines · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This paper proposes two optimal design schemes for improving the kinematic and dynamic performance of the 3-PSS flexible parallel micromanipulator according to different application requirements and conditions. Firstly, the workspace, dexterity, frequencies, and driving forces of the mechanism are successively analyzed. Then, a progressive optimization design is carried out, in which the scale parameters of this mechanism are firstly optimized to maximize the workspace, combining the constraints of the minimum global dexterity of the mechanism. Based on the optimized scale parameters, the minimum thickness and the cutting radius of the flexure spherical hinge are further optimized for minimizing the required driving forces, combined with constraints of the minimum first-order natural frequency of the mechanism and the maximum stress of the flexure spherical hinge during the movement of the mechanism. Afterward, a synchronous optimization design is proposed, in which the scale parameters are optimized to maximize the first-order natural frequency of the mechanism, combined with the constraints of a certain inscribed circle of the maximum cross-section of the workspace, the maximum stroke of the selected piezoelectric stages, and the maximum ultimate angular displacement of the flexure spherical hinge. The effectiveness of both optimization methods is verified by the comparison of the kinematic and dynamic characteristics of the original and optimized mechanism. The advantage of the progressive optimization method is that both the workspace and the driving forces are optimized and the minimum requirements for global dexterity and first-order natural frequency are ensured. The merit of the synchronous optimization method is that only the scale parameters of the mechanism need to be optimized without changing the structural parameters of the flexible spherical hinge.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.