Homography-based ground plane detection using a single on-board camera

This study presents a robust method for ground plane detection in vision-based systems with a non-stationary camera. The proposed method is based on the reliable estimation of the homography between ground planes in successive images. This homography is computed using a feature matching approach, which in contrast to classical approaches to on-board motion estimation does not require explicit ego-motion calculation. As opposed to it, a novel homography calculation method based on a linear estimation framework is presented. This framework provides predictions of the ground plane transformation matrix that are dynamically updated with new measurements. The method is specially suited for challenging environments, in particular traffic scenarios, in which the information is scarce and the homography computed from the images is usually inaccurate or erroneous. The proposed estimation framework is able to remove erroneous measurements and to correct those that are inaccurate, hence producing a reliable homography estimate at each instant. It is based on the evaluation of the difference between the predicted and the observed transformations, measured according to the spectral norm of the associated matrix of differences. Moreover, an example is provided on how to use the information extracted from ground plane estimation to achieve object detection and tracking. The method has been successfully demonstrated for the detection of moving vehicles in traffic environments.

Novel method to improve the signal-to-noise ratio in the far-field results obtained from planar near-field measurements

A method to reduce the noise power in far-field pattern without modifying the desired signal is proposed. Therefore, an important signal-to-noise ratio improvement may be achieved. The method is used when the antenna measurement is performed in planar near-field, where the recorded data are assumed to be corrupted with white Gaussian and space-stationary noise, because of the receiver additive noise. Back-propagating the measured field from the scan plane to the antenna under test (AUT) plane, the noise remains white Gaussian and space-stationary, whereas the desired field is theoretically concentrated in the aperture antenna. Thanks to this fact, a spatial filtering may be applied, cancelling the field which is located out of the AUT dimensions and which is only composed by noise. Next, a planar field to far-field transformation is carried out, achieving a great improvement compared to the pattern obtained directly from the measurement. To verify the effectiveness of the method, two examples will be presented using both simulated and measured near-field data.

Prediction of bendig load capacity of timber beams by finite element method simulation of knots and grain deviation

A finite element model was used to simulate timberbeams with defects and predict their maximum load in bending. Taking into account the elastoplastic constitutive law of timber, the prediction of fracture load gives information about the mechanisms of timber failure, particularly with regard to the influence of knots, and their local graindeviation, on the fracture. A finite element model was constructed using the ANSYS element Plane42 in a plane stress 2D-analysis, which equates thickness to the width of the section to create a mesh which is as uniform as possible. Three sub-models reproduced the bending test according to UNE EN 408: i) timber with holes caused by knots; ii) timber with adherent knots which have structural continuity with the rest of the beam material; iii) timber with knots but with only partial contact between knot and beam which was artificially simulated by means of contact springs between the two materials. The model was validated using ten 45 × 145 × 3000 mm beams of Pinus sylvestris L. which presented knots and graindeviation. The fracture stress data obtained was compared with the results of numerical simulations, resulting in an adjustment error less of than 9.7%

Failure locus of polypropylene nonwoven fabrics under in-plane biaxial deformation

The failure locus, the characteristics of the stress–strain curve and the damage localization patterns were analyzed in a polypropylene nonwoven fabric under in-plane biaxial deformation. The analysis was carried out by means of a homogenization model developed within the context of the finite element method. It provides the constitutive response for a mesodomain of the fabric corresponding to the area associated to a finite element and takes into account the main deformation and damage mechanisms experimentally observed. It was found that the failure locus in the stress space was accurately predicted by the Von Mises criterion and failure took place by the localization of damage into a crack perpendicular to the main loading axis.

A constitutive model for the in-plane mechanical behavior of nonwoven fabrics

A constitutive model is presented for the in-plane mechanical behavior of nonwoven fabrics. The model is developed within the context of the finite element method and provides the constitutive response for a mesodomain of the fabric corresponding to the area associated to a finite element. The model is built upon the ensemble of three blocks, namely fabric, fibers and damage. The continuum tensorial formulation of the fabric response rigorously takes into account the effect of fiber rotation for large strains and includes the nonlinear fiber behavior. In addition, the various damage mechanisms experimentally observed (bond and fiber fracture, interfiber friction and fiber pull-out) are included in a phenomenological way and the random nature of these materials is also taken into account by means of a Monte Carlo lottery to determine the damage thresholds. The model results are validated with recent experimental results on the tensile response of smooth and notched specimens of a polypropylene nonwoven fabric.

Transpose return relation method for designing low noise oscillators

In this paper, a new linear method for optimizing compact low noise oscillators for RF/MW applications will be presented. The first part of this paper makes an overview of Leeson's model. It is pointed out, and it is demonstrates that the phase noise is always the same inside the oscillator loop. It is presented a general phase noise optimization method for reference plane oscillators. The new method uses Transpose Return Relations (RRT) as true loop gain functions for obtaining the optimum values of the elements of the oscillator, whatever scheme it has. With this method, oscillator topologies that have been designed and optimized using negative resistance, negative conductance or reflection coefficient methods, until now, can be studied like a loop gain method. Subsequently, the main disadvantage of Leeson's model is overcome, and now it is not only valid for loop gain methods, but it is valid for any oscillator topology. The last section of this paper lists the steps to be performed to use this method for proper phase noise optimization during the linear design process and before the final non-linear optimization. The power of the proposed RRT method is shown with its use for optimizing a common oscillator, which is later simulated using Harmonic Balance (HB) and manufactured. Then, the comparison of the linear, HB and measurements of the phase noise are compared.

Comments and remarks over classic linear loop-gain method for oscillator design and analysis. New proposed method based on NDF/RRT

Abstract. This paper describes a new and original method for designing oscillators based on the Normalized Determinant Function (NDF) and Return Relations (RRT)- Firstly, a review of the loop-gain method will be performed. The loop-gain method pros, cons and some examples for exploring wrong solutions provided by this method will be shown. This method produces in some cases wrong solutions because some necessary conditions have not been fulfilled. The required necessary conditions to assure a right solution will be described. The necessity of using the NDF or the Transpose Return Relations (RRT), which are related with the True Loop-Gain, to test the additional conditions will be demonstrated. To conclude this paper, the steps for oscillator design and analysis, using the proposed NDF/RRj method, will be presented. The loop-gain wrong solutions will be compared with the NDF/RRj and the accuracy of this method to estimate the oscillation frequency and QL will be demonstrated. Some additional examples of plane reference oscillators (Z/Y/T), will be added and they will be analyzed with the new NDF/RRj proposed method, even these oscillators cannot be analyzed using the classic loop gain method.

Two-dimensional mesh optimization in the finite element method

The solution to the problem of finding the optimum mesh design in the finite element method with the restriction of a given number of degrees of freedom, is an interesting problem, particularly in the applications method. At present, the usual procedures introduce new degrees of freedom (remeshing) in a given mesh in order to obtain a more adequate one, from the point of view of the calculation results (errors uniformity). However, from the solution of the optimum mesh problem with a specific number of degrees of freedom some useful recommendations and criteria for the mesh construction may be drawn. For 1-D problems, namely for the simple truss and beam elements, analytical solutions have been found and they are given in this paper. For the more complex 2-D problems (plane stress and plane strain) numerical methods to obtain the optimum mesh, based on optimization procedures have to be used. The objective function, used in the minimization process, has been the total potential energy. Some examples are presented. Finally some conclusions and hints about the possible new developments of these techniques are also given.

Caracterización de un robot para aplicaciones de mecanizado con requerimientos de tolerancias

El presente Trabajo fin Fin de Máster, versa sobre una caracterización preliminar del comportamiento de un robot de tipo industrial, configurado por 4 eslabones y 4 grados de libertad, y sometido a fuerzas de mecanizado en su extremo. El entorno de trabajo planteado es el de plantas de fabricación de piezas de aleaciones de aluminio para automoción. Este tipo de componentes parte de un primer proceso de fundición que saca la pieza en bruto. Para series medias y altas, en función de las propiedades mecánicas y plásticas requeridas y los costes de producción, la inyección a alta presión (HPDC) y la fundición a baja presión (LPC) son las dos tecnologías más usadas en esta primera fase. Para inyección a alta presión, las aleaciones de aluminio más empleadas son, en designación simbólica según norma EN 1706 (entre paréntesis su designación numérica); EN AC AlSi9Cu3(Fe) (EN AC 46000) , EN AC AlSi9Cu3(Fe)(Zn) (EN AC 46500), y EN AC AlSi12Cu1(Fe) (EN AC 47100). Para baja presión, EN AC AlSi7Mg0,3 (EN AC 42100). En los 3 primeros casos, los límites de Silicio permitidos pueden superan el 10%. En el cuarto caso, es inferior al 10% por lo que, a los efectos de ser sometidas a mecanizados, las piezas fabricadas en aleaciones con Si superior al 10%, se puede considerar que son equivalentes, diferenciándolas de la cuarta. Las tolerancias geométricas y dimensionales conseguibles directamente de fundición, recogidas en normas como ISO 8062 o DIN 1688-1, establecen límites para este proceso. Fuera de esos límites, las garantías en conseguir producciones con los objetivos de ppms aceptados en la actualidad por el mercado, obligan a ir a fases posteriores de mecanizado. Aquellas geometrías que, funcionalmente, necesitan disponer de unas tolerancias geométricas y/o dimensionales definidas acorde a ISO 1101, y no capaces por este proceso inicial de moldeado a presión, deben ser procesadas en una fase posterior en células de mecanizado. En este caso, las tolerancias alcanzables para procesos de arranque de viruta se recogen en normas como ISO 2768. Las células de mecanizado se componen, por lo general, de varios centros de control numérico interrelacionados y comunicados entre sí por robots que manipulan las piezas en proceso de uno a otro. Dichos robots, disponen en su extremo de una pinza utillada para poder coger y soltar las piezas en los útiles de mecanizado, las mesas de intercambio para cambiar la pieza de posición o en utillajes de equipos de medición y prueba, o en cintas de entrada o salida. La repetibilidad es alta, de centésimas incluso, definida según norma ISO 9283. El problema es que, estos rangos de repetibilidad sólo se garantizan si no se hacen esfuerzos o éstos son despreciables (caso de mover piezas). Aunque las inercias de mover piezas a altas velocidades hacen que la trayectoria intermedia tenga poca precisión, al inicio y al final (al coger y dejar pieza, p.e.) se hacen a velocidades relativamente bajas que hacen que el efecto de las fuerzas de inercia sean menores y que permiten garantizar la repetibilidad anteriormente indicada. No ocurre así si se quitara la garra y se intercambia con un cabezal motorizado con una herramienta como broca, mandrino, plato de cuchillas, fresas frontales o tangenciales… Las fuerzas ejercidas de mecanizado generarían unos pares en las uniones tan grandes y tan variables que el control del robot no sería capaz de responder (o no está preparado, en un principio) y generaría una desviación en la trayectoria, realizada a baja velocidad, que desencadenaría en un error de posición (ver norma ISO 5458) no asumible para la funcionalidad deseada. Se podría llegar al caso de que la tolerancia alcanzada por un pretendido proceso más exacto diera una dimensión peor que la que daría el proceso de fundición, en principio con mayor variabilidad dimensional en proceso (y por ende con mayor intervalo de tolerancia garantizable). De hecho, en los CNCs, la precisión es muy elevada, (pudiéndose despreciar en la mayoría de los casos) y no es la responsable de, por ejemplo la tolerancia de posición al taladrar un agujero. Factores como, temperatura de la sala y de la pieza, calidad constructiva de los utillajes y rigidez en el amarre, error en el giro de mesas y de colocación de pieza, si lleva agujeros previos o no, si la herramienta está bien equilibrada y el cono es el adecuado para el tipo de mecanizado… influyen más. Es interesante que, un elemento no específico tan común en una planta industrial, en el entorno anteriormente descrito, como es un robot, el cual no sería necesario añadir por disponer de él ya (y por lo tanto la inversión sería muy pequeña), puede mejorar la cadena de valor disminuyendo el costo de fabricación. Y si se pudiera conjugar que ese robot destinado a tareas de manipulación, en los muchos tiempos de espera que va a disfrutar mientras el CNC arranca viruta, pudiese coger un cabezal y apoyar ese mecanizado; sería doblemente interesante. Por lo tanto, se antoja sugestivo poder conocer su comportamiento e intentar explicar qué sería necesario para llevar esto a cabo, motivo de este trabajo. La arquitectura de robot seleccionada es de tipo SCARA. La búsqueda de un robot cómodo de modelar y de analizar cinemática y dinámicamente, sin limitaciones relevantes en la multifuncionalidad de trabajos solicitados, ha llevado a esta elección, frente a otras arquitecturas como por ejemplo los robots antropomórficos de 6 grados de libertad, muy populares a nivel industrial. Este robot dispone de 3 uniones, de las cuales 2 son de tipo par de revolución (1 grado de libertad cada una) y la tercera es de tipo corredera o par cilíndrico (2 grados de libertad). La primera unión, de tipo par de revolución, sirve para unir el suelo (considerado como eslabón número 1) con el eslabón número 2. La segunda unión, también de ese tipo, une el eslabón número 2 con el eslabón número 3. Estos 2 brazos, pueden describir un movimiento horizontal, en el plano X-Y. El tercer eslabón, está unido al eslabón número 4 por la unión de tipo corredera. El movimiento que puede describir es paralelo al eje Z. El robot es de 4 grados de libertad (4 motores). En relación a los posibles trabajos que puede realizar este tipo de robot, su versatilidad abarca tanto operaciones típicas de manipulación como operaciones de arranque de viruta. Uno de los mecanizados más usuales es el taladrado, por lo cual se elige éste para su modelización y análisis. Dentro del taladrado se elegirá para acotar las fuerzas, taladrado en macizo con broca de diámetro 9 mm. El robot se ha considerado por el momento que tenga comportamiento de sólido rígido, por ser el mayor efecto esperado el de los pares en las uniones. Para modelar el robot se utiliza el método de los sistemas multicuerpos. Dentro de este método existen diversos tipos de formulaciones (p.e. Denavit-Hartenberg). D-H genera una cantidad muy grande de ecuaciones e incógnitas. Esas incógnitas son de difícil comprensión y, para cada posición, hay que detenerse a pensar qué significado tienen. Se ha optado por la formulación de coordenadas naturales. Este sistema utiliza puntos y vectores unitarios para definir la posición de los distintos cuerpos, y permite compartir, cuando es posible y se quiere, para definir los pares cinemáticos y reducir al mismo tiempo el número de variables. Las incógnitas son intuitivas, las ecuaciones de restricción muy sencillas y se reduce considerablemente el número de ecuaciones e incógnitas. Sin embargo, las coordenadas naturales “puras” tienen 2 problemas. El primero, que 2 elementos con un ángulo de 0 o 180 grados, dan lugar a puntos singulares que pueden crear problemas en las ecuaciones de restricción y por lo tanto han de evitarse. El segundo, que tampoco inciden directamente sobre la definición o el origen de los movimientos. Por lo tanto, es muy conveniente complementar esta formulación con ángulos y distancias (coordenadas relativas). Esto da lugar a las coordenadas naturales mixtas, que es la formulación final elegida para este TFM. Las coordenadas naturales mixtas no tienen el problema de los puntos singulares. Y la ventaja más importante reside en su utilidad a la hora de aplicar fuerzas motrices, momentos o evaluar errores. Al incidir sobre la incógnita origen (ángulos o distancias) controla los motores de manera directa. El algoritmo, la simulación y la obtención de resultados se ha programado mediante Matlab. Para realizar el modelo en coordenadas naturales mixtas, es preciso modelar en 2 pasos el robot a estudio. El primer modelo se basa en coordenadas naturales. Para su validación, se plantea una trayectoria definida y se analiza cinemáticamente si el robot satisface el movimiento solicitado, manteniendo su integridad como sistema multicuerpo. Se cuantifican los puntos (en este caso inicial y final) que configuran el robot. Al tratarse de sólidos rígidos, cada eslabón queda definido por sus respectivos puntos inicial y final (que son los más interesantes para la cinemática y la dinámica) y por un vector unitario no colineal a esos 2 puntos. Los vectores unitarios se colocan en los lugares en los que se tenga un eje de rotación o cuando se desee obtener información de un ángulo. No son necesarios vectores unitarios para medir distancias. Tampoco tienen por qué coincidir los grados de libertad con el número de vectores unitarios. Las longitudes de cada eslabón quedan definidas como constantes geométricas. Se establecen las restricciones que definen la naturaleza del robot y las relaciones entre los diferentes elementos y su entorno. La trayectoria se genera por una nube de puntos continua, definidos en coordenadas independientes. Cada conjunto de coordenadas independientes define, en un instante concreto, una posición y postura de robot determinada. Para conocerla, es necesario saber qué coordenadas dependientes hay en ese instante, y se obtienen resolviendo por el método de Newton-Rhapson las ecuaciones de restricción en función de las coordenadas independientes. El motivo de hacerlo así es porque las coordenadas dependientes deben satisfacer las restricciones, cosa que no ocurre con las coordenadas independientes. Cuando la validez del modelo se ha probado (primera validación), se pasa al modelo 2. El modelo número 2, incorpora a las coordenadas naturales del modelo número 1, las coordenadas relativas en forma de ángulos en los pares de revolución (3 ángulos; ϕ1, ϕ 2 y ϕ3) y distancias en los pares prismáticos (1 distancia; s). Estas coordenadas relativas pasan a ser las nuevas coordenadas independientes (sustituyendo a las coordenadas independientes cartesianas del modelo primero, que eran coordenadas naturales). Es necesario revisar si el sistema de vectores unitarios del modelo 1 es suficiente o no. Para este caso concreto, se han necesitado añadir 1 vector unitario adicional con objeto de que los ángulos queden perfectamente determinados con las correspondientes ecuaciones de producto escalar y/o vectorial. Las restricciones habrán de ser incrementadas en, al menos, 4 ecuaciones; una por cada nueva incógnita. La validación del modelo número 2, tiene 2 fases. La primera, al igual que se hizo en el modelo número 1, a través del análisis cinemático del comportamiento con una trayectoria definida. Podrían obtenerse del modelo 2 en este análisis, velocidades y aceleraciones, pero no son necesarios. Tan sólo interesan los movimientos o desplazamientos finitos. Comprobada la coherencia de movimientos (segunda validación), se pasa a analizar cinemáticamente el comportamiento con trayectorias interpoladas. El análisis cinemático con trayectorias interpoladas, trabaja con un número mínimo de 3 puntos máster. En este caso se han elegido 3; punto inicial, punto intermedio y punto final. El número de interpolaciones con el que se actúa es de 50 interpolaciones en cada tramo (cada 2 puntos máster hay un tramo), resultando un total de 100 interpolaciones. El método de interpolación utilizado es el de splines cúbicas con condición de aceleración inicial y final constantes, que genera las coordenadas independientes de los puntos interpolados de cada tramo. Las coordenadas dependientes se obtienen resolviendo las ecuaciones de restricción no lineales con el método de Newton-Rhapson. El método de las splines cúbicas es muy continuo, por lo que si se desea modelar una trayectoria en el que haya al menos 2 movimientos claramente diferenciados, es preciso hacerlo en 2 tramos y unirlos posteriormente. Sería el caso en el que alguno de los motores se desee expresamente que esté parado durante el primer movimiento y otro distinto lo esté durante el segundo movimiento (y así sucesivamente). Obtenido el movimiento, se calculan, también mediante fórmulas de diferenciación numérica, las velocidades y aceleraciones independientes. El proceso es análogo al anteriormente explicado, recordando la condición impuesta de que la aceleración en el instante t= 0 y en instante t= final, se ha tomado como 0. Las velocidades y aceleraciones dependientes se calculan resolviendo las correspondientes derivadas de las ecuaciones de restricción. Se comprueba, de nuevo, en una tercera validación del modelo, la coherencia del movimiento interpolado. La dinámica inversa calcula, para un movimiento definido -conocidas la posición, velocidad y la aceleración en cada instante de tiempo-, y conocidas las fuerzas externas que actúan (por ejemplo el peso); qué fuerzas hay que aplicar en los motores (donde hay control) para que se obtenga el citado movimiento. En la dinámica inversa, cada instante del tiempo es independiente de los demás y tiene una posición, una velocidad y una aceleración y unas fuerzas conocidas. En este caso concreto, se desean aplicar, de momento, sólo las fuerzas debidas al peso, aunque se podrían haber incorporado fuerzas de otra naturaleza si se hubiese deseado. Las posiciones, velocidades y aceleraciones, proceden del cálculo cinemático. El efecto inercial de las fuerzas tenidas en cuenta (el peso) es calculado. Como resultado final del análisis dinámico inverso, se obtienen los pares que han de ejercer los cuatro motores para replicar el movimiento prescrito con las fuerzas que estaban actuando. La cuarta validación del modelo consiste en confirmar que el movimiento obtenido por aplicar los pares obtenidos en la dinámica inversa, coinciden con el obtenido en el análisis cinemático (movimiento teórico). Para ello, es necesario acudir a la dinámica directa. La dinámica directa se encarga de calcular el movimiento del robot, resultante de aplicar unos pares en motores y unas fuerzas en el robot. Por lo tanto, el movimiento real resultante, al no haber cambiado ninguna condición de las obtenidas en la dinámica inversa (pares de motor y fuerzas inerciales debidas al peso de los eslabones) ha de ser el mismo al movimiento teórico. Siendo así, se considera que el robot está listo para trabajar. Si se introduce una fuerza exterior de mecanizado no contemplada en la dinámica inversa y se asigna en los motores los mismos pares resultantes de la resolución del problema dinámico inverso, el movimiento real obtenido no es igual al movimiento teórico. El control de lazo cerrado se basa en ir comparando el movimiento real con el deseado e introducir las correcciones necesarias para minimizar o anular las diferencias. Se aplican ganancias en forma de correcciones en posición y/o velocidad para eliminar esas diferencias. Se evalúa el error de posición como la diferencia, en cada punto, entre el movimiento teórico deseado en el análisis cinemático y el movimiento real obtenido para cada fuerza de mecanizado y una ganancia concreta. Finalmente, se mapea el error de posición obtenido para cada fuerza de mecanizado y las diferentes ganancias previstas, graficando la mejor precisión que puede dar el robot para cada operación que se le requiere, y en qué condiciones. -------------- This Master´s Thesis deals with a preliminary characterization of the behaviour for an industrial robot, configured with 4 elements and 4 degrees of freedoms, and subjected to machining forces at its end. Proposed working conditions are those typical from manufacturing plants with aluminium alloys for automotive industry. This type of components comes from a first casting process that produces rough parts. For medium and high volumes, high pressure die casting (HPDC) and low pressure die casting (LPC) are the most used technologies in this first phase. For high pressure die casting processes, most used aluminium alloys are, in simbolic designation according EN 1706 standard (between brackets, its numerical designation); EN AC AlSi9Cu3(Fe) (EN AC 46000) , EN AC AlSi9Cu3(Fe)(Zn) (EN AC 46500), y EN AC AlSi12Cu1(Fe) (EN AC 47100). For low pressure, EN AC AlSi7Mg0,3 (EN AC 42100). For the 3 first alloys, Si allowed limits can exceed 10% content. Fourth alloy has admisible limits under 10% Si. That means, from the point of view of machining, that components made of alloys with Si content above 10% can be considered as equivalent, and the fourth one must be studied separately. Geometrical and dimensional tolerances directly achievables from casting, gathered in standards such as ISO 8062 or DIN 1688-1, establish a limit for this process. Out from those limits, guarantees to achieve batches with objetive ppms currently accepted by market, force to go to subsequent machining process. Those geometries that functionally require a geometrical and/or dimensional tolerance defined according ISO 1101, not capable with initial moulding process, must be obtained afterwards in a machining phase with machining cells. In this case, tolerances achievables with cutting processes are gathered in standards such as ISO 2768. In general terms, machining cells contain several CNCs that they are interrelated and connected by robots that handle parts in process among them. Those robots have at their end a gripper in order to take/remove parts in machining fixtures, in interchange tables to modify position of part, in measurement and control tooling devices, or in entrance/exit conveyors. Repeatibility for robot is tight, even few hundredths of mm, defined according ISO 9283. Problem is like this; those repeatibilty ranks are only guaranteed when there are no stresses or they are not significant (f.e. due to only movement of parts). Although inertias due to moving parts at a high speed make that intermediate paths have little accuracy, at the beginning and at the end of trajectories (f.e, when picking part or leaving it) movement is made with very slow speeds that make lower the effect of inertias forces and allow to achieve repeatibility before mentioned. It does not happens the same if gripper is removed and it is exchanged by an spindle with a machining tool such as a drilling tool, a pcd boring tool, a face or a tangential milling cutter… Forces due to machining would create such big and variable torques in joints that control from the robot would not be able to react (or it is not prepared in principle) and would produce a deviation in working trajectory, made at a low speed, that would trigger a position error (see ISO 5458 standard) not assumable for requested function. Then it could be possible that tolerance achieved by a more exact expected process would turn out into a worst dimension than the one that could be achieved with casting process, in principle with a larger dimensional variability in process (and hence with a larger tolerance range reachable). As a matter of fact, accuracy is very tight in CNC, (its influence can be ignored in most cases) and it is not the responsible of, for example position tolerance when drilling a hole. Factors as, room and part temperature, manufacturing quality of machining fixtures, stiffness at clamping system, rotating error in 4th axis and part positioning error, if there are previous holes, if machining tool is properly balanced, if shank is suitable for that machining type… have more influence. It is interesting to know that, a non specific element as common, at a manufacturing plant in the enviroment above described, as a robot (not needed to be added, therefore with an additional minimum investment), can improve value chain decreasing manufacturing costs. And when it would be possible to combine that the robot dedicated to handling works could support CNCs´ works in its many waiting time while CNCs cut, and could take an spindle and help to cut; it would be double interesting. So according to all this, it would be interesting to be able to know its behaviour and try to explain what would be necessary to make this possible, reason of this work. Selected robot architecture is SCARA type. The search for a robot easy to be modeled and kinematically and dinamically analyzed, without significant limits in the multifunctionality of requested operations, has lead to this choice. Due to that, other very popular architectures in the industry, f.e. 6 DOFs anthropomorphic robots, have been discarded. This robot has 3 joints, 2 of them are revolute joints (1 DOF each one) and the third one is a cylindrical joint (2 DOFs). The first joint, a revolute one, is used to join floor (body 1) with body 2. The second one, a revolute joint too, joins body 2 with body 3. These 2 bodies can move horizontally in X-Y plane. Body 3 is linked to body 4 with a cylindrical joint. Movement that can be made is paralell to Z axis. The robt has 4 degrees of freedom (4 motors). Regarding potential works that this type of robot can make, its versatility covers either typical handling operations or cutting operations. One of the most common machinings is to drill. That is the reason why it has been chosen for the model and analysis. Within drilling, in order to enclose spectrum force, a typical solid drilling with 9 mm diameter. The robot is considered, at the moment, to have a behaviour as rigid body, as biggest expected influence is the one due to torques at joints. In order to modelize robot, it is used multibodies system method. There are under this heading different sorts of formulations (f.e. Denavit-Hartenberg). D-H creates a great amount of equations and unknown quantities. Those unknown quatities are of a difficult understanding and, for each position, one must stop to think about which meaning they have. The choice made is therefore one of formulation in natural coordinates. This system uses points and unit vectors to define position of each different elements, and allow to share, when it is possible and wished, to define kinematic torques and reduce number of variables at the same time. Unknown quantities are intuitive, constrain equations are easy and number of equations and variables are strongly reduced. However, “pure” natural coordinates suffer 2 problems. The first one is that 2 elements with an angle of 0° or 180°, give rise to singular positions that can create problems in constrain equations and therefore they must be avoided. The second problem is that they do not work directly over the definition or the origin of movements. Given that, it is highly recommended to complement this formulation with angles and distances (relative coordinates). This leads to mixed natural coordinates, and they are the final formulation chosen for this MTh. Mixed natural coordinates have not the problem of singular positions. And the most important advantage lies in their usefulness when applying driving forces, torques or evaluating errors. As they influence directly over origin variable (angles or distances), they control motors directly. The algorithm, simulation and obtaining of results has been programmed with Matlab. To design the model in mixed natural coordinates, it is necessary to model the robot to be studied in 2 steps. The first model is based in natural coordinates. To validate it, it is raised a defined trajectory and it is kinematically analyzed if robot fulfils requested movement, keeping its integrity as multibody system. The points (in this case starting and ending points) that configure the robot are quantified. As the elements are considered as rigid bodies, each of them is defined by its respectively starting and ending point (those points are the most interesting ones from the point of view of kinematics and dynamics) and by a non-colinear unit vector to those points. Unit vectors are placed where there is a rotating axis or when it is needed information of an angle. Unit vectors are not needed to measure distances. Neither DOFs must coincide with the number of unit vectors. Lengths of each arm are defined as geometrical constants. The constrains that define the nature of the robot and relationships among different elements and its enviroment are set. Path is generated by a cloud of continuous points, defined in independent coordinates. Each group of independent coordinates define, in an specific instant, a defined position and posture for the robot. In order to know it, it is needed to know which dependent coordinates there are in that instant, and they are obtained solving the constraint equations with Newton-Rhapson method according to independent coordinates. The reason to make it like this is because dependent coordinates must meet constraints, and this is not the case with independent coordinates. When suitability of model is checked (first approval), it is given next step to model 2. Model 2 adds to natural coordinates from model 1, the relative coordinates in the shape of angles in revoluting torques (3 angles; ϕ1, ϕ 2 and ϕ3) and distances in prismatic torques (1 distance; s). These relative coordinates become the new independent coordinates (replacing to cartesian independent coordinates from model 1, that they were natural coordinates). It is needed to review if unit vector system from model 1 is enough or not . For this specific case, it was necessary to add 1 additional unit vector to define perfectly angles with their related equations of dot and/or cross product. Constrains must be increased in, at least, 4 equations; one per each new variable. The approval of model 2 has two phases. The first one, same as made with model 1, through kinematic analysis of behaviour with a defined path. During this analysis, it could be obtained from model 2, velocities and accelerations, but they are not needed. They are only interesting movements and finite displacements. Once that the consistence of movements has been checked (second approval), it comes when the behaviour with interpolated trajectories must be kinematically analyzed. Kinematic analysis with interpolated trajectories work with a minimum number of 3 master points. In this case, 3 points have been chosen; starting point, middle point and ending point. The number of interpolations has been of 50 ones in each strecht (each 2 master points there is an strecht), turning into a total of 100 interpolations. The interpolation method used is the cubic splines one with condition of constant acceleration both at the starting and at the ending point. This method creates the independent coordinates of interpolated points of each strecht. The dependent coordinates are achieved solving the non-linear constrain equations with Newton-Rhapson method. The method of cubic splines is very continuous, therefore when it is needed to design a trajectory in which there are at least 2 movements clearly differents, it is required to make it in 2 steps and join them later. That would be the case when any of the motors would keep stopped during the first movement, and another different motor would remain stopped during the second movement (and so on). Once that movement is obtained, they are calculated, also with numerical differenciation formulas, the independent velocities and accelerations. This process is analogous to the one before explained, reminding condition that acceleration when t=0 and t=end are 0. Dependent velocities and accelerations are calculated solving related derivatives of constrain equations. In a third approval of the model it is checked, again, consistence of interpolated movement. Inverse dynamics calculates, for a defined movement –knowing position, velocity and acceleration in each instant of time-, and knowing external forces that act (f.e. weights); which forces must be applied in motors (where there is control) in order to obtain requested movement. In inverse dynamics, each instant of time is independent of the others and it has a position, a velocity, an acceleration and known forces. In this specific case, it is intended to apply, at the moment, only forces due to the weight, though forces of another nature could have been added if it would have been preferred. The positions, velocities and accelerations, come from kinematic calculation. The inertial effect of forces taken into account (weight) is calculated. As final result of the inverse dynamic analysis, the are obtained torques that the 4 motors must apply to repeat requested movement with the forces that were acting. The fourth approval of the model consists on confirming that the achieved movement due to the use of the torques obtained in the inverse dynamics, are in accordance with movements from kinematic analysis (theoretical movement). For this, it is necessary to work with direct dynamics. Direct dynamic is in charge of calculating the movements of robot that results from applying torques at motors and forces at the robot. Therefore, the resultant real movement, as there was no change in any condition of the ones obtained at the inverse dynamics (motor torques and inertial forces due to weight of elements) must be the same than theoretical movement. When these results are achieved, it is considered that robot is ready to work. When a machining external force is introduced and it was not taken into account before during the inverse dynamics, and torques at motors considered are the ones of the inverse dynamics, the real movement obtained is not the same than the theoretical movement. Closed loop control is based on comparing real movement with expected movement and introducing required corrrections to minimize or cancel differences. They are applied gains in the way of corrections for position and/or tolerance to remove those differences. Position error is evaluated as the difference, in each point, between theoretical movemment (calculated in the kinematic analysis) and the real movement achieved for each machining force and for an specific gain. Finally, the position error obtained for each machining force and gains are mapped, giving a chart with the best accuracy that the robot can give for each operation that has been requested and which conditions must be provided.