On the Use and Augmentation of Hexapod Machine Tools

  • S. Sarma
  • A. Slocum
Conference paper
Part of the Advanced Manufacturing book series (ADVMANUF)


The design of high performance machine tools is a challenging task because competing objectives and tight constraints leave little margin for error in the design process. The hexapod is no exception, especially when the objective is to design it as a platform for high-speed machining. When Stewart Platform machines first emerged as a possible machine tool configuration in the early nineties, there was considerable excitement in the machine tool user community about the possibilities they would open up. Machine tool users perpetually seek faster, stiffer and more accurate machines with smaller footprints and greater dexterity, and Stewart Platforms are known to have these attributes. However, designers have always realized that these objectives compete, and informed tradeoffs need to be made to optimize hexapod machine tools for the particular application. The fact that several hexapod machine tools are now in operation in companies, universities and research laboratories worldwide is a testament to the abilities of the design community. However, the tradeoffs in the design of hexapod are mathematically inescapable, and this usually leads to quirks in performance such as an oddly shaped workspace or varying speed capability in the workspace. The goal of our research at MIT is to develop ancillary technologies that permit the effective use of hexapods in the face of these challenges.


Machine Tool Tool Path Generate Tool Path Stewart Platform Rough Path 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Bylinsky G 1994 The digital factory. Fortune, November 14Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Valenti M 1995 Machine Tools get Smarter. Mechanical Engineering, November, pp 70 - 75Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    El-Khasawneh S S 1997 On using parallel link manipulators as machine tools. In: Transactions of NAMRAC XXV, pp 305 - 310Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tooling and Production Magazine 1996 Putting the hex(apod) on machining. Tooling and Production Magazine, September, pp 37 - 42Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ho S, Sarma S 1998 Rapid penetration analysis using Implicit Solids and Point Clouds, under preparationGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Yoshikawa T 1985 Manipulability of Robotic Mechanisms. International Journal of Robotics Research 4 2Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hyunh P, Arai T Maximum velocity analysis of parallel manipulators. In: Proceedings of the 1997 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Albuquerque, New Mexico, AprilGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kim T, Sarma S 1998 Tool path dynamics, under submissionGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Laxmiprasad P, Balasubramanian M, Sarma S, Shaikh Z 1998 Generating 5-Axis NC Roughing Paths Directly from a Tessellated Representation, under submissionGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. Sarma
    • 1
  • A. Slocum
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations