Adding a Third Axis (Yaw)

I’ve been working on a new frame design that allows for three axes of movement instead of two.  Adding that final yaw axis with any large amount of motion freedom significantly increases the frame size, but it might be worth it!

I have two design variants right now, one that uses axis yokes supported on two ends (like the current design), and one where every axis is cantilevered, “hanging” off of the new bearing design.  Here are some images of the cantilevered design concept:

“Cantilevered” gimbal design.

 

“Cantilevered” gimbal design – another view.

 

“Cantilevered” gimbal design, allows for very aggressive motion!

 

“Cantilevered” gimbal design – concept shield for safety.

 

And here are some images of the “supported” design:

“Supported” design. A full yoke on the roll axis may improve rigidity.

 

“Supported” design – side view.

The cantilevered design may be tricky, but if we can get it working, it would be amazing!  The primary issue is that because every axis connects at a single point, there is a lot of torque on every joint, with the potential to cause a lot of flex.  And because all the axes are connected serially, deflection on one axis is felt by every axis to follow.  So the frame and bearings have to be rigid, or it won’t work well.

And because the axes are all axially driven (as opposed to the actuator-driven design), backlash on the gearboxes and chain sprockets will be really noticeable.

Finally, the distance between the user and the moving frame is actually fairly small.  You could easily reach out and touch the frame.  Or you could reach out at the wrong time and (*gulp*) chop your fingers off.  So we’ll need to build protections into the design to prevent accidental dismemberment…

Altogether, I really like this design concept and I’m eager to try it out.

Follow & Like for Updates

Axis vs. Actuator-Driven Design

When we started this project, we wanted to build a full 6-DOF motion simulator, allowing for rotation and translation in every direction.  In the interest of keeping costs low and simplifying the initial prototype, we started with a 2-DOF version, which only allows for pitch and roll rotation.  We used linear actuators in the design so that we could use the same actuator design in the full 6-DOF version down the road.

Linear actuator design

As I design the second-revision 2-DOF frame, it is becoming increasingly clear that linear actuators may not be the best option.  Here are the problems:

  1. As these actuators now stand, they cost > $1k each to build.
  2. The actuators are designed to both lift and rotate a load, so they are significantly overpowered for this 2-DOF design, which only needs rotation.
  3. The actuators only allow for +/-45 degrees of rotation.  An axis-driven design would easily allow for at least +/-90 degrees of rotation, even without slip-rings.  That would be a wild ride!
  4. The linear actuators are fairly complex assemblies, time-consuming to build.
  5. The overall assembly is more bulky because of how the actuators must be mounted.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad that we have the actuator design!  We’ll definitely use it on more capable motion platforms down the road!

But I’m fairly confident that an axis-driven design would help solve all of these issues.  By spinning each rotation axis directly, instead of lifting the edge of the axis with a linear actuator, we increase the allowable rotation angles significantly (although we may have to increase the frame size to allow for the necessary space).  Without linear rails and idler pulley assembles, the transmission becomes more simple.  We can size the motors appropriately without having to lift a load.  Driving the rotation axis directly will require less space.  And finally, my initial estimates suggest that I can shave between $400 and $600 off the cost of each axis with the more simple design.

Win-win-win-win-win!

A potential downside is that we’ve never attempted a design of this type, so there will probably be some hiccups along the way.  Backlash might be a big problem with the cheap gearboxes we are using.  Without some kind of shaft coupler, high peak torques could damage the gearbox.  And so on.  We can solve problems as they arrive, I’m sure.

The verdict?  An axis-driven design is at *least worth exploring seriously.  I’m hammering out details of the design now.

Follow & Like for Updates

New 2-DOF Frame Design

The first revision 2-DOF frame has a few issues that we are working to address in our next revision:

1) Rigidity isn’t great: accelerating quickly causes the frame to bounce.
2) The frame is large and unwieldy.
3) Sometimes the frame squeaks during motion – the mounting feet rub when weight shifts around.
4) It’s difficult to climb into the simulator, because the chair sits so high.

We hope to fix these problems in our upcoming V2 frame prototype.  First, we think that some of our rigidity issues stem from how the outer yoke (roll axis) connects to the base frame.  Right now, we use two opposing angular contact bearings on a 1.5″ shaft.  The idea is sound in principle, but because we compress them together around 3″ square stock, there is a lot of room for deflection.

Here is the proposed solution:

Roll yoke bearing pack
Roll yoke bearing pack exploded view

The new bearing design utilizes a fairly large (~ 6″ OD) needle roller thrust bearing.  The assembly is held together using a 1″ shaft and a single angular contact bearing in the center to handle radial loads.  Overall, we think that this will handle the cantilevered load much more effectively than the V1 prototype does.

The main frame is also being changed.  Instead of having a large base platform with two verticals, the new version will mount to a single standalone pillar, designed to be rigid enough on its own (i.e. no angled mounting plates like we have on the V1 prototype).  The “pillar” can be bolted directly to a concrete floor, or it can be bolted to a frame of some sort, which we’ll design later.  See below:

Pillar frame design
Pillar frame design – wireframe

The interior ribs provide increased torsional rigidity.  And the pillar itself is sized so that its area moment of inertia is *significantly higher than the combined result of the two 3″ verticals used in the current design (more than 2x higher, in fact).  The new yoke bearing pack mounts at the top of the pillar, as shown.  I’m a little concerned about the rigidity of the stock at the bearing mounting point – that may need more attention.

And finally… the roll axis yoke needs to be redesigned.  It is partially finished, but still needs some work.

V2 Frame Concept – still in development

The concept is shown above, with a human model for scale.  The pillar is shorter than the original verticals on the V1 prototype, and it bolts directly to the floor. The outer yoke (no arms yet) also has internal ribs to improve torsional stability.

We’ll have this design fleshed out in more details soon.  If it looks good, we’ll get the metal parts laser-cut and start welding the new assembly together!

Follow & Like for Updates

2-DOF Prototype Build

I’ve already talked about the 2-DOF prototype, but since VRMotionSim.com wasn’t active until lately, we have no in-process photos or videos from the build.  So, here’s a review!  This isn’t a complete or exhaustive review – it’s just a collection of pictures and videos that I happened to have on-hand.

A huge part of this design involved linear actuator development.  You can find details on that process in my previous post.  Unlike the actuator design, the 2-DOF frame is still in its first revision, so we have plenty of work to do to get it ready for prime-time. 🙂

Below, we machine part of the profile used for the linear actuator.

Below, we are planing the outer yoke where the bearings will attach.

Machining the outer yoke.

Early assembly test-fit.  The attached actuator isn’t finished, but it’s mounted for test purposes.

Roll axis assembly test

Testing the roll axis with a functioning actuator!

Looking good, despite the terrible mess in my garage!

Frame and actuators together for the first time!

Control Box!  We are using a Productivity 2000 PLC for control for now, but will eventually upgrade to a custom-designed control board for more advanced control.

Control box – components placed, but not yet wired.
Wiring the control box.
Hobbes is always helping!

Full assembly together and moved to my basement:

Full assembly.
Follow & Like for Updates