machines

Article
An Alternative Parallel Mechanism for Horizontal Positioning
of a Nozzle in an FDM 3D Printer
Edoardo Idà 1, * , Federico Nanetti 2 and Giovanni Mottola 3

1 Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Bologna, 40126 Bologna, Italy

2 Mark One Srl, 47025 Cesena, Italy; [email protected]
3 Department of Sciences and Methods for Engineering, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia,
42122 Reggio Emilia, Italy; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: In 3D printer design, special care must be taken when choosing the print head positioning
mechanism. Indeed, this choice has a significant influence on the manufacturing accuracy, printing
speed, workspace characteristics, and total cost of the printer. Considering 3D printers with layer-
based processes, many designs include two stages: a planar mechanism for positioning the nozzle on
a horizontal plane and a linear mechanism for the vertical build–plate motion. From the literature,
two designs are usually applied for horizontal motion, commercially known as “CoreXY” and “H-
bot”. Their load distribution characteristics are compared here: it is found that both have significant
drawbacks. Therefore, an alternative architecture, called “CoreH-bot,” is introduced to overcome
such limitations; this mechanism is both fully planar, which greatly simplifies its design and assembly
phases while increasing part life, and has low unbalanced torques during motion, which increases the
maximum speed for the given accuracy. The CoreH-bot kinematic equations are analyzed to define
the Jacobian matrix and the corresponding workspace. The static and dynamic analyses are also
performed. A prototype with this architecture has been designed that shows interesting capabilities
in terms of print speed, while being both simple and cost-effective to assemble.
Citation: Idà, E.; Nanetti, F.; Mottola,
G. An Alternative Parallel Keywords: 3D printing; parallel; mechanism; planar; kinematics; balancing; FDM; gantry; belt;
Mechanism for Horizontal pulley
Positioning of a Nozzle in an FDM
3D Printer. Machines 2022, 10, 542.
https://doi.org/10.3390/
machines10070542 1. Introduction
Academic Editor: Marco Ceccarelli 1.1. Architectures for 3D Printing

Received: 30 May 2022

Within the larger field of rapid prototyping, additive manufacturing (AM) is now one
Accepted: 27 June 2022
of the leading technologies [1,2]. This concept was first introduced in the 1980s [3,4] to
Published: 4 July 2022
quickly produce presentation models cost-effectively. In AM, a flow of material is deposited,
usually by layers, to obtain the desired shape [5]; this process allows designers to produce
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
shapes that would be impossible (or impractically expensive) to manufacture through
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
conventional machining methods (which are generally subtractive, meaning that material
published maps and institutional affil-
is removed to obtain a shape). For these reasons, AM has attracted strong interest both
iations.
in industrial and academic settings and has found applications in several fields requiring
high levels of customization, such as architectural models, medical implants, molds for
investment casting, artistic products, and components for the aerospace industry and spare
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
parts manufacturing [1,2,6–8].
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. Out of the many technologies for AM, 3D printing, in particular, has seen an explosive
This article is an open access article growth in recent decades, also due to the expiration of early patents [7,9,10] that restricted
distributed under the terms and the development of core technologies; recent analyses report a 320% market growth in
conditions of the Creative Commons the 2015–2020 period [11], while 3D printing has also been proposed for very large ele-
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// ments, including entire buildings. We focus here on desktop devices: these commonly
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ employ thermoplastics, such as acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS), polylactic acid (PLA),
4.0/). polyamide (PA), and Nylon [8,12,13]. The plastic is heated slightly above its melting point

Machines 2022, 10, 542. https://doi.org/10.3390/machines10070542 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/machines

Machines 2022, 10, 542 2 of 24

Machines 2022, 1, 0 2 of 24

and deposited by a print head on a plate; this process, called Fused Deposition Modeling
(FDM), is currently used in 48% of 3D printers [8,11] as it is robust, simple, intrinsically
(FDM), is currently used in ∼48% of 3D printers [8,11], as it is robust, simple, intrinsically
scalable and highly versatile in terms of the materials that can be employed [10,14]. Com-
scalable and highly versatile in terms of the materials that can be employed [10,14]. Com-
monly,
monly, FDMFDM printers
printers use a use a plastic
plastic filamentfilament feda through
fed through a heated
heated nozzle nozzle
(Fig. 1(a)): this (Figure 1a); this
method, called Fused Filament Fabrication (FFF), is predominant in FDM applications [12],applications [12],
method, called Fused Filament Fabrication (FFF), is predominant in FDM
toto
thethe point
point that that
FDMFDM and
and FFF areFFF
oftenare often
used used as definitions.
as equivalent equivalent definitions.

Filament
Nozzle
feed
motion

Nozzle

Heating
element

Molten
material

Final Solidified
part material
(a)

Drive
wheels

Filament

Filament
spool
Nozzle
ṗ
z′
Current
layer y′
Final part O′
x′ z
Local
Layers platform y
frame O
x
Build Global
platform (fixed)
v̇
frame

(b)

Figure
Figure (a): Schematic
1. schematic
1. (a): of deposition
of material material nozzle
deposition
for FFF nozzle for
processes. FFF
(b): processes.
schematic of a FFF(b): Schematic of an FFF
device
with Cartesian
device withXY head architecture.
Cartesian XY head The velocity ṗ of the
architecture. Thenozzle is in the
velocity ṗ ofhorizontal (x–y)
the nozzle isplane,
in the horizontal (x–y)
while the vertical motion v̇ is directly provided to the build platform on which the part is formed.
plane, while the vertical motion v̇ is directly provided to the build platform on which the part
is formed.

In FDM, the nozzle depositing the molten plastic has to move with respect to a build
platform, on which the part is progressively formed (layer by layer) as the plastic re-
solidifies, as illustrated in Figure 1b. Thus, a motion system is required; this system has to
carry the nozzle at high velocity to improve print speeds, while maintaining high accuracy.
Several mechanisms have been proposed for moving the nozzle in FDM printers; some
common architectures are described in the following. We mainly focus on 3-Degree-of-
Machines 2022, 10, 542 3 of 24

Freedom (3-DoF) mechanisms in which the relative orientation of the nozzle with respect to
the platform is constant, since these are very common in practical applications.
(a) Cartesian mechanisms control the three components of the nozzle velocity (with respect
to the build platform) along three coordinate axes independently; this greatly simplifies
the kinematic analysis. Usually, the build platform has one DoF along one axis,
while the nozzle has two DoFs along the other two axes. This is the most common
architecture in desktop FDM printers [3,9,10,15–21].
(b) Delta printers use the parallel kinematic architecture of the Delta robot, proposed
by R. Clavel; in particular, the linear version of the Delta is used, where prismatic
pairs actuate the mechanism [22]. With this architecture, the nozzle’s end-effector
(EE) has only three translational DoFs, while the orientational DoFs are constrained.
The main advantage is the fully parallel architecture, where the motors are fixed on the
frame, which reduces the actuator torques. Moreover, the accuracy does not depend
on the layer’s height above the build platform; thus, Delta printers are suited for
printing parts that develop mostly along a vertical direction. On the other hand, their
kinematics are more complex than those of Cartesian architectures; also, Delta printers
have a smaller workspace with respect to the footprint.
(c) SCARA printers use a robot arm with one translational and two rotational joints to
move the nozzle [23]; the concept is derived from SCARA robots used in production
lines [24]. While SCARA printers can provide a larger workspace than Delta printers,
they are less rigid (and thus less accurate) due to their serial architecture.
(d) Polar printers rotate the platform around a fixed axis, while the nozzle usually has
two translational DoFs, along the vertical and the radial directions [25]. This design is
cost-effective and leads to smaller footprints; however, the 3D printed part moves as
the platform rotates, inducing vibrations that reduce the print accuracy.
(e) Anthropomorphic architectures use a conventional serial arm, such as those of industrial
robots used in production lines; unlike SCARA systems (type c), these generally have
more than three DoFs. These mechanisms, thus, have greater freedom of motion and
can realize more complex parts, but the issues related to the stiffness and the inertial
effects of the serial architecture are even more pressing in this case e [26].
For comparison, Cartesian and Delta commercial printers in the medium-high price
range can achieve speeds up to 80 mm s while maintaining the print quality of the compo-
nents. This is one of the main advantages of these designs, as the top speeds for comparable
devices with designs of types c to e are much lower.
While previous works have considered the effects of the material properties [12] or
the control system [17] on the final accuracy, we focus instead on improvements of the
motion architecture. We considered a Cartesian architecture (type a). These are generally
inexpensive to build and simple to design and assemble; moreover, machines with this
architecture are generally fast and accurate, which are essential requirements for practical
use. We also aim to achieve a workspace comparable to the printers available on the market
while minimizing the footprint. Our design employs a system of pulleys and synchronous
belts; this is an approach used in several desktop printers, which leads to an inexpensive
design and a lightweight mechanism. In particular, the design presented here improves
other previous alternatives in terms of compactness and accuracy; as it will be seen, our
design combines the advantages of the two Cartesian architectures most commonly used,
as it reduces the unbalanced torques during motion (as in the CoreXY), while also keeping
the belt routing entirely within the same plane (as in the H-bot), which is desirable for
design simplicity. We also show how a large workspace can be achieved while maintaining
a high stiffness and a fully-parallel architecture (with all motors fixed on the frame), which
significantly reduces the moving masses and allows us to achieve high print speeds.
The rest of this work is organized as follows: In the next Section 2.2, we discuss the
main design alternatives for FDM printers with Cartesian architectures and their advantages
and shortcomings. We also introduce the CoreH-bot architecture, an alternative pulley-and-
belt routing for moving the nozzle in a plane. The kinematic analysis of the CoreH-bot is
Machines 2022, 10, 542 4 of 24

in Section 2, in which we derive the Jacobian matrix for the mechanism and analyze its
workspace. In Section 3, we compare the different belt routings, studying their behavior
both under static and dynamic conditions, and consider the force transmission between
the actuated pulleys and the EE. We also show that our design significantly reduces the
unbalanced torques on the EE, thus, improving the printing accuracy. The prototype of the
printer that we developed and the results from preliminary tests are presented in Section 4.
Finally, in Section 5, we summarize our conclusions and suggest directions for future work.

1.2. Kinematics for 3D Printers

Firstly, we introduce coordinate frames to define the relative motion of the nozzle with
respect to the build platform. A coordinate frame F 0 = (O0 , x 0 , y0 , z0 ), called the machine
coordinate system [5], is defined on the platform (Figure 1b); since the platform (and, thus,
the frame F 0 ) is mobile in some architectures, it is also convenient to define a (fixed) global
coordinate frame F = (O, x, y, z). Note that here and in the following, a prime symbol
denotes vectors defined in the machine frame F 0 ; the z axis is vertical (normal to the layers),
while the x axis is parallel to the front of the machine [5].
While the material is deposited on the platform, the velocity ṗ of the nozzle is on a
horizontal plane. Usually, the z-axis motion, which requires precise movements at relatively
low speeds, is provided by a lead screw actuator; the motion on the horizontal plane can
instead be obtained by flexible elements such as cables or belts to increase the workspace.
Within the general Cartesian printer concept (type a), there is significant design
flexibility; several implementations have been proposed in commercially available printers,
which have relevant differences in terms of speed, accuracy, and footprint.
Broadly speaking, two architectures can be found in most prototypes. Both archi-
tectures have a mechanism for moving the nozzle along two coordinate axes, while the
remaining DoF corresponds to the platform motion. The architectures are described below.
(a.1) XZ head printers (Figure 2a) have a frame with two vertical guides, along which a
horizontal bar moves (along the z axis); on the said horizontal bar, the nozzle moves
along the x axis. The motion along the y axis is applied to the platform instead. This is
the most straightforward architecture, commonly employed in low-end printers for
hobbyists. The main drawback is that increasing the print speed implies increasing the
platform velocity (along the y axis), leading to rapid motions of the part being built,
thus, inducing vibrations and lowering the accuracy. Moreover, the x-axis motor is
attached to the horizontal bar, thus, increasing the moving mass.
(a.2) In XY head printers (Figure 2b), the platform performs only motions along the z axis,
which are much slower than those on the layer plane; thus, the accuracy is significantly
increased. Furthermore, the workspace projection in the layer plane almost coincides
with the footprint, which is, thus, smaller with respect to XZ head printers. This
Machines 2022, 1, 0 architecture is typical in high-end printers for professional 4use;
of 24 while faster and more

accurate, XY head printers are also more complex to design, and thus, more expensive.

Py Px
Px

Pz Pz Py

Nozzle
Nozzle

z Platform z
Platform
Py y Pz x
x O y
Py O
Frame Frame
(a) (b)

Figure 2.2.(a):
Figure schematic
(a): of a printer
Schematic of awith Cartesian
printer withXZ Cartesian
head architecture.
XZ (b):
headsame, for XY head. The
architecture. (b): The same for XY head.
rectangular cuboids are prismatic (P) joints, where the subscript (x, y, or z) denotes the motion axis.
The rectangular cuboids are prismatic (P) joints, where the subscript (x, y, or z) denotes the motion axis.

a high stiffness and a fully-parallel architecture (with all motors fixed on the frame), which
significantly reduces the moving masses and allows us to achieve high print speeds.
The rest of this work is organized as follows. In the next Subsec. 2.2, we discuss
the main design alternatives for FDM printers with Cartesian architectures and their
advantages and shortcomings. We also introduce the CoreH-bot architecture, an alternative
Machines 2022, 10, 542 5 of 24

We then consider an XY head printer and focus on the mechanism for the motion on
the horizontal plane; all designs studied here have a bar aligned with the x axis, along
which the nozzle moves, while the bar itself moves along the y axis on lateral guides.
The design alternatives found in the literature for type a.2 are described below.
(a.2.i) A serial mechanism moves the nozzle along the y axis with motors fixed on the
frame, while the motion along x is provided by a motor that is fixed on the bar.
While this design is quite simple, the mass of the motor on the bar significantly
increases the moving masses; thus, this option is seldom used [3,9,10].
(a.2.ii) A stacked mechanism uses two stages: in each stage, the motor is fixed and causes
a bar to move along guides. The stages are stacked on top of each other, with the
second being rotated by 90◦ (along the z axis) with respect to the first. The nozzle
is connected to both bars and can, thus, move on the x–y plane, its position being
defined by the intersection of the two bars. While this approach reduces the moving
masses, it significantly increases the printer size in the vertical direction and leads
to a more complex design.
(a.2.iii) A parallel mechanism usually has frame-fixed actuators; a parallel kinematic chain
connects the motors to the nozzle. Often, a flexible element is used to transmit the
movement; then, the bar and the lateral guides serve only to constrain the motion,
which remains purely translational (on the horizontal plane).
The use of flexible elements, such as synchronous belts, to transmit motion from frame-
fixed motors to an EE having purely translational motion (type a.2.iii) is, in fact, a common
solution that is not limited to 3D printers. For instance, similar concepts have been applied
to gait simulators [27,28], rehabilitation devices [29], robots for assistive lifting [30], and
pick-and-place systems [31–34]. These systems are easy to design, transport and assemble,
while also providing large workspaces and high payload-to-total-weight ratios.
Most previous works use either one of two variations of the type a.2.iii design, commonly
called H-bot and CoreXY; we briefly summarize them in the following Sections 1.2.1 and 1.2.2,
and then introduce our alternative concept in Section 2.
From now on, we assume that the flexible elements are synchronous belts unless
otherwise specified; this way, the motion is transmitted accurately from the motors to the
mechanism, without slippage between the belts and the pulleys. For this reason, practical
designs for FDM printers [9,16,20] almost exclusively employ belts. Some works [35–37] on
mechanisms with flexible elements for translational motion consider using cables instead,
as cables can be routed freely in space. Otherwise, non-planar routings require twisting the
belts, increasing stresses and reducing their useful life. Since we consider mechanisms that
are strictly contained in a plane, using belts is not a limitation in our case.

1.2.1. H-Bot
“H-bot” is the common name of the schematic in Figure 3, with a belt routed in a
figure-H pattern. Four pulleys are frame-fixed, and two of these are actuated. The other
(mobile) pulleys are connected to a bar, moving along the y axis (on two lateral guides).
This design uses a one-sided synchronous belt: the teeth are inside the belt loop, thus, the
fixed pulleys are toothed, while the mobile ones are smooth, as they touch the belt only on
the outside.
The design in Figure 3 is not unique, as other pulleys could be actuated. However,
two actuated pulleys cannot be both directly connected by a belt segment and attached
to the same rigid body; otherwise, their rotations are not independent, since the belt is
considered to be inextensible (this condition also applies to the other routings). This design
uses one open belt, of which the ends are attached to the print head (the rounded rectangle
in Figure 3). The velocity of the print head depends on the speeds ω1 and ω4 of the two
motors. For instance, if ω1 = ω4 (with the directions in Figure 3), then the print head will
move along the x axis.
This design is compact, contained in the x–y plane, and has reduced moving masses.
Thus, it has been used in several FDM printers [10,15,17–19,21]. This concept is, in fact, older
Machines 2022, 10, 542 6 of 24

than FDM printing and can be found in several mechanisms that move objects in a plane.
For instance, routings that are conceptually equivalent to the one in Figure 3 have been
proposed for recording devices [38], positioning systems [34,39,40], X-ray scanners [41,42],
laser cutters [43] and load-hoisting gantries [35,44,45]. The H-bot lends itself to modular de-
signs, in which two routings are combined to obtain more complex (4-DoF) motions [46,47].
The long belt induces low stiffness and high vibrations, however, and the H-bot is unbal- 6 of 24
anced during motion (Section 3); the belt applies a torque on the bar, causing a racking
effect [17,21].

8 Left guide Right guide 5

7 6

Px

Bar
Py Py

y P
2 p Print 3
O
head v
x
1 4
u ω1 ω4

Figure 3. Schematic of an H-bot routing (as seen from the top of the printer). The pulleys connected
to the motors (1 and 4) are colored, while the other pulleys are in white; the belt that wraps around
Figure 3. Schematic of an H-bot routing (as seen from the top of the printer). The pulleys connected
the pulleys is in blue. The rectangles denote P joints, while the small circles correspond to R joints.
to the motors (1 and 4) are colored, while the other pulleys are in white; the belt that wraps around
1.2.2. CoreXY
the pulleys is in blue. The rectangles denote P joints, while the small circles correspond to R joints.
In the CoreXY design, two open belts (Figure 4) are actuated by two motors and
attached to the print head at their ends; the head velocity is a linear combination of ω1
and ω4 .
uses a one-sided synchronous belt: the teeth are inside the belt loop, thus the fixed pulleys
The CoreXY is partially balanced, as lower torques are applied to the bar during motion.
are toothed, while thethis
Thus, mobile
design ones are vibrations
has lower smooth, and as they
higher touch thethan
accuracy beltthe
only on also
H-bot, the because
outside.
The designshorter,
in Fig.stiffer
3 is not
beltsunique,
are used; as other
thus, higherpulleys
speeds cancould be actuated.
be reached for a givenHowever,
mass of thetwo
print head. Moreover, the footprint is relatively small and comparable
actuated pulleys cannot be both directly connected by a belt segment and attached to the to the H-bot.
This design, first introduced for a portable printer [20] (an earlier concept, with one
same rigid body:half
otherwise, their rotations are not independent since the belt is considered
of the routing, for 1-DoF motion, is in [35]) has attracted significant interest [10,16,21]
to be inextensible
and(this condition
has been proposedalso applies
for other to the other
applications, such asroutings). This[48].
medical devices design uses one
open belt, whose ends Thisare attached
design, however,to the print
requires head
two more(the rounded
pulleys than therectangle
H-bot andin is Fig. 3). The
not planar,
as the belts overlap. Since the belts cannot cross, there are two design
velocity of the print head depends on the speeds ω1 and ω4 of the two motors: for instance, options, as follows:
if ω1 = ω4 (with• theTwist the overlapping
directions in Fig.segments
3), then(Figure 4) along
the print the lengths
head so thatalong
will move they rotate
the around
x axis.
each other without crossing. This approach increases the belt stress and reduces the
This design is compact, contained in the x–y plane, and has reduced moving masses.
useful life; also, preventing the belt segments from touching each other is complex.
Thus, it has been•used Place the belts FDM
in several printers
on parallel [10,15,17–19,21].
planes. This complicates the This concept
assembly is,increases
and in fact, older
the
than FDM printing printer
and can be found
volume; in several
also, greater bending mechanisms
torques may be that move
applied objects
on the motorin a plane:
shaft.
for instance, routings conceptually equivalent to the one in Fig. 3 have been proposed
for recording devices [38], positioning systems [34,39,40], X-ray scanners [41,42], laser
cutters [43] and load hoisting gantries [35,44,45]. The H-bot lends itself to modular designs,
in which two routings are combined to obtain more complex (4-DoF) motions [46,47]. The
long belt induces low stiffness and high vibrations, however, and the H-bot is unbalanced
 Machines 2022, 10, 542 7 of 24
2022, 1, 0 7 of 24

10 5
6 9

7 8
Left Px Right
guide guide
Bar
Py Py

y P
2 p Print 3
O
head v
x
1 4
u ω1 ω4

Figure 4. Schematic of a CoreXY routing (top view). For clarity, the two belts are colored; each
actuated pulley has the color of the corresponding belt (again, pulleys 1 and 4 are actuated).
Figure 4. Schematic of a CoreXY routing (top view). For clarity, the two belts are colored; each
actuated pulley
2. has the color Introduction
CoreH-Bot: of the corresponding belt (again,
and Kinematic pulleys 1 and 4 are actuated).
Analysis
2.1. Introduction to the CoreH-Bot
Given the limitations of both the H-bot and the CoreXY concepts, as outlined previ-
• Twist the overlapping segments (Fig. 4) along the lengths so that they rotate around
ously, we propose an alternative routing, the schematic of which is reported in Figure 5.
each other without crossing. This approach increases the belt stress and reduces the
Unlike the CoreXY, this mechanism is fully planar, meaning that no belt segments overlap;
Machines 2022, 1, 0 useful life;
this also, preventing
simplifies both thethe belt segments
design from touching
and the assembly. each other
Furthermore, 24is complex.
the8 ofmechanism is partially
• Place the belts on parallel planes. This complicates the assembly and increases
balanced (like the CoreXY); this reduces the torque applied to the bar during the
the motion of
printer volume; also,
the print head. greater bending torques may be applied on the motor shaft.

2. CoreH-bot: introduction
ω11 and kinematic analysis ω8

2.1. Introduction to the CoreH-bot

11 8
Given the limitations of both the H-bot and the CoreXY concepts, as outlined previ-
ously, we propose an alternative routing, whose schematic is reported in Fig. 5. Unlike
the CoreXY, this mechanism is10fully planar, meaning that no belt segments overlap: this
9
simplifies both the design and 12 the assembly. Also, the mechanism is partially balanced (like
the CoreXY): this reduces the torque applied P to the bar during 7the motion of the print head.
Unlike both the Py CoreXY and the H-bot, this is a closed-loop
Px Bar design.
Py Thus, the mecha-
nism has 3 DoFs: two translations of the print head (along the x and y axes) and one DoF
13 6

corresponding to the idle rotation of the p belt over the pulleys (while the print head position
14 5
remains constant). At leasty three motors are then required; however, Right
Left the belt rotation is
guide 2 Print guide
an internal DoF, whose control is not head required for the printing 3 process. Four motors are
used instead for the control, O each connected to one of the−fixed pulleys (1, 4, 8, and 11);
u
these motors are pairwise coupled, x such that ω1 = −ω8 and ω4 4 = −ω11 . Two independent
1
rotations thus control ωthe 1 two DoFs −v of the print head: this way, ω the
4 print head velocity is
again a linear combination of the ωi ’s, and the control system is still as simple as the ones
for the CoreXY Figure Schematic of a CoreH-bot (top view). Only one belt is used, as in the H-bot; the four actuated
and5.H-bot.
Figure 5. Schematic of a CoreH-bot (top view). Only one belt is used, as in the H-bot; the four actuated
pulleys are colored. The coordinate frame F = (O, x, y, z) has origin at the center of pulley 1 (on the
Since four motors
pulleys are colored.control two DoFs,
The coordinate frame F = the
(O,mechanism
x, y, z) has origin atisthe center of pulley 1 (onadmittedly,
overconstrained: the this
lower left); the pulleys are numbered, counting along the belt, in the counterclockwise direction.
may complicate the design, which also has four more pulleys than the CoreXY. However,
lower left); the pulleys are numbered, counting along the belt, in the counterclockwise direction.

we find that the improvements

Unlike both thein both speed
CoreXY and the and accuracy
H-bot, this is more than compensate
a closed-loop design. Thus, forthe
themecha-
(possible) increaseWe note that
in3cost, a conceptually
which similar design
is justifiedof has
inthe been
a high-end proposed among several others
nism has DoFs: two translations print headprinter (along that
in a previous work [35], for a different application (a gantry crane). However, that design
the xwe anddeveloped
y axes) andfor one DoF
making prototypes with
corresponding strict
to thetolerances.
idle Also,
rotation of due
the to
belt symmetry,
over the fewer
pulleys
had three DoFs (including a rotation around the vertical axis), which are not required here; custom-made
(while the print parts
head position
are used than in thethe
moreover, other
authorsdesigns;
did not explore the Billthe of Materials
advantages is thus shorter,
of overconstraining which is desirable in
the mechanism.
large-scale production,
2.2. Kinematic analysisto contain costs. The CoreH-bot uses a longer belt than the H-bot,
which could reduce To define thestiffness
the print head (and thus
position, thetake
we first accuracy)
a referencein experimental
point P on the head and tests. However,
this issue was not found to be of serious concern (see Sec. 4).
define p = P − O = [ x, y ] T
; then, for a given motion of the print head, we denote the
components of the displacement ∆p of P across the x and y axes as ∆x and ∆y, respectively.
Machines 2022, 10, 542 8 of 24

remains constant). At least three motors are then required; however, the belt rotation is an
internal DoF, of which the control is not required for the printing process. Four motors are
used instead for the control, each connected to one of the fixed pulleys (1, 4, 8, and 11);
these motors are pairwise coupled, such that ω1 = −ω8 and ω4 = −ω11 . Two independent
rotations, thus, control the two DoFs of the print head; this way, the print head velocity is
again a linear combination of the ωi ’s, and the control system is still as simple as the ones
for the CoreXY and H-bot.
Since four motors control two DoFs, the mechanism is overconstrained. Admittedly, this
may complicate the design, which also has four more pulleys than the CoreXY. However,
we find that the improvements in both speed and accuracy more than compensate for the
(possible) increase in cost, which is justified in a high-end printer that we developed for
making prototypes with strict tolerances. Furthermore, due to symmetry, fewer custom-
made parts are used than in the other designs; the Bill of Materials is thus shorter, which is
desirable in large-scale production to contain costs. The CoreH-bot uses a longer belt than
the H-bot, which could reduce the stiffness (and thus, the accuracy) in experimental tests.
However, this issue was not found to be of serious concern (see Section 4).
We note that a conceptually similar design has been proposed among several others
in a previous work [35] for a different application (a gantry crane). However, that design
had three DoFs (including a rotation around the vertical axis), which are not required here;
moreover, the authors did not explore the advantages of overconstraining the mechanism.

2.2. Kinematic Analysis

To define the print head position, we first take a reference point P on the head and
define p = P − O = [ x, y] T ; then, for a given motion of the print head, we denote the
components of the displacement ∆p of P across the x and y axes as ∆x and ∆y, respectively.
We also define the angular displacement ∆θi of the i-th pulley as it rotates during said
motion, while ri is its radius. Here and in the rest of this work, the angular displacements
∆θi are positive in the counterclockwise direction.
The kinematic analysis of the H-bot and the CoreXY is known from [20,39]; assuming
that ri = r for all i, it was found that, for both architectures, it holds
     
∆x 1 1 1 ∆θ1
∆p = = rJ∆θ, J = , ∆θ = . (1)
∆y 2 1 −1 ∆θ4

Equation (1) defines the direct position kinematics of the H-bot and CoreXY routings;
the inverse kinematics equation is obtained by inverting Equation (1), giving ∆θ = 1r J−1 ∆p.
Considering infinitesimal displacements dθ = [dθ1 , dθ4 ] T over a time interval dt in
Equation (1) and defining ωi = dθi /dt, we obtain the direct velocity kinematics equation as
 
dp dθ ω1
ṗ = = rJ = rJω, ω= (2)
dt dt ω4

(notice that the pulley radius r and the matrix J are constant and do not depend on
t). Matrix J, thus, corresponds to the direct kinematics Jacobian of the H-bot and CoreXY
routings. As observed in Section 1.2, we, thus, find that the print head motion is given
by a linear combination of the motor speeds ω1 and ω4 . In particular, ω1 and ω4 are
proportional to the print head velocity components along axes u and v, respectively (see
again Figures 3 and 4).
The kinematic analysis of the CoreH-bot routing is more complex. Therefore, we
apply the method for analyzing the complex pulley systems presented in [37], since it
systematically allows us to obtain the kinematic equations. At the same time, the cited
work considers cables as flexible elements for motion transmission, and the results can also
be directly applied to belts. The essential hypotheses for applying the method in [37] are as
follows:
(I) all belt segments have constant orientation, along either the x- or the y-axis;
Machines 2022, 10, 542 9 of 24

(II) elastic deflections are disregarded and the belt length is the same under tension;
(III) the belt is always in tension (that is, it does not become slack). This is achieved by a
specific design (see Section 4), such that the tension is maintained during motion;
(IV) the belt wraps on pulleys, and no slippage occurs between the belt and the pulleys;
(V) the pulleys are connected by R joints to rigid blocks, either fixed or translating along
one (or both) of the coordinate axes (with fixed orientation).
Indeed, these hypotheses are applicable here without significantly restricting the
analysis. An essential advantage of this method is that it allows us to consider general
routings without any assumptions on the pulley radii nor on the relative positions of the
pulleys with respect to the blocks on which they are attached; we do assume, however,
that the pulley radii and their relative positions are chosen such that each belt segment
is parallel to one of the coordinate axes at an initial reference position, so that condition I
is satisfied.
In our case, we have 14 pulleys (numbered as in Figure 5); we denote the center of the
i-th pulley as point Pi . We also define 14 belt nodes, one on each belt segment: belt node
Ni is a point on the segment between pulleys i and i + 1. The positions of the Ni ’s are not
indicated in Figure 5, as they can be freely chosen at any point on the corresponding belt
segment without changing the results of the analysis. Finally, we define blocks 1, 2, and 3,
corresponding to the fixed frame, the bar, and the print head, respectively; their positions
are defined by points B1 , B2 , and B3 (the position of point Bj on the j-th block is irrelevant
since all blocks have purely translational motion). The positions of points Pi and Bj on
plane x–y and their displacements for a given motion are defined as follows:
   
x Pi ∆x Pi
pi = Pi − O = , ∆pi = , i ∈ {1, . . . , 14}
yP ∆y Pi
" i# " # (3)
x Bj ∆x Bj
b j = Bj − O = , ∆b j = , j ∈ {1, 2, 3}
y Bj ∆y Bj

We also define the displacement ∆li of node Ni (along the belt direction at Ni ) after
a motion of the print head. The linear displacements ∆li are assumed positive along the
positive x or y axis (along the corresponding belt segment). We then write the constraint
equations, which, after [37], can be categorized as follows:
• Block-block constraints: these equations are written as

∆x B1 = 0
∆y B1 = 0
(4)
∆x B1 = ∆x B2
∆y B2 = ∆y B3

The first two equations of (4) correspond to fixing the frame position, while the
remaining two correspond to the constraints introduced by the Py and Px joints,
respectively. Notice that the two Py joints in Figure 5 are redundant, as they both
introduce the same constraint (namely, that the bar can only translate along the y axis
with respect to the frame); using two joints is only convenient for design purposes,
to reduce the stresses on the components and increase the motion accuracy. Thus, only
one Py joint is considered here without changing the DoFs of the mechanism.
• Pulley-block constraints: since the 14 pulleys are connected to the blocks by R joints,
each removing two DoFs, 28 such equations are found, which can be written as

∆x Pi = ∆x Bj
(5)
∆y Pi = ∆y Bj

corresponding to the i-th pulley being connected to the j-th block.

Machines 2022, 10, 542 10 of 24

• Belt-block constraints: no such equations are present, as the routing has a closed-loop
configuration and the belt is not directly attached to any block.
• Belt-pulley constraints: the displacement ∆li of node Ni is related to the rotation ∆θi
of the pulley that immediately precedes the corresponding cable segment and to
the rotation of the next pulley (moving along the belt in a counterclockwise sense).
For instance, the following equations can be written for node N1 :

∆l1 = ∆y P1 + r1 ∆θ1
(6)
∆l1 = ∆y P2 + r2 ∆θ2

The equations in (6) depend on the displacements of pulleys 1 and 2 along y since the
belt segment at N1 is parallel to the y axis; similar equations can be written for the
segments parallel to the x axis (we refer the reader to [37] for details). A total of 28
equations can be written for the 14 belt segments.
These constraints can be put in matrix form. We, thus, obtain a system of 60 equations

A∆ = 0 (7)

in 62 unknowns, namely the displacements ∆x Bj , ∆y Bj , ∆x Pi , ∆y Pi , ∆li and ∆θi in vector ∆

(matrix A is not reported here, for brevity). This appears to indicate that the CoreH-bot
mechanism has 62−60 = 2 DoFs, but in fact, this is not the case. Indeed, we can transform
Equation (7) as U∆ = 0, where the 62 × 60 matrix U is the reduced row echelon form of A.
U is obtained via symbolic Gauss–Jordan elimination, which is computationally easy in
this case since A is highly sparse. It is found that the last row of U contains only zeros,
thus, indicating that one of the constraint equations is linearly dependent on the others;
this confirms that the routing has three independent DoFs, as observed in Section 2.1.
From U, one can also derive the equations of motion of the routing. For this, it is
convenient to order the columns in A, such that the last three correspond to the entries
in ∆ that are chosen as inputs. Here, we choose as input variables the components ∆x B3
and ∆y B3 of the displacement of the print head: these are equal to ∆x and ∆y, respectively.
The third input variable can be, for instance, the rotation ∆θ13 of pulley 13 on the print
head; this corresponds to the internal DoF of the mechanism, namely the belt rotation. We
are interested in the rotations of the actuated pulleys as output variables; we finally obtain
 
  − rr131 − r11 − r11
∆θ1  r  ∆θ 
 ∆θ4   − 13 − r14 − r34  13
   r4 
 ∆x B3 . (8)
 ∆θ8  = 
− r13 1
 r8 r8 − r38  ∆y B3
∆θ11
− rr13 1
r11 − r111
| 11 {z }
M

Equation (8) defines the inverse position kinematics of the mechanism; the equation
for the inverse velocity kinematics is obtained by differentiating Equation (8) with respect
to t, giving
 T
[ω1 , ω4 , ω8 , ω11 ] T = M ω13 , ẋ B3 , ẏ B3 . (9)
Obtaining the direct position kinematics is slightly more complex in this case with
respect to the other belt routings, as matrix M in Equation (8) is nonsquare, and thus,
cannot be directly inverted. Algebraic manipulation of the equations provides

∆θ13 = (−3r1 ∆θ1 + r4 ∆θ4 + r8 ∆θ8 − 3r11 ∆θ11 )/(4r13 )

1 1
∆x B3 = (r8 ∆θ8 − r4 ∆θ4 ) = (r11 ∆θ11 − r1 ∆θ1 ) (10)
2 2
1 1
∆y B3 = (r1 ∆θ1 − r4 ∆θ4 ) = (r11 ∆θ11 − r8 ∆θ8 )
2 2
Machines 2022, 10, 542 11 of 24

under the constraint on the inputs

r1 ∆θ1 − r4 ∆θ4 + r8 ∆θ8 − r11 ∆θ11 = 0 (11)

which corresponds to the condition that the total belt length remains constant.
From the results above, a special case can be found. If we control the motors such that

−r4 ∆θ4 = r11 ∆θ11 = ∆u

(12)
−r1 ∆θ1 = r8 ∆θ8 = ∆v

we find that Equation (11) is automatically satisfied. Moreover, Equation (10) simplify as
     
1 ∆x B3 ∆x ∆u
∆θ13 = (−∆u + ∆v), = =J (13)
r13 ∆y B3 ∆y ∆v

with J as defined in Equation (1). Under the assumption in Equation (12), it is also easy to
show that      
ẋ r ω r ω
ṗ = = −J 4 4 = J 11 11 (14)
ẏ r 1 ω1 r 8 ω8
We, thus, have a mechanism with the same Jacobian as the H-bot and the CoreXY;
the control of the motors is still reasonably simple since it only requires computing two
control signals (one for each of the 1–8 and 4–11 actuated pulley pairs). Differentiating
Equation (14) provides      
ẍ r4 α4 r11 α11
p̈ = = −J =J (15)
ÿ r1 α1 r8 α8
with αi = dωi /dt. Thus, as in the other routings for purely translational motion [33,36],
the relationship between the accelerations of the motors and the nozzle is defined by
matrix J, which does not depend on the position of the mechanism. Furthermore, Equa-
tions (14) and (15) can be easily inverted analytically, which significantly simplifies the
kinematic analysis.
In a practical design, for simplicity, one may select all pulleys to have equal radii,
namely ri = r for i = 1, . . . , 14. While not necessary for the mechanism operation, this
would simplify maintenance and spare part management. Notice, however, that the pulleys
will not be all identical; indeed, using a one-sided synchronous belt with the teeth inside
the belt loop, as in the H-bot (see Section 1.2.1), it is found that pulleys 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12
and 14 must be toothed, while the remaining ones are smooth.
We now compare the total lengths of the belts in the three designs considered here.
For simplicity, we now assume that all pulleys in Figures 3–5 are identical and have radius
r. Having assumed that all belt segments are aligned either with the x or the y axis, this
induces some restrictions on the dimensions. For example, the distance between pulleys 5
and 7 in the CoreH-bot routing must be 4r, since the segments which connect them (5–6
and 6–7) are horizontal. For ease of comparison, we assume that the three routings have
footprints defined by the same width W and depth D along the x and y axis, respectively,
(see Figure 6). We also define the distance d between the pulleys on the mobile bar, which
is assumed to be the same in each routing. Moreover, we assume that the size of the print
head is negligible with respect to the belt length. The print head position is defined by
point P in Figure 6a–c; here, we take the origin of the coordinate axes at the center of pulley
1 for the three routings (on the lower left in each schematic in Figure 6). Finally, we consider
a special architecture for the CoreXY (compare Figure 6b with Figure 4); we take the fixed
pulleys 6 and 10 to be coaxial but on different planes. Pulleys 9 and 5 are also coaxial;
pulleys 5 and 6 are on the same horizontal plane, and 9–10 are on another plane, parallel
to the first one and below it (as seen from above). With this design, the belts in Figure 6b
are on different planes and do not intersect, but the segments connecting pulleys 5–6 and
9–10 partially overlap. In the figure, we show the belt on the upper plane, with a dashed
Machines 2022, 10, 542 12 of 24

line for clarity. This design does not change the kinematic properties of the CoreXY routing
Machines 2022, 1, 0 12 of 24
but simplifies its analysis, since in this case, all belt segments are aligned with one of the
coordinate axes.

8 5 6 ≡ 10 5≡9

7 6 7 8

D D
d d

2 P 2 P
y y
3 3
1 r 4 1 r 4
x x
O O
W W
(a) (b)

11 8

10 9
e 7
12 13 6
D
d

14 P
y 2 5
3
1 r 4
x
O
W
(c)

Figure Comparison
Figure 6.6.Comparison of schematics
of the the schematics of the
of the three three routings:
routings: (a)CoreXY,
(a) H-bot, (b) H-bot, (c)
(b)CoreH-bot.
CoreXY, (c) CoreH-bot.
Here, the CoreXY schematic (b) is simplified with respect to Fig. 4: pulleys 6
Here, the CoreXY schematic (b) is simplified with respect to Figure 4: pulleys 6 andand 9 coincide with9 coincide with
pulleys 10 and 5, respectively, thus the two belts partially overlap (over the dashed segments).
pulleys 10 and 5, respectively, thus, the two belts partially overlap (over the dashed segments).

We anow
consider derive
special the total
architecture length
for the of the
CoreXY belt for
(compare Fig.the
6(b)three
with designs.
Fig. 4): weWetakereport
the the length
of each
fixed segment
pulleys 6 and 10intothe CoreH-bot
be coaxial but on routing in Table
different planes. 1. Here,
Pulleys 9 and 5we
areassumed
also coaxial;that pulleys 6
pulleys
and 13 5are
and 6 are on
almost the same(at
tangent horizontal
point P); plane, and 9–10
therefore, thearedistance
on another plane, parallel
e between their centers is 2r.
Summing the lengths of all belt segments in Table 1, we find that the in
to the first one and below it (as seen from above). With this design, the belts Fig.length
total 6(b) is given by
are on different planes and do not intersect, but the segments connecting pulleys 5–6 and
9–10 partially overlap; in the figure, we show the belt on the upper plane with a dashed
Table Length
1.clarity.
line, for ofdesign
This each belt
doessegment, for
not change thethe CoreH-bot
kinematic schematic
properties of the in Figure
CoreXY 6c: the segment i–j
routing
connects ◦ ◦
but simplifies its analysis since in this case all belt segments are aligned with one of theor 180 ) on the
the i-th and the j-th pulley, while the segment i–i wraps (for either 90
coordinate
i-th pulley. axes.
We now derive the total length of the belt for the three designs. We report the length of
eachSegment
segment in the CoreH-bot
Length routing in Tab. 1; here, we assumed
Segment Length that pulleys 6 and 13 are Length
Segment
almost tangent (at point P),dtherefore the distance e between their centers is 2r. Summing
1–2 of all belt segments
the lengths y − 2 in Tab. 1, we6–7find that theWtotal
− xlength
− r is given 11–12
by D − y − 2r
π π π
2–2 2r 7–7 2r 12–12 2r
2–3 W −L 4rtot = 4W + 4D7–8 − y − 2r
− 2d − 20r +D10πr 12–13 (16) x−r
π
3–3 2r 8–8 πr 13–13 πr
3–4 y − 2d 8–9 D − y − 2d 13–14 x−r
π π
4–4 πr 9–9 2r 14–14 2r
4–5 y − 2r 9–10 W − 4r 14–1 y − 2r
π π
5–5 2r 10–10 2r 1–1 πr
5–6 W−x−r 10–11 D − y − 2d
6–6 πr 11–11 πr
Machines 2022, 10, 542 13 of 24

Ltot = 4W + 4D − 2d − 20r + 10πr. (16)

For comparison, the length of the belt in the H-bot routing shown in Figure 6a is

Ltot = 2W + 4D − 2d − 8r + 6πr (17)

while the two belts in the CoreXY routing (Figure 6b) both have length

Ltot = 2W + 2D − d − 2r + 3πr (18)

(for brevity, we do not report the lengths of each belt segment for these routings).
As expected, the total belt length in each of Equations (16)–(18) is constant and inde-
pendent of the print head coordinates x and y. Moreover, the CoreH-bot routing has a
longer belt than the H-bot; for the CoreXY, each of the two belts is shorter than the belt used
for the CoreH-bot, but the latter has a shorter total belt length. While a longer belt increases
costs and can reduce stiffness, for the CoreH-bot, this was not found to be a significant
shortcoming during the design of a practical prototype (see Section 4).
From these results, we define the reachable workspace (RW), namely, the set of positions
for point P that are compatible with the physical limits of the mechanism. For all routings,
it is found that the section of the workspace on the x–y plane is a rectangle defined by

x ∈ [ xmin , xmax ]
(19)
y ∈ [ymin , ymax ].

The RW is defined by the condition that all belt segments must have a strictly positive
length at each allowable position. We disregard other possible conditions that may restrict
the workspace, such as the range of the P joints or the interference between rigid compo-
nents in the routing, as these issues can be avoided in the design phase. From the results in
Table 1, it is found that the RW of the CoreH-bot is given by

x ∈ [r, W − r ], xmax − xmin = W − 2r

 
d d . (20)
y∈ , D− , ymax − ymin = D − d
2 2

For comparison, the RW for both the H-bot and the CoreXY routings is given by

x ∈ [2r, W − 2r ], xmax − xmin = W − 4r

. (21)
y ∈ [r, D − d + r ], ymax − ymin = D − d

It is, thus, found that the CoreH-bot has a slightly larger workspace area in the x–y
plane (for a given footprint W × D) with respect to the other routings. In a practical design,
dimensions W and D will be much larger than r and d (which are not shown to scale in the
figures, for clarity); thus, the projection of the RW in the horizontal plane almost coincides
with the total footprint W × D, as shown by Equation (20), if r and d are disregarded. This
is unlike most parallel mechanisms, in which the RW is much smaller than the footprint due
to interferences and joint limits. The fact that the RW is rectangular is also an advantage in
the design phase; the RW of the print head with respect to the build platform (considering
the z-axis motion applied to the platform in an XY head design) is a rectangular cuboid.
The transmission error may also be of interest; we, thus, consider the effect of errors
dθi in the angular positions of the actuated pulleys on the positioning error dp = [dx, dy] T
of the print head. The errors in the positions of the actuators are due to inevitable limits on
the accuracy of the control system; it appears reasonable to assume that these positioning
errors have a known maximum absolute value, thus |dθi | ≤ dθmax for all i. We then seek
the maximum possible error on the print head position for errors on the actuator positions
within the expected range; namely,
Machines 2022, 10, 542 14 of 24

dpmax = max {kdpk2 } (22)

kdθk∞ ≤dθmax

where k•k∞ and k•k2 are the Chebyshev and the Euclidean norms of (•), respectively,
while dθ = [dθ1 , dθ4 , dθ8 , dθ11 ] is the vector of actuator errors. The relationship between dp
and dθ can be derived from Equation (10), considering infinitesimal displacements dθi and
assuming ri = r for all i. We finally obtain

1
dx = (− rdθ1 − rdθ4 +rdθ8 + r dθ11 )
4 (23)
1
dy = (+ rdθ1 − rdθ4 −rdθ8 + r dθ11 )
4
under the constraint on the input errors, derived from Equation (11), that

rdθ1 − rdθ4 + rdθ8 − rdθ11 = 0. (24)

It can be proven, then, that

dpmax = dθmax krJk∞,2 = rdθmax (25)

using the induced matrix norm k•k∞,2 from [49], which had similarly been introduced to
model the effect of actuation errors in a purely translational, parallel mechanism actuated
by flexible elements. Notice that the maximum error on the print head position is constant
and depends neither on the actual position of the mechanisms nor on the workspace size.
Therefore, the workspace can be fully utilized, as the accuracy is constant across the RW;
also, the CoreH-bot routing can, thus, be easily scaled for larger prototypes.

3. Static and Dynamic Analysis

Let us now consider the forces acting in the three belt routings previously described,
both at a given (static) position and during a general (dynamic) motion.
Under static conditions, only the belt preload T acts on the components: this preload,
manually applied during the assembly (see details in Section 4), is necessary to ensure that
the belt does not become slack. In our prototype, the preload was, thus, chosen to be large
enough so that the belt tensions will always be strictly positive, but not too large to avoid
unnecessarily increasing stresses, and thus, fatigue effects. For more details on the design
of belt-and-pulley systems with synchronous belts, we refer the reader to [34].
Under dynamic conditions, on the other hand, there are different loads (besides the
preload) acting in the routings; these are due to the torques applied on the actuated pulleys.
To study these forces, we make some preliminary simplifying assumptions, as follows:
(A) The belt is always taut and each belt segment is aligned either with the x or the y axis
(see Section 2.2, conditions I and II). Thus, the forces transmitted by the belt segments
to the pulleys are all directed along either the x or the y axis.
(B) Elastic and frictional effects between the pulleys and the belt may be disregarded,
and the force transmission is entirely due to the coupling between their profiles.
(C) Inertial torques on the pulleys and frictional torques in the R joints (between the
pulleys and the blocks on which they are mounted) can similarly be disregarded; thus,
for an idle pulley, the forces in the two belt segments attached to it are always equal.
For actuated pulleys, if the motor applies a torque, the tensions on the two segments
are different so that the pulley is in equilibrium.
(D) Disregarding nonlinear force effects, the superposition principle applies; thus, we
consider only two dynamic motions, namely, those along the x and the y axes, with the
EE at a generic position. The results obtained will then be valid for a generic dynamic
motion, and with the EE at any pose within the workspace, also considering that the
Jacobian J, as defined in Equation (1), is constant.
(E) Under static conditions, the belt tension in each segment is constant and equal to T.
Machines 2022, 10, 542 15 of 24

(F) Under dynamic conditions, the belt tension changes with respect to the preload T.
Some belt segments are under higher tension, as they are “pulled” by the closest actu-
ated pulley, which rotates in a direction such that the corresponding displacements ∆li
will be towards the said pulley. Other segments are instead “pushed” by an actuated
pulley, such that the displacement ∆li is away from said pulley; thus, the tension in
these segments will be lower. We assume that the changes in tension for the pulled and
pushed segments are all constant and equal to +∆T and −∆T, respectively. Finally,
some belt segments may be pushed and pulled at the same time; we assume that their
tension does not change but remains equal to the preload T.
As an example, in Figure 7, we show a simplified overconstrained routing, with one
DoF and two actuated pulleys. In Figure 7a, the mechanism is in static equilibrium,
and all belt segments have a tension equal to the preload T. In Figure 7b, on the
other hand, a dynamic condition is shown, in which point P (of which the position p
defines the configuration of the routing) moves leftwards with velocity ṗ; the pulleys
rotate simultaneously at the same speed ω1 = ω2 . A force Fe is applied, opposite to ṗ:
this could be due to inertial effects (if ṗ is not constant) or to friction. The tension in
segment 1-P (from pulley 1 to P) increases by ∆T, the tension in segment 2-P decreases
by ∆T, while in 1-2 the tension remains the same; we then have Fe = 2∆T.
Among these simplifying assumptions, condition F is the strongest one. Admittedly,
in a real system, the belt tension variation is more complex than in our model; this variation
depends on the lengths of the toothed belt segments [34], thus, it also depends on the
Machines 2022, 1, 0
position of the EE. However, this approach greatly simplifies the force distribution analysis
15 of 24
in the routing; the results obtained are confirmed by the known properties of the CoreXY
and H-bot routings [10,20] and by experimental results on our prototype.
ṗ

T T T + ∆T T − ∆T ω2
1 P 2 1 P Fe 2
1P 2P 1P 2P
T ω1 T
12 12
(a) (b)

Figure 7.7.
Figure schematic
(a): (a): of a simple,
Schematic of 1-DoF, overactuated
a simple, 1-DoF,belt routing, under static
overactuated belt conditions.
routing, (b):
under static conditions.
same, under dynamic conditions. Belt tensions are also shown for both conditions.
(b): The same, under dynamic conditions. Belt tensions are also shown for both conditions.

A) We
The now
belt is proceed
always tauttoand study thesegment
each belt force transmission
is aligned either of the
with thethree routings in Figure 6.
x or the
y-axis (see Subsec. 2.2, conditions I and III). Thus, the forces transmitted by the belt
We consider the two mobile components (bar and print head) separately under static
segments to the pulleys are all directed along either the x or the y axis.
conditions:
B) thus,
Elastic and all belt
frictional segments
effects between the have theand
pulleys same tension
the belt Considering the CoreH-bot
may beT.disregarded,
bar specifically,
and the force from Figure
transmission 8a, it is
is entirely dueapparent that between
to the coupling the total force
their acting on it is zero, as its
profiles.
C) Inertial torques
components alongon thethexpulleys
and y and axes frictional
are both torques
given in the
by RTjoints
+ T (between
+ T + Tthe − T − T − T − T = 0;
pulleys and the blocks on which they are mounted) can similarly be disregarded:
similarly, the x and y components of the force on the print
thus, for an idle pulley, the forces in the two belt segments attached to it are always
head (Figure 8b) are both zero.
We define the torques τ and
equal. For actuated pulleys,Bif2 the motor τB3 applies a torque, the tensions on the two axis, respectively)
in the P joints (along the y and the x
with respect to the origin O of the coordinate
segments are different so that the pulley is in equilibrium. system in Figure 6; torques are taken as
D) Disregarding nonlinear force effects, the superposition principle applies: thus, we
positive in the counterclockwise direction. We also define the coordinates x Pi and y Pi of the
consider only two dynamic motions, namely those along the x and the y axes, with
centerthe
ofEEthe
at ai-th pulley
generic after
position. Thethe definitions
results thus obtained in will
Section
then be2.2. From
valid Figure 8a, we find
for a generic
dynamic motion and with the EE at
any pose within the
workspace, also considering



that the
− τB3 =
τB2 Jacobian − T x P2 in−Eq.
J, as defined
r (1),
− isTconstant.
y P2 + r − T x P14 − r − T y P14 + r





E) Under static conditions,+ Tthex Pbelt
10
r − in
−tension T each
y P10segment
− r +is Tconstantx P12 − r equal
and − TtoyT. P12 − r
F) Under dynamic conditions, the belt
tension changes
with respect to the
preload T.

Some belt segments+are T under
x P9 +higher
r +tension,
T y P9as−they r are+ T“pulled”
x P7 +by r the T y P7 − r
+closest
actuated pulley, which




(26)
− Trotates
x P3 +in ra direction
+ T ysuch that the corresponding displace-
P3 + r − T x P5 + r + T y P5 + r
ments ∆li will be towards  the said pulley.

Other segments
are instead “pushed”

by

an actuated pulley, = Tsuchxthat
P12 − thex displacement
P14 + x P10∆l− i isxaway
P2 +from x P9said
− xpulley:
P3 + x P7 − x P5
thus,
the tension in these segments will be
lower. We assume that
the changes in
tension

+ y P3segments
for the pulled and pushed − y P2 are +allyconstant
P5 − y Pand 14
+equaly Pto − y and+
7 +∆TP12 −∆T,y P9 − y P10
respectively. Finally, some belt segments may be pushed and pulled at the same time:
and we assume that their tension does not change but remains equal to the preload T.
As an example, we show in Fig. 7 a simplified overconstrained routing, with one
DoF and two actuated pulleys. In Fig. 7(a), the mechanism is in static equilibrium,
and all belt segments have a tension equal to the preload T. In Fig. 7(b), on the other
hand, a dynamic condition is shown, in which point P (whose position p defines
the configuration of the routing) moves leftwards with velocity ṗ; the pulleys rotate
simultaneously at the same speed ω1 = ω2 . A force Fe is applied, opposite to ṗ:
Machines 2022, 10, 542 16 of 24

Machines 2022, 1, 0




16 of 24


τB3 = T y P13 + r + T y P13 − r − T y P6 + r − T y P6 − r = 2T y P13 − y P6 . (27)

Here and in the following, we assume that all pulleys have the same radius r.
T

T T T T

10
12 9
T T 13 P τB3 6
7
T T T T
Bar
τB2 τB3
T T T T
5
T T Print r
14 3 head
2
r

T T T T T
(a) (b)

Figure 8.8.
Figure free-body
(a):(a): diagramdiagram
Free-body of the bar of
ofthe CoreH-bot,
the bar of theunder static conditions;
CoreH-bot, underfor clarity,
static the
conditions; for clarity,
belt is “cut” in separate segments, to illustrate the force distribution. (b): same, for the print head.
the belt is “cut” in separate segments to illustrate the force distribution. (b): The same for the
print head.
We now proceed to study the force transmission of the three routings in Fig. 6. We
consider
Fromthe two mobile components
Equation (bar and
(27), we find print
that thehead) separately
torque τB3 isunder
zerostatic
(and conditions:
thus, in static conditions,
thus, all belt segments have the same tension T. Considering the CoreH-bot bar specifically,
no torque is applied to the horizontal P joint) if and only if y
from Fig. 8(a) it is apparent that the total force acting on it is zero, as its components P13
= , that is, if the centers
y Palong
6
of pulleys 6 and 13 are horizontally aligned.
the x and y axes are both given by T + T + T + T − T − T − T − T Then, τ B2= 0; similarly, the x and P joints) holds if
= 0 (for the vertical
y components of the force on the print head (Fig. 8(b)) are both zero.
We define x P14 , τB2 and τB3 xinP10
x P12the=torques the= x P2 , (along the y xand
P joints P9 the 3
, respectively)
= xx Paxis, x P7 = x P5 (28)
with respect to the origin O of the coordinate system in Fig. 6; torques are taken as positive
y P3 = y P2 , y P5 = y P14 , y =y , y = y P10 . (29)
in the counterclockwise direction. We also define the coordinatesP7x Pi andP12 y Pi of the centerP9
of the i-th pulley, after the definitions in Subsec. 2.2. From Fig. 8(a), we thus find
These constraints, which
define
the alignment
of the
mobile pulleys, are easily in-
τB2 − τB3 = − T x P2 − r − T y P2 + r − T x P14 − r − T y P14 + r
troduced in a practical design,
thus, we
applied
them in our
prototype; for simplicity of
+ T x P10 − r − T y P10 − r + T x P12 − r − T y P12 − r
representation, the CoreH-bot
schematics
in this work

show
routings where the above con-
+ T x + r + T y P9 − r + T x P7 + r + T y P7 − r
straints are respected.P9Similar
constraints
can also
be found
for the CoreXY (26) and the H-bot.
− T x P3 + r + T y P3 + r − T x P5 + r + T y P5 + r
We now consider  dynamic
motions
along the
coordinate
axes, as shown in Figure 9.
= T x P12 − x P14 + x P10 − x P2 + x P9 − x P3 + x P7 − x P5
In the figure, each belt segment
shows
the sign of
the corresponding
 change in tension.
+ y P3 − y P2 + y P5 − y P14 + y P7 − y P12 + y P9 − y P10
Thus, for instance, all segments denoted by “+” have tension T + ∆T, while those denoted
 
and“0” remain at the same tension T. An external force F = F , F T acts to oppose the
by e ex ey






motion,
τB3 =such T y P13as+inr Figure
+ T y P13 7b;
− r the
− Ttorques
y P6 + r −τi Tatythe
P6 − actuated
r = 2T y P13 pulleys
− y P6 have (27)the same directions
as the corresponding velocities ωi . Applying hypothesis C, one can then find the τi . For
Here and in the following, we assume that all pulleys have the same radius r.
instance, during a motion along the x axis, the torque applied by the belt on pulley 1 is
From Eq. 27, we find that the torque τB3 is zero (and thus, in static conditions, no
rT − ∆Tto) the
− ris( Tapplied
torque = r∆T (in the
horizontal counterclockwise
P joint) if and only if y P13 =sense),
y P6 , that where the first
is, if the centers of and second term
on the 6left-hand
pulleys side are due
and 13 are horizontally to the
aligned. tensions
Then, in segments
τB2 = 0 (for the vertical P 1–2 andholds
joints) 14–1,
if respectively. This
torque is balanced
x P12 = x P14 , by the motor
x P10 = x P2 , torque τx1P.9 By= x Pinspection
, x Pof =Figure
x P5 9a,b,
(28) it is found that in
3 7
fact all torques have
y P3 = y P2 , magnitude r∆T
y P5 = y P14 , for both motions
y P7 = y P12 , shown.
y P9 = y P10 (29)
From Equations (8) and (9) and the principle of kinematic-static duality [50], it is
These constraints,
found that which define the alignment of the mobile pulleys, are easily introduced in
a practical design, thus we applied them in our prototype; for simplicity of representation,
W = MT τ (30)
 T
in which W = τ13 , Fex , Fey is the external wrench to be balanced, defined by the torque τ13
(acting on pulley 13) and the forces Fex and Fey (on the print head), while τ = [τ1 , τ4 , τ8 , τ11 ] T
is the vector of motor torques. For the components of the force Fe , we find
Machines 2022, 10, 542 17 of 24

1
Fex = (−τ1 − τ4 + τ8 + τ11 ) (31)
r
Machines 2022, 1, 0 17 of 24
1
Fey = (−τ1 − 3τ4 − 3τ8 − τ11 ). (32)
r

ω11 , τ11 ω8 , τ8 ω11 , τ11 ω8 , τ8

8 8
11 11
0 0 + +
− + 0 0
12 10 12 10
9 9
0 +
13 ṗ P 6 7 13 P 6 7
− + 0 0

14 − + 14 0 0
Fe 5 ṗ 5
0 −
− y 2 3 + 0
y 2 3 0
0 0 − −
1 x 4 1 x Fe 4
ω1 , τ1 ω4 , τ4 ω1 , τ1 ω4 , τ4
O O
W W
(a) (b)

Figure (a):force
9.(a):
Figure 9. Force distribution
distribution in the CoreH-bot,
in the CoreH-bot, as the print as the
head print
moves head
along themoves along(b):
+ x direction. the + x direction.
same, for the + y direction. The torques and angular speeds of the motors are also shown.
(b): The same for the +y direction. The torques τi and angular speeds ωi of the motors are also shown.
τi ω i

We can disregard
the CoreH-bot schematicsτin 13 ,this
which,
work after
show hypothesis
routings where C, the
willabove
be negligible
constraints in arepractical cases,
since, during
respected. operation,
Similar constraints nocan torque
also beisfound
applied onCoreXY
for the pulleyand 13.the H-bot.
We now consider
Substituting τi = dynamic
±r∆Tmotions (wherealong the coordinate
the sign depends axes,
on the as direction,
shown in Fig. as9.shown
In in Figure 9
the figure, each belt segment shows the sign of the corresponding change
in Equations (31) and (32), it is found that, for a motion along the x-axis, one has Fex = 4∆T in tension: thus,
for instance, all segments denoted by “+” have tension T + ∆T, while those denoted by
and Fey = 0; for a motion along the y-axis, it holds  Fex = T 0 and Fey = 4∆T. Similarly,
“0” remain at the same tension T. An external force Fe = Fex , Fey acts to oppose the
for both the H-bot and the CoreXY design, from
motion, like in Fig. 7(b); the torques τi at the actuated pulleys have the Equation (1),
same one derives Fe = 1r J−T τ,
directions
T
inaswhich τ = [τ1 , τvelocities
the corresponding 4 ] . However, the motor
ωi . Applying torques
hypothesis C, oneare
cannotthenthe findsamethe τi :inforall cases; thus,
during a motion along the x-axis, it holds Fe = 2∆T for the H-bot, while foristhe Core-XY, it
instance, during a motion along the x axis, the torque applied by the belt on pulley 1
rT − r ( T − ∆T ) = r∆T (in the counterclockwise sense), where the first and second term
isonFethe 4∆T. For
=left-hand both the H-bot and the Core-XY, it holds Fe =
side are due to the tensions in segments 1–2 and 14–1,
4∆T during a motion along
respectively. This
the y axis.
torque is balanced by the motor torque τ1 . By inspection of Figs. 9(a) and 9(b), it is found
We
that in now
fact consider
all torques havethe torquesr∆T,
magnitude acting under
for both dynamic
motions shown. conditions. For the CoreH-bot,
From Eqs.
the torque τB3 (8)
in and
the (9) and the
P joint principlethe
between of kinematic-static
print head and duality
the bar [50],isit zero,
is found if ythat
P13 = y P6 ; similar
conditions are derived for the other two Troutings. We are then interested in the torque τB2
W=M τ (30)
between the bar  and the  T lateral guides, which can damage the vertical P joints in the long
in which
run and W = τ13a, Frotation
causes ex , Fey isofthe external
the wrench
bar, thus, to be balanced,
reducing defined
printing by the torque
accuracy. We firstτ13 compute the
T
(acting on0 pulley 13) and
torque τB2 due to the forces from the forces F and
ex the eyF (on the print head), while
belt segments; the total torque τ = [ τ , ,
1 4 τB8 is
τ τ , τ11 ]the sum of both
2
is the vector of motor torques. For the components of the force F , we find
τB0 2 and the torques due to the other forces acting on thee bar. Assuming that the conditions
1
in Equations (28) and (29)Fex are = fulfilled,
(−τ1 − τ4we + τcan
8 + τcompute
11 ) τB0 2 during motion (31)by considering
r
only the torque terms due to the 1 belt tension change ∆T; the terms due to T, as reported
Fey = (−τ1 − 3τ4 − 3τ8 − τ11 ) (32)
in Equation (26), will cancel each
r other out. For motions along the x- and the y-axis, we
find,
We can respectively,
disregard τ13 , which, after hypothesis C, will be negligible in practical cases, since,
during operation, no torque is applied
on pulley 13.



τB0 2 =τi+= ∆T
Substituting ±r∆Tx P(where
14
− r the ∆T depends
+sign the∆T
y P14 + ron − + ∆Tin yFig.
x P12 −asrshown
direction, −r
P12 9)
in Eqs. (31) and (32),

a motion along
the x-axis, one has


+it∆T
is found
x P7 +that,
r for+ ∆T y P7 − r − ∆T x P5 + r F+ = 4∆T
ex ∆T y Pand
5
+r (33)
Fey = 0; for a motion along the y-axis,
it holds Fex = 0 and Fey = 4∆T. Similarly, for both the
=2∆Tdesign,
H-bot and the CoreXY y P5 +from
y P7 Eq. (1) one derives Fe = 1r J−T τ, in which τ = [τ1 , τ4 ]T .
Machines 2022, 10, 542 18 of 24

and




τB0 2 = + ∆T x P10 − r − ∆T y P10 − r + ∆T x P9 + r + ∆T y P9 − r





+ ∆T x P3 + r − ∆T y P3 + r + ∆T x P2 − r + ∆T y P2 + r (34)


=2∆T x P2 + x P3
where we simplified the results through Equations (28) and (29). For the x-axis motion
in Figure 9a, the total torque τB2 is τB0 2 plus the torque due to the reaction force in the
guides. This force has magnitude Fe = 4∆T (but opposite orientation) and is distributed
between the two vertical P joints, which introduces one redundant constraint along the x
direction. Therefore, the actual force distribution in the P joints depends on the stiffness of
the components; however, the total reaction force can be assumed as applied in the middle
of the P joints, thus, its line of action passes through point P. Thus, we finally obtain



τB2 = τB0 2 − Fe × p = 2∆T y P5 + y P7 − 4∆Ty = 2∆T y P5 + y P7 − 2y (35)

which is identically zero if

1

y= y P5 + y P7 (36)
2
namely, if the bar is symmetrical along its horizontal axis (and thus, y P5 = y − d2 and
y P7 = y + d2 ). Again, this constraint is easily introduced in the design phase.
For the y-axis motion in Figure 9b, a force −4∆T is applied by the print head to the
bar through the horizontal P joint; this force, too, causes a torque on the bar, thus,



τB2 = τB0 2 − Fe × p = 2∆T x P2 + x P3 − 4∆Tx = 2∆T x P2 + x P3 − 2x . (37)

For comparison, we also analyzed the other two routings; only the final results are
presented here, for brevity. For the H-bot, the torque τB2 during a motion along the x axis is


τB2 = −∆T d + x P2 + x P3 (38)

with d as defined in Section 2.2. On the other hand, under the same conditions, no torque is
applied on the P joints for the CoreXY, if the condition in Equation (36) is fulfilled. For a
motion along the y axis, all three routings develop the same torque, shown in Equation (37).
The torque in Equation (38) is
constant and does not depend on the EE position; in this
case, τB2 is close to −∆T x P2 + x P3 = −∆T [2r + ( L − 2r )] = −∆TW and is strictly larger
than this value (we ignore the term proportional to d, which in a practical design will be
small with respect to W). The torque in Equation
(37), on the other hand, is variable: at a
minimum, it is equal to zero when x = 21 x P2 + x P3 = 12 W, namely, when the EE is moving
along the vertical axis of symmetry of the workspace. The maximum absolute value of the
torque in Equation (37) is close to 2∆TW, which is reached when the EE is moving close to
the left or the right edge of the RW defined in Equation (20); notice that this torque will be
in fact smaller than 2∆TW, as it can be neither x = 0 nor x = W. In any case, these larger
torque values are limited to extreme operation cases and can be avoided when positioning
the components to be printed close to the center of the workspace if their dimensions are
not too large.
In all three routings, the total torque due to all motors is zero for a motion along
the y axis, as the motor torques cancel each other pairwise; for a motion along the x axis,
the torque is (in absolute value) 2r∆T for the H-bot and 4r∆T for both the Core-XY and
the Core-Hbot. This unbalanced torque is applied to the frame; while it does not directly
influence the motion of the print head, it can cause vibrations if the printer frame has low
stiffness, especially during highly dynamic operations (frequent in high-speed 3D printers),
in which the direction of motion changes continuously.
To summarize, the dynamic behavior of the CoreH-bot is equivalent to that of the
CoreXY, for all types of motion, and leads to a general reduction in the unbalanced torques
applied to the prismatic joints with respect to the simpler H-bot design. It is well known [10]
Machines 2022, 10, 542 19 of 24

that the torque τB2 causes a racking motion of the bar, thus, a degrading performance in the
H-bot with respect to the CoreXY; our CoreH-bot design maintains the CoreXY advantages
while keeping a fully planar structure, as discussed in Section 2.1.
Note that the control system could also be used to mitigate the unbalanced torques,
as explored in [17]. However, the control design can only reduce (but not eliminate)
unbalance effects on an intrinsically unbalanced mechanism. Moreover, advanced control
strategies can also be applied to our CoreH-bot design to further improve performance.

4. CoreH-Bot: Our Prototype

A prototype has been developed in our laboratory to demonstrate the effectiveness
of the concept proposed here. The design guidelines were to minimize the cost, size
and corresponding printer footprint, while also guaranteeing ease of assembly and high
dynamic performances. The workspace is a rectangular cuboid, as shown in Section 2.2. Its
minimum dimensions are set as 300 mm × 300 mm × 300 mm.
The CAD model is shown in Figures 10 and 11. In our design, the P joints (on the
lateral guides and on the moving bar) are precision ground bars (Figure 10a) on which
linear bearings move with low friction. The belt has the “GT2” profile, commonly applied
Machines 2022, 1, 0 19 of 24
for 3D printers; this belt, made of polyurethane with tension members along its length,
offers high stiffness and low friction coefficients, as the exterior is coated in PTFE [34].

Motors Frame
Print Build
11 head platform
8
Belt Bar

x-axis
P joint
y
1 y-axis 4
x P joints Power
Ball
screw supply
(a) (b)

Figure
Figure (a): (a):
10.10. The CoreH-bot
the CoreH-bot belt routing,
belt routing, from ourfrom
CAD our
modelCAD model
(section view(section view (b):
from below). from thebelow). (b): The
printer
printerframe
frameandandthe mechanism for z-axis
the mechanism formotion;
z-axis the belt routing
motion; is not
the belt shownis
routing here,
notfor clarity.here, for clarity.
shown

with respect to W). The torque in Eq. (37),

on the other hand, is variable: at a minimum, it
is equal to zero when x = 12 x P2 + x P3 = 12 W, namely when the EE is moving along the
vertical axis of symmetry of the workspace. The maximum absolute value of the torque in
Eq. (37) is close to 2∆TW, which is reached when the EE is moving close to the left or the
right edge of the RW defined in Eq. (20); notice that this torque will be in fact smaller than
2∆TW, as it can be neither x = 0 nor x = W. In any case, these larger torque values are
limited to extreme operation cases and can be avoided when positioning the components
to be printed close to the center of the workspace if their dimensions are not too large.
In all three routings, the total torque due to all motors is zero for a motion along
the y axis, as the motor torques cancel each other pairwise; for a motion along the x axis,
the torque is (in absolute value) 2r∆T for the H-bot and 4r∆T for both the Core-XY and
the Core-Hbot. This unbalanced torque is applied to the frame; while it does not directly
influence the motion of the print head, it can cause vibrations if the printer frame has low
stiffness, especially during highly dynamic operations (frequent in high-speed 3D printers)
in which the direction of motion changes continuously.
To summarize, the dynamic behavior of the CoreH-bot is equivalent to that of the
CoreXY, for all types of motion, and leads to a general reduction in the unbalanced torques
applied to the prismatic joints with respect to the simpler H-bot design. It is well known [10]
that the torque τB2 causes a racking motion of the bar, thus degrading performance in the
H-bot with respect to the CoreXY; our CoreH-bot design maintains the CoreXY advantages
while keeping
Figure a fully
11. Top viewplanar
(with structure, as discussed in Subsec. 2.1.
the belt routing).
Note that the control system could also be used to mitigate the unbalanced torques, as
explored in [17]. However, control design can only reduce (but not eliminate) unbalance
effects on an intrinsically-unbalanced mechanism. Moreover, advanced control strategies
can also be applied to our CoreH-bot design, to further improve performance.
Machines 2022, 10, 542 20 of 24

Unlike the CoreXY and the H-bot, our design has a closed belt loop. Thus, to apply
the required preload T (Section 3), the motors, mounted on slots, can be moved later-
ally along the y axis (Figure 10a); this does not change the kinematic properties of the
routing, but allows us to regulate the preload by hand during assembly. The belt also
defines the workspace size. In our design, we take W = D (see Table 2) for simplicity.
Thus, from Equation (16), the belt length is approximately 8W, disregarding the pulley
radius r u 6.3 mm and the bar width d = 52.4 mm. From Equation (20), we need at least
W > 300 mm to guarantee the required workspace. In the end, we opted for W = 470 mm
and a belt having a length of u 3600 mm.

Table 2. Main design parameters for the prototype.

Definition Value
Width W (equal to depth D) 470 mm
Pulley radius r at pitch circle 6.35 mm
Distance d (pulleys on bar) 52.4 mm
Distance e (pulleys on head) 80 mm
Heated bed (print area size) 430 × 400 mm
Motion range (along z axis) 335 mm
Ball screw diameter and pitch M12 × 4
Diameter of x–y plane bars 12 mm
Total length of belt loop 3600 mm
GT2 belt pitch and height 2 × 9 mm
Frame profile (cross section) 30 × 30 mm

The actuated pulleys 1, 4, 8 and 11 are connected to stepper motors: these motors
are commonly employed in commercial 3D printers as they are both cheap and accurate
(especially when they have to maintain a given angular position) and allow us to use
open-loop control. The relatively smaller torque of the stepper motors (as compared to
servo motors) is not an issue here, since only small forces are applied. As discussed in
Section 2, the motors are pairwise electronically coupled; differentiating Equation (12) with
respect to time, we find ω1 = −ω8 and ω4 = −ω11 , since the pulleys have the same radius
r. This could be achieved by using only two motors, attached, for instance, to pulleys 1
and 4, to which the other actuated pulleys 8 and 11 are connected (respectively) through
a mechanical transmission system, for instance, another belt and pulley drive. However,
this approach would complicate the design and increase the size of the routing (in the
direction of the z axis), which would no longer be fully planar. Given the low cost of
stepper motors, it is in fact cheaper to install four separate motors, which are pairwise
controlled by connecting them in series. Thus, motors 1 and 8 receive the same control
signal, but with opposite phasing (motors 4 and 11 are similarly connected). This way, we
can use a commercial controller board for 3D printers. As shown in Equation (14), our
design is kinematically equivalent to a CoreXY routing, of which the control system is
already implemented in commercially available control boards.
Applying the Cartesian XY head concept (Figure 2b), the CoreH-bot is fixed on top
of a frame (in the shape of a rectangular cuboid) and provides the motion of the print
head along the x and y horizontal axes. The z-axis motion is instead applied to the build
platform, which is supported on its sides by two motorized ball screws (Figure 10b); this
design is thus overconstrained, but offers better stiffness and accuracy. The platform is a
commercial heated bed of size 430 mm × 400 mm to reduce thermal shock on the printed
parts; its vertical position can also be fine-tuned with support springs that can be regulated
by hand, to ensure a uniform distance from the nozzle while printing.
On the printer, a commercial filament extruder is mounted, having a motor that “pulls
in” the filament to be melted. Mounting the extruder motor on the print head increases the
moving inertia. While other designs with a frame-fixed motor exist (for instance, where
the motor pushes the filament through a flexible tube), these latter have lower flexibility in
terms of materials that can be used for printing, thus, we opted for a more standard design.
Machines 2022, 10, 542 21 of 24

The other components in our design, which were not directly available on the market,
were custom-made in Ergal, a lightweight, high-resistance aluminum alloy. The final
Machines 2022, 1, 0 prototype is shown in Figure 12. Since the CoreH-bot design has the 20same of 24 dynamic
properties of the CoreXY, as shown in Section 3, it is expected that it will also provide similar
performances in terms of speed and accuracy. Indeed, our simple prototype, designed
exclusively
Motor for demonstration purposes with materials available in our laboratory, has been
Limit switches Definition Value
able to print at high speed while keeping an accuracy comparable to commercial desktop
supports
mm
devices; the nozzle can deposit material with a speed
Width W (equal oftoup to 250
depth s , mm
D) 470 comparable to that
of similar prototypes [15] and of commercial Pulley radius r at pitch circle 6.35 mm with calipers
3D printers. Measurements
indicate that the dimensional tolerance of the printed components is around 0.1 mm, which
Distance d (pulleys on bar) 52.4 mm
is comparable with that of standard desktop printers. The stepper motors we used have a
Distance e (pulleys on head) 80 mm
maximum angular error dθmax u 0.9◦ , which is half of the angular step. From Equation (25),
we then obtain dpmax u 0.099 mm, whichHeated bed (print
is close to thearea size) 430 × 400
dimensional mm
tolerance. While
other effects influence the print accuracy beyond error transmission, the results from both
Motion range (along z axis) 335 mm
the tests and the theoretical model confirm that diameter
Ball screw the design tolerances
and pitch M12 ×are
4 adequate for
the task. Further preliminary tests were also carried out, in which
Diameter of x–y plane bars 12 mm the print head moved
(without printing) at up to 300 mm s without issue. It is expected that, with further design
Total length of belt loop 3600 mm
optimization, higher speeds could be achieved, for instance, by reducing the moving weight
GT2 belt pitch and height 2 × 9 mm
and increasing the motor sizes. The total cost
Vertical of the materials is u 1500 €: while more
expensive than mass-produced Frame
printers for
guides the profile
consumer (cross market,
section) this
30 ×cost
30 mmis comparable
with similar prototypes [16,25] and could easily be reduced through a manufacturing-
Figure 11. Top
oriented view (with the belt routing).
redesign. Table 2. Main design parameters for the prototype.

Motor slots

Lateral guides

Control
panel

(a) (b)

Figure
Figure (a):(a):
12.12. topTop
viewview ofassembled
of our our assembled prototype.
prototype. (b):
(b): same, The
from same
a side from a side view.
view.

A video of the robot performing an example print is available in the multimedia

bearings move for
attachment withthis
low work
friction.(see
Thevideo
belt hasabstract
the “GT2” profile, commonly
attached appliedThe
to the paper). for 3Daccuracy of
printers;
the prints was found to be comparable with that of high-end 3D printershigh
this belt, made of polyurethane with tension members along its length, offers available on
stiffness and low friction coefficients, as the exterior is coated in PTFE [34].
the market.
Unlike the CoreXY and the H-bot, our design has a closed belt loop. Thus, to apply the
required preload T (Sec. 3), the motors, mounted on slots, can be moved laterally along the
5. Conclusions and Future Work
y axis (Fig. 10(a)); this does not change the kinematic properties of the routing, but allows
In this work,
us to regulate we presented
the preload a novelassembly.
by hand during concept forTheabelt
3D also
printer, specifically
defines for the xy-plane
the workspace
motion
size. In ourstage,
design,which controls
we take W = Dthe (seeprint head
Tab. 2), for movement through
simplicity: thus, pulleys
from Eqs. (16), and synchronous
the belt
belts.isThis
length concept, 8W,
approximately which we calledthe
disregarding CoreH-bot,
pulley radius combines
r ≊ 6.3 mm attractive features
and the bar width of similar
= 52.4 mm.
d existing From it
systems: Eq.
is (20),
bothwe need
fully at least
planar > 300compact)
W thus,
(and mm, to guarantee the required
and partially balanced during
workspace. In the end, we opted for W = 470 mm and a belt having
motion, which reduces vibrations and increases printing accuracy. Therefore, length of ≊ 3600 mm.the proposed
The actuated pulleys 1, 4, 8, and 11 are connected to stepper motors: these motors
concept has interesting advantages in comparison to both the H-bot routing, which has
are commonly employed in commercial 3D printers, as they are both cheap and accurate
significant unbalanced torques, and to the CoreXY, which is not planar (and thus, more
(especially when they have to maintain a given angular position) and allow us to use
complex control.
open-loop to design). To the best
The relatively of our
smaller knowledge,
torque of steppernomotors
other (as
3Dcompared
printer has been proposed
to servo
with this
motors) concept.
is not Wehere,
an issue analyzed
since theonlykinematic,
small forces static, and dynamic
are applied. behavior
As discussed of the CoreH-
in Sec.
bot and compared it with known alternatives; a simple model allowed us to study the
Machines 2022, 10, 542 22 of 24

unbalanced torques on the bar, showing that in this regard, the CoreH-bot is comparable to
existing systems, while being more compact. We then developed a prototype to showcase
the effectiveness of the concept: despite having been realized merely for demonstration
purposes, and thus, being far from optimized, the prototype confirmed the theoretical
results in printing tests.
Our goal is to use the prototype developed both to verify the feasibility of the CoreH-
bot concept, with the aim of further industrial development and production for launch
in the 3D printer market, and to quickly produce plastic components for our day-to-day
needs in laboratory activities. The printer is currently under use in our lab at the University
of Bologna for standard desktop 3D printing of plastic parts.
In future work, we aim to test the upper limits of the print-head speed on standard
dynamic motions and to measure the printing accuracy on reference models. For instance,
it would be interesting to compare the performance of our design with the 3-DoF printer
in [51], which is also based on flexible elements (but has a different design concept),
by printing the same reference models proposed therein and measuring the dimensional
errors. Moreover, we will study the dynamics of the mechanism by taking the belt elasticity
into account to provide a more complete model and to analyze the effect of using a longer
belt. Finally, we aim to find the natural frequencies of the prototype, for instance, by a finite
element analysis or through an experimental modal analysis, to verify whether resonance
can be an issue during operation.

6. Patents
Parts of this work were patented in the following patent application: Idà, E.; Nanetti, F.;
Zani, M.: Dispositivo per la movimentazione di un organo estrusore di una macchina di manifattura
additiva. 20 October 2021, Italian Patent Application No. IT102021000026930.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, F.N. and E.I.; methodology, F.N. and E.I.; software, G.M.;
validation, F.N. and E.I.; formal analysis, E.I. and G.M.; investigation, F.N. and E.I.; resources, E.I.;
writing—original draft preparation, G.M.; writing—review and editing, E.I. and G.M.; visualization,
G.M.; supervision, E.I. and G.M.; project administration, E.I.; funding acquisition, E.I. All authors
have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Acknowledgments: The authors wish to thank Marco Zani and Mark One S.r.l. for their support in
the development of the prototype.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Pham, D.T.; Gault, R.S. A comparison of rapid prototyping technologies. Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf. 1998, 38, 1257–1287. [CrossRef]
2. Gibson, I.; Rosen, D.W.; Stucker, B.; Khorasani, M. Additive Manufacturing Technologies; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany,
2021. [CrossRef]
3. Kodama, H. Automatic method for fabricating a three-dimensional plastic model with photo-hardening polymer. Rev. Sci.
Instrum. 1981, 52, 1770–1773. [CrossRef]
4. Hull, C.W. Apparatus for Production of Three-Dimensonal Objects by Stereolithography. United States Patent US4575330A, 11
March, 1986. Available online: https://patents.google.com/patent/US4575330A/en (accessed on 17 June 2022).
5. Standard EN ISO/ASTM 52900:2021; Additive Manufacturing—General Principles—Fundamentals and Vocabulary. International
Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2021. Available online: https://www.iso.org/standard/74514.html
(accessed on 17 June 2022).
6. Wong, K.V.; Hernandez, A. A review of additive manufacturing. Int. Sch. Res. Not. 2012, 2012, 208760. [CrossRef]
7. Scott, J.; Gupta, N.; Weber, C.; Newsome, S.; Wohlers, T.; Caffrey, T. Additive Manufacturing: Status and Opportuni-
ties; Technical report; Science and Technology Policy Institute: Washington DC, USA, 2012. Available online: https:
//www.researchgate.net/profile/Justin-Scott-4/publication/312153354_Additive_Manufacturing_Status_and_Opportunities/
links/59e786db458515c3630f917b/Additive-Manufacturing-Status-and-Opportunities.pdf (accessed on 17 June 2022).
8. Ngo, T.D.; Kashani, A.; Imbalzano, G.; Nguyen, K.T.Q.; Hui, D. Additive manufacturing (3D printing): A review of materials,
methods, applications and challenges. Compos. Part B Eng. 2018, 143, 172–196. [CrossRef]
Machines 2022, 10, 542 23 of 24

9. Crump, S.S. Apparatus and Method for Creating Three-Dimensional Objects. United States Patent US5121329A, 9 June 1992.
Available online: https://patents.google.com/patent/US5121329A/en (accessed on 17 June 2022).
10. Shah, J.; Snider, B.; Clarke, T.; Kozutsky, S.; Lacki, M.; Hosseini, A. Large-scale 3D printers for additive manufacturing: Design
considerations and challenges. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2019, 104, 3679–3693. [CrossRef]
11. Campana, G.; Mele, M.; Ciotti, M.; Rocchi, A. Environmental impacts of self-replicating three-dimensional printers. Sustain.
Mater. Technol. 2021, 30, e00335. [CrossRef]
12. Ciotti, M.; Campana, G.; Mele, M. A review of the accuracy of thermoplastic polymeric parts fabricated by additive manufacturing.
Rapid Prototyp. J. 2021, 28, 358–389. [CrossRef]
13. Ligon, S.C.; Liska, R.; Stampfl, J.; Gurr, M.; Mülhaupt, R. Polymers for 3D printing and customized additive manufacturing.
Chem. Rev. 2017, 117, 10212–10290. [CrossRef]
14. Turner, B.N.; Strong, R.; Gold, S.A. A review of melt extrusion additive manufacturing processes: I. Process design and modeling.
Rapid Prototyp. J. 2014, 20, 192–204. [CrossRef]
15. Go, J.; Hart, A.J. Fast desktop-scale extrusion additive manufacturing. Addit. Manuf. 2017, 18, 276–284. [CrossRef]
16. Vasquez, J.; Twigg-Smith, H.; O’Leary, J.T.; Peek, N. Jubilee: An extensible machine for multi-tool fabrication. In Proceedings
of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Honolulu, HI, USA, 25–30 April 2020; Association for
Computing Machinery: Honolulu, HI, USA, 2020. [CrossRef]
17. Edoimioya, N.; Ramani, K.S.; Okwudire, C.E. Software compensation of undesirable racking motion of H-frame 3D printers
using filtered B-splines. Addit. Manuf. 2021, 47, 102290. [CrossRef]
18. Weikert, S.; Ratnaweera, R.; Zirn, O.; Wegener, K. Modeling and measurement of H-Bot kinematic systems. In Proceedings of the
26th Annual Meeting American Society for Precision Engineering, Denver, CO, USA, 18 November 2011; ASPE: Denver, CO,
USA, 2011. Available online: https://www.iwf.mavt.ethz.ch/ConfiguratorJM/publications/MODELING_A_132687166151936/
3314_mod.pdf (accessed on 17 June 2022).
19. Comb, J.W.; Swanson, W.J.; Crotty, J.L. Gantry assembly for Use in Additive Manufacturing System. United States Patent
US20130078073A1, 28 March 2013. Available online: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20130078073A1/en (accessed on 17
June 2022).
20. Peek, N.; Moyer, I. Popfab: A case for portable digital fabrication. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Tangible,
Embedded, and Embodied Interaction, Yokohama, Japan, 20–23 March 2017; Association for Computing Machinery: Yokohama,
Japan, 2017; pp. 325–329. [CrossRef]
21. Avdeev, A.R.; Shvets, A.A.; Torubarov, I.S. Investigation of kinematics of 3D printer print head moving systems. In Proceedings of
the 5th International Conference on Industrial Engineering (ICIE 2019), Sochi, Russia, 25–29 March 2019; Lect. Notes Mechanical
Engineering; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019; pp. 461–471. [CrossRef]
22. Clavel, R. ; Device for the Movement and Positioning of an Element in Space. United States Patent US4976582A, 11 December
1990. Available online: https://patents.google.com/patent/US4976582A/en (accessed on 17 June 2022).
23. Záda, V.; Belda, K. Structure design and solution of kinematics of robot manipulator for 3D concrete printing. IEEE Trans. Autom.
Sci. Eng. 2022 . [CrossRef]
24. Furuya, N.; Makino, H. Research and development of selective compliance assembly robot arm (1st report)—Characteristics of
the system. J. Jpn. Soc. Precis. Eng. 1980, 46, 1525–1531. [CrossRef]
25. Zhao, D.; Li, T.; Shen, B.; Jiang, Y.; Guo, W.; Gao, F. A multi-DOF rotary 3D printer: Machine design, performance analysis and
process planning of curved layer fused deposition modeling (CLFDM). Rapid Prototyp. J. 2020, 26, 1079–1093. [CrossRef]
26. Urhal, P.; Weightman, A.; Diver, C.; Bartolo, P. Robot assisted additive manufacturing: A review. Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf.
2019, 59, 335–345. [CrossRef]
27. Vu, D.S.; Foucault, S.; Gosselin, C.; Kövecses, J. Design of a locomotion interface for gait simulation based on belt-driven parallel
mechanisms. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), Seattle, WA, USA,
26–30 May 2015; IEEE: Seattle, WA, USA, 2015; pp. 1581–1586. [CrossRef]
28. Vu, D.S.; Kövecses, J.; Gosselin, C. Trajectory planning and control of a belt-driven locomotion interface for flat terrain walking
and stair climbing. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE World Haptics Conference (WHC), Munich, Germany, 6–9 June 2017; IEEE:
Fürstenfeldbruck, Germany, 2017; pp. 189–194. [CrossRef]
29. Gosselin, C.; Laliberté, T. On the development of a walking rehabilitation device with a large workspace. In Proceedings of the IEEE
2011 ICORR, Zurich, Switzerland, 29 June–1 July 2011; IEEE: Zurich, Switzerland, 2011. [CrossRef]
30. Gosselin, C.; Laliberté, T.; Mayer-St-Onge, B.; Foucault, S.; Lecours, A.; Duchaine, V.; Paradis, N.; Gao, D.; Menassa, R. A friendly
beast of burden—A human-assistive robot for handling large payloads. IEEE Robot. Autom. Mag. 2013, 20, 139–147. [CrossRef]
31. Forgó, Z.; Szilágyi, A. Dynamic modeling of new modular manipulators. In Proceedings of the 47st International Symposium
on Robotics, Munich, Germany, 21–22 June 2016; IEEE: Munich, Germany, 2016; pp. 515–520. Available online: https:
//ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/7559162 (accessed on 17 June 2022).
32. Forgó, Z.; Tolvaly-Roşca, F. Analytical and numerical model of low DOF manipulators. Proc. Technol. 2015, 19, 40–47. [CrossRef]
33. Zhu, J.; Li, B.; Mu, H.; Li, Q. Kinematic analysis of a flexible planar 2-DOF parallel manipulator. In Lecture Notes in Computer
Science, Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent Robotics and Applications (ICIRA 2019), Shenyang, China, 8–11 August
2019; Springer: Shenyang, China, 2019; Volume 11744, pp. 696–706. [CrossRef]
Machines 2022, 10, 542 24 of 24

34. Perneder, R.; Osborne, I. Handbook Timing Belts—Principles, Calculations, Applications; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2012.
[CrossRef]
35. Laliberté, T.; Gosselin, C.; Gao, D. Closed-loop transmission routings for Cartesian SCARA-type manipulators. In Proceedings
of the ASME 2010 IDETC/CIE, Montreal, QC, Canada, 15–18 August 2010; ASME: Montreal, QC, Canada, 2010; Volume 2,
pp. 281–290. [CrossRef]
36. Behzadipour, S. Kinematics and dynamics of a self-stressed Cartesian cable-driven mechanism. J. Mech. Des. 2009, 131, 061005.
[CrossRef]
37. Hong, D.W.; Cipra, R.J. A method for representing the configuration and analyzing the motion of complex cable-pulley systems.
J. Mech. Des. 2003, 125, 332–341. [CrossRef]
38. Webster, D.C. Recording Mechanism. United States Patent US2675291A, 13 April 1954. Available online: https://patents.google.
com/patent/US2675291A/en (accessed on 17 June 2022).
39. Sollmann, K.S.; Jouaneh, M.K.; Lavender, D. Dynamic modeling of a two-axis, parallel, H-frame-type XY positioning system.
IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatron. 2009, 15, 280–290. [CrossRef]
40. Rice, Q. X-Y Workhead Positioning Device. Great Britain patent GB2274719A, 1994. Available online: https://patents.google.
com/patent/GB2274719A/en (accessed on 17 June 2022).
41. Linhart, C.H. X-ray Apparatus Comprising a Film Cassette Which Is Displaceable in a Carrage. United States Patent US4961213A,
2 October 1990. Available online: https://patents.google.com/patent/US4961213A/en (accessed on 17 June 2022).
42. Kerschner, R.K. Differential Motor Drive for an XY Stage. United States Patent US6070480A, 2000. Available online: https:
//patents.google.com/patent/US6070480A/en (accessed on 17 June 2022).
43. Fustinoni, E. Apparatus for Laser Cutting and/or Marking. United States Patent US20070221621A1, 2007. Available online:
https://patents.google.com/patent/US20070221621A1/en (accessed on 17 June 2022).
44. Etcheparre, J.; Etcheparre, B. Device for Driving and Displacing a Beam Resting Upon Guide Rails, and One or More Carriages
Attached to the Beam. United States Patent US4315437A, 1982. Available online: https://patents.google.com/patent/US4315437
A/en (accessed on 17 June 2022).
45. Budzyn, B.L. Chain Drive System for Mobile Loading Platform or for Two- or Three-Dimensional Indexing. United States Patent
US3529481A, 1970. Available online: https://patents.google.com/patent/US3529481A/en (accessed on 17 June 2022).
46. Forgó, Z. Mathematical modelling of 4 DOF gantry type parallel manipulator. In Proceedings of the 41st International
Symposium on Robotics and 6th German Conference on Robotics, Munich, Germany, 7–9 June 2010; IEEE: Munich, Germany,
2010; pp. 1206–1211. Available online: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/5756939 (accessed on 17 June 2022).
47. Harada, T. Novel Schönflies motion parallel robot driven by differential mechanism. Int. J. Mech. Eng. Robot. Res. 2020, 9, 106–110.
[CrossRef]
48. Chen, Y.; Squires, A.; Seifabadi, R.; Xu, S.; Agarwal, H.K.; Bernardo, M.; Pinto, P.A.; Choyke, P.; Wood, B.; Tse, Z.T.H. Robotic
system for MRI-guided focal laser ablation in the prostate. IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatronics 2017, 22, 107–114. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
49. Mottola, G.; Gosselin, C.; Carricato, M. Effect of actuation errors on a purely-translational spatial cable-driven parallel robot.
In Proceedings of the 9th IEEE CYBER, Bengkulu, Indonesia, 22–23 September 2021; IEEE: Suzhou, China, 2019; pp. 701–707.
[CrossRef]
50. Waldron, K.J.; Hunt, K.H. Series-parallel dualities in actively coordinated mechanisms. Int. J. Robot. Res. 1991, 10, 473–480.
[CrossRef]
51. Zi, B.; Wang, N.; Qian, S.; Bao, K. Design, stiffness analysis and experimental study of a cable-driven parallel 3D printer. Mech.
Mach. Theory 2019, 132, 207–222. [CrossRef]