## 5 Verification Experiments
### Verification of the Configuration Optimization Method  
Under the experimental conditions in Section 5.1, the \(x_{\text{end}}\) and \(y_{\text{end}}\) are changed to realize the vibration suppression with different configurations of the clamping robot. Then, the vibration suppression effects of different configurations are analyzed and predicted by the dynamics model, and the result is represented in Figure 16.  
Figure 16 is the acceleration response plane when \(z_{\text{end}}\) = 1.03 m in Figure 11. In order to show the amplitude of the response more intuitively, a vertical coordinate named acceleration is added in this figure on the basis of retaining color features. In addition, the two axes in the horizontal plane are \(x_{\text{end}}\) and \(y_{\text{end}}\). The responses in Figure 15 show a trend of gradually decreasing from the highest point \(P_{\text{max}}\) to the surrounding, and its overall change law is almost consistent with that shown in Figure 11. Under current conditions, the response is up to 67.98 m/s\({}^{2}\) of the \(P_{\text{max}}\), and the response can be reduced by 45.35% to 37.15 m/s\({}^{2}\) after configuration optimization of the clamping robot. At the maximum response point \(P_{\text{max}}\), the corresponding \(x_{\text{end}}\) of the clamping robot is only 0.5 m, and \(y_{\text{end}}\) is basically close to 0 m. At this time, the gripper of the robot is closest to the base as shown in Figure 16. Therefore, in order to obtain a better vibration suppression effect, the configuration of the clamping robot should be as far away from \(P_{\text{max}}\) as possible. According to the simulation result, a series of experiments are carried out to verify the accuracy of the response prediction and the effectiveness of the configuration optimization method. Including a group of non-clamping experiments and four groups of clamping experiments with different configurations, the experimental scenes are shown in Figure 17. The configuration of the clamping robot in Figure 17e is the optimized configuration, while Figure 17b-d shows the controlled experiments with three groups of gradually decreasing responses. Figure 16: Response prediction under different clamping robot configurations. In Figure 17, it can be observed that the angles of six joints of the milling robot are \((-16.49^{\circ},-63.64^{\circ},77.45^{\circ},168.90^{\circ},63.04^{\circ},-224.17 ^{\circ})\), and the slight configuration changes caused by the different milling processes are ignored. Additionally, the configurations of the four groups of the clamping robot are listed in Table 2. Moreover, the values of \(x_{\text{end}}\) and \(y_{\text{end}}\) corresponding to Config. 1 to Config. 4 gradually move away from point \(P_{\text{max}}\). The responses of the experiments and simulations are indicated in Figure 18.  
As can be seen from Figure 18, the response gradually decreases as the Config. 1 runs to Config. 4, which is consistent with the change in the response prediction result observed in Figure 16. Moreover, the experimental responses are \(2.55\) m/s\({}^{2}\), \(1.71\) m/s\({}^{2}\), \(2.16\) m/s\({}^{2}\), and \(2.01\) m/s\({}^{2}\) larger than the simulated responses, respectively, which agrees with the comparison results in Figure 15. The above results also verify the accuracy of the response prediction based on the ARGW system dynamics model. The response corresponding to