6 Mobility of Mechanisms A Critical Review-Grigore Gogu

Mechanism and Machine Theory 40 (2005) 10681097
Mechanism and Machine Theory

www.elsevier.com/locate/mechmt
Mobility of mechanisms: a critical review

Grigore Gogu
*
Laboratory of Research and Applications in Advanced Mechanics, Department of Machines, Mechanisms and Systems, French Institute of Advanced Mechanics and Blaise Pascal University, ` Campus de Clermont-Ferrand l les Cezeaux, BP 265, Aubiere Cedex, France Received 16 September 2003; received in revised form 10 September 2004; accepted 28 December 2004 Available online 2 March 2005
Abstract This paper presents a critical review on the calculation of the mobility, the main structural and kinematic parameter of a mechanism. We focus on a brief presentation and a critical analysis of various methods presented in the literature in the last 150 years, to clearly situate the dierent contributions to this very important subject of the theory of mechanisms. Thirty ve approaches/formulas for mobility calculation are presented and their genesis, similarities and limitations are investigated. The various methods proposed in the literature for mobility calculation are grouped in two categories: approaches based on setting up the kinematic constraint equations and their rank calculation and formulas for a quick calculation of mobility without need to develop the constraint equations. We emphasize on the limits of formulas for quick calculation of mobility by applying them to a parallel robot with elementary legs and ascertaining that the results are erroneous. In fact, the formulas for quick calculation of mobility known in the literature do not t for many classical or modern mechanisms. We explain why these formulas do not work for certain mechanisms and we propose a new formula for quick mobility calculation of parallel mechanisms with elementary legs. 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Resume Cet article presente une analyse critique de letat de lart dans le calcul de la mobilite, le plus important ` ` parametre structural et cinematique dun mecanisme. Nous focalisons sur une breve presentation et une
Tel.: +33 4 73 28 80 22; fax: +33 4 73 28 81 00. E-mail addresses: gogu@ifma.fr, grigore.gogu@ifma.fr
0094-114X/$ - see front matter 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.mechmachtheory.2004.12.014
G. Gogu / Mechanism and Machine Theory 40 (2005) 10681097
1069
analyse critique des dierentes methodes presentees dans la litterature dans les derniers 150 ans, pour bien ` situer les dierentes contributions dans ce sujet tres important de la theorie des mecanismes. Trente cinq ` approches/formules sont presentees et leur genese, similarites et limitations sont investiguees. Les methodes proposees dans la litterature pour le calcul de la mobilite sont groupees en deux categories: approches fon ` dees sur le calcul du rang du systeme dequations des contraintes cinematiques et formules pour une deter mination rapide de la mobilite sans passer par les equations des contraintes. Nous soulignons les limites de ` ` ces formules en les appliquant sur un robot parallele a jambes elementaires et en constatant que les resultats sont errones. En fait, les formules pour une determination rapide de la mobilite connues dans la litterature ` ne sont pas applicables a plusieurs mecanismes classiques ou modernes. Nous expliquons pourquoi ces formules ne sont pas valables pour certains mecanismes et nous presentons une nouvelle formule pour le ` ` calcul de la mobilite des mecanismes paralleles a jambes elementaires. 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction Mobility is the main structural parameter of a mechanism and also one of the most fundamental concepts in the kinematic and the dynamic modelling of mechanisms. IFToMM terminology denes the mobility or the degree of freedom as the number of independent co-ordinates needed to dene the conguration of a kinematic chain or mechanism [1]. Mobility (M) is used to verify the existence of a mechanism (M > 0), to indicate the number of independent parameters in the both kinematic and the dynamic models and to determine the number of inputs needed to drive the mechanism. Earlier works on the mobility of mechanisms go back to the second half of the XIX century to Chebychev [3], Sylvester [4], Grubler [5,6], Somov [7] and Hochman [8]. During the XX century, sustained eorts were made to nd general methods for the determination of the mobility of any rigid body mechanism. Various formulas and approaches were derived and presented in the literature by Koenigs [9], Grubler [10,11], Malytshe [12], Kutzbach [13], Dobrovolski [14,15], Art obolevski [16], Moroskine [17,18] Voinea and Atanasiu [19], Kolchin [20], Rossner [21], Boden [22], Manolescu and Manafu [23], Ozol [24], Hunt and Phillips [25], Waldron [26], Manolescu [27], Bagci [28], Antonescu [29,30], Freudenstein and Alizade [31], Hunt [32], Herve [33,34], Baker [35,36], Gronowicz [37] , Davies [3840], Agrawal and Rao [41,43], Angeles and Gosselin [44], Dudit a and Diaconescu [45], Fanghella and Galletti [46,47], Fayet [4850] Tsai [51], McCarthy [52]. Contributions have continued to emerge in the last years: Huang et al. [53], Rico and Ravani [54], Rico, Gallardo and Rawani [55]. In the calculation of mechanism mobility the following key controlling parameters are generally used: the number of joints (p) and the number of kinematic elements (n = m 1, by m is denoted the total number of elements including the xed base), the mobility (f) and the degree of constraint (c) of the joint, the motion parameter (b) and the constraint parameter (d = 6 b) of the mechanism, the number of independent closed loops of the mechanism (q). The various methods proposed in the literature for mobility calculation of the closed loop mechanisms can be grouped in two categories: (a) approaches for mobility calculation based on setting up the kinematic constraint equations and their rank calculation for a given position of the mechanism with specic joint location,
1070
(b) formulas for a quick calculation of mobility without need to develop the set of constraint equations. The approaches for mobility calculation based on setting up the kinematic constraint equations and their rank calculation are valid without exception. The major drawback of these approaches is that the mobility can not be determined quickly without setting up the kinematic model of the mechanism. Usually this model is expressed by the closure equations that must be analyzed for dependency. There is no way to derive information about mechanism mobility without performing position/velocity analysis by using analytical tools (screw system theory, linear algebra, ane geometry, Lie algebra, etc). For this reason, the real and practical value of these approaches is very limited in spite of their valuable theoretical foundations. The rank of constraint equations is calculated in a given position of the mechanism with specic joint location. The mobility calculated in relation with a given conguration of the mechanism is an instantaneous mobility which can be dierent from general mobility (global mobility/gross mobility). Global mobility has a single value for a given mechanism. This is a global parameter characterizing the mechanism in all congurations excepting singular ones. Instantaneous mobility is a local parameter characterizing the mechanism in a given conguration including singular ones. In a singular conguration the instantaneous mobility is dierent from global mobility. Formula for a quick calculation of mobility is an explicit relationship between structural parameters of the mechanism: the number of links and joints, the motion/constraint parameters of joints and of mechanism. Usually, these structural parameters are easily determined by inspection without need to develop the set of kinematic constraint equations. Today we can note that all known formulas for a quick calculation of mobility do not t for many classical mechanisms as, for instance, the mechanisms proposed by Roberval [56], Sarrus [57], Delassus [5860], Bennett [61], Bricard [62], Myard [63], Goldberg [64], Altman [65], Baker [66], Waldron [67], Baker et al. [68], or for many recent parallel robots. Special geometric conditions play a signicant role in the determination of mobility of these mechanisms. When these mechanisms were limited to special examples, considered as curiosities, they were called: paradoxical mechanisms [62], paradoxical chains [69], [33], [34], [70], exceptions [71], special cases [72], linkage with a paradox between practical degrees of freedom and computed degrees of freedom [73], overconstrained yet mobile linkage [7476], linkages with anomalous mobility [76]. The formulas known in the literature for the determination of mobility are not applicable to many types of recent parallel robots, see for example the robots Delta [77], Star [78], H4 [79], Orthoglide [80], CPM [81] and other parallel manipulators presented in the literature [82,83] or recently proposed by the author [84]. We can not continue to consider the mechanisms that do not t diverse methods or equations when determining mobility as having structural aws. We have to review the formulas and to consider the aw to be that of the formula rather than of the mechanism. The limits of these formulas are established and a new formula is proposed, in the last part of the paper, for quick calculation of mobility of fully parallel mechanisms with elementary legs. 2. Critical review of mobility calculation As presented in Section 1, several dozen of formulas/approaches have been proposed in the last 150 years for the calculation of the mechanism mobility. Many of these methods are reducible to
1071
the same originated formula. The previous works on the state of the art in mobility calculation [16,22,8588] have mentioned various formulas but they have not analysed their genesis and similarities. In this section, we focus on a brief presentation and a critical analysis of these formulas/ approaches to clearly situate the dierent contributions in this very important subject of the theory of mechanisms. Thirty ve contributions are critically reviewed. The original notation of certain authors was not maintained to ensure a certain unity of presentation and to facilitate the comparison between dierent formulas. We apply each formula to determine the degree of mobility of a recent fully parallel manipulator with elementary legs, the parallel Cartesian robotic manipulator CPM [8183], presented in Fig. 1, which only contain revolute (R) and prismatic (P) joints. A serial kinematic chain is associated with each elementary leg linking the mobile platform to the xed base. The mechanism has n = 10 kinematic elements (links), p0 = 3 prismatic joints adjacent to the xed element, pn = 9 revolute joints non-adjacent to the xed element and q = 2 independent closed loops. Each loop contains the same number and the same type of joints. The three legs are identical from a structural point of view. In each leg the direction of the prismatic joint and the axes of the revolute joints are parallel (PkRkRkR). In [81] it is mentioned that this mechanism has three degrees of freedom in spite of the fact that the general degrees-of-freedom equation presented by Tsai [89] predicts that the mechanism has zero degrees of freedom. We analyse the results obtained by using the dierent formulas to determine the degree of mobility of CPM robotic manipulator and nally we will conclude on the limits to these formalisations. 2.1. Chebychevs contribution In the second half of the XIX century, the mathematician Chebychev published an article (concerning 4-bar linkage) in two parts in the proceedings of the Russian Royal Academy of Science of Saint-Petersburg. Chebychev was the rst scientist who proposed a mathematical formalisation for the calculation of mechanism mobility. The rst part of the article [2] was published under
Fig. 1. Parallel Cartesian robotic manipulator (PCM): (a) kinematic chain; (b) associated graph.
1072
the impulse of Watts invention, known at the end of the XVIII century. In this article, Chebychev applied his method of polynomial function approximation to nd the lengths of the elements of the 4-bar mechanism capable of describing a given couple curve with the least error. In the second part of the article [3], Chebychev proposed the rst formula for the calculation of the number of independent variables in a mechanism. This contribution was quickly integrated in the rst treatises on the theory of mechanisms published at the end of the XIX century [90,91]. Chebychev expressed his formula in the form: 3n 2p0 pn 1; 1
where 3n represents the number of variables required to describe the position and the orientation of the n kinematic (mobile) bars in the plane and 2(p0 + pn) is the number of constraint equations imposed by the p(p0 + pn) revolute joints of the mechanism that can be adjacent (p0) or non-adjacent (pn) to the xed base. It is known that each revolute joint introduces two constraint equations in a planar mechanism. Chebychev applied this formula to elementary planar mechanisms with p0 = 2 and to complex planar mechanisms (p0 = 3) having only revolute joints and one degree of mobility. He did not extend the use of Eq. (1) to other types of mechanisms. This formula could be extended in the form M 3n 2p0 pn 2
to any planar mechanism with one degree of freedom joints (helical, prismatic and revolute joints). The well-known k 4-bar mechanisms were obtained by Chebychev, to describe couple curves containing a straight line segment, by using Eq. (1). Supposing that we try to extrapolate Eq. (2), we obtain M = 6 for the mechanism presented in Fig. 1 (with n = 10, p0 = 3 and pn = 9). This result is obviously erroneous, Chebychevs formula (2) being limited to the planar mechanisms (mechanisms in which the axes of all the revolute joints are parallel and perpendicular to the plane containing the directions of the prismatic pairs). 2.2. Sylvesters contribution In 1874, Sylvester [4] presented a modied form of Eq. (1) as a structural condition for one degree of freedom pin-connected planar mechanisms: 3m 2p 4 0: 3
In Eq. (3), m is the total number of elements of a mechanism including the xed element and the kinematic elements. Sylvester stated Eq. (3) in the following words: In order for a combination of links to full this so to say fatalistic condition of constrained motion and to entitle it to the name of a linkage in the speakers sense, a numerical relation must be satised between the number of links and the number of joints, viz., three times the number of links must be four greater than twice the number of joints. In applying this rule it must be understood that, if three links are jointed together, the junction counts for two joints; if four are jointed together, for three joints; and so on. We can see that Eq. (3) can be obtained by simply replacing n by m 1 in the Chebychevs formula and in the general case joints connecting a links count as a 1 joints.
1073
2.3. Grublers contribution In 1883, Grubler [5,6] presented a structural condition for one degree of freedom planar mech anisms identical with the Eq. (3). Later, Grubler proposed a structural condition for one degree of freedom spatial complex mechanisms with helical joints [10,11]: 5h 6m 7 0; where h is the total number of helical joints. 2.4. Somovs contribution In 1887, Somov proposed the following structural condition for one degree of freedom mechanisms [7]: m qb 1 2: 5 4
Somov introduced for the rst time the motion parameter (b), called mobility number, for planar (b = 3) and for spatial mechanisms (b = 6). 2.5. Hochmans contribution Hochman made an important contribution to the structural analysis of mechanisms in his book of kinematics of machinery [8] published in 1890. A detailed presentation of Hochmans contribution can be found in [45] and in [87]. He proposed a relation between the total number of elements m, the total number of joints p and the number of independent closed loops q in a complex mechanism (m + q p = 1)Euler formula in the theory of graphs. He also proposed various structural conditions for the existence of one degree of freedom mechanisms: bm 1 C 1; F qb 1; bp q C 1 with C
b1 X i1 b X i1
6 7 8
iC b ; i
1iF b ; i
10 11
F C pb;
1074
where C is the total number of constraints imposed by the joints and Fthe total number of degrees of freedom of the joints. C b represents the number of joints having the degree of constraint i cb i and F b the number of pairs having the degree of connectivity fib i. Hochman dened the i i motion parameter b as the mechanism category given by the number of elementary existing motions between any kinematic element of the mechanism and the xed element or between any two kinematic elements (b < 6). He marked the dierence between degree of constraint of a joint in the motion space with dimension b, denoted by cb = b fb, and the degree of constraint of a joint in the motion space with dimension b = 6, also called joint class and denoted by c = 6 f. We can see that Eq. (6) extends Eq. (1) proposed by Chebychev. For the general case of a mechanism having M degrees of freedom, Eqs. (6)(8) become M bm 1 C; M F qb; M bp q C: 12 13 14
Hochman considered that a mechanism in which M = 1 has determined motions, if M < 1 the mechanism is a xed structure without relative motions and if M > 1 the motions of the mechanisms are not determined. We can see that Hochman limited the mechanisms with determined motions to one degree of freedom mechanisms. Hochman considered that Eqs. (12)(14) are applicable to any kind of mechanism having various types of joints and the same b for each independent loop (b = 3 for planar and spherical mechanisms, b = 6 for spatial mechanisms). The greatest contribution of Hochman consisted in including the mechanism category between the fundamental structural parameters of a mechanism. Unfortunately, he did not indicate any method to determine the mechanism category b. By applying Eqs. (12)(14) to the mobility calculation of the mechanism presented in Fig. 1, with m = 11, q = 2, p = 12, we obtain: M = 6 (if we presume b = 3 and consequently C = 12 2 = 24), M = 4 (if b = 4 and C = 12 3 = 36), M = 2 (if b = 5 and C = 12 4 = 48) and M = 0 (if b = 6 and C = 12 5 = 60). We can see that the results obtained for this mechanism are erroneous for all values presumed for b(b = 3, . . . , 6). It is obvious that the mechanism presented in Fig. 1 has the same b for all the closed loops, but the results obtained by using the formulas proposed by Hochman are erroneous. So, we can say that Eqs. (12)(14) do not work for all mechanisms even if the independent loops have the same motion coecient. 2.6. SomovMalytshes formula SomovMalytshe formula [7,12] M 6n
5 X i1
iC i
15
represents a particular case of Eqs. (12) and (9) proposed by Hochman (with the notations n = m 1 and C 6 C). Eq. (15) is applicable only to spatial mechanisms when b = 6. i
1075
2.7. Koenigs formula In 1905, Gabriel Koenigs, published an introduction to a new theory of mechanisms [9] in which he presented an equation for the calculation of the degrees of freedom of a mechanism M 6m 1 C; 16 where 6(m 1) is the number of parameters necessary to dene the relative positions of the n = m 1 kinematic elements of the mechanism and C is the number of independent constraint equations given by the joints. We can see that Eq. (16) represents the particular case of Eq. (12), proposed by Hochman, in which b = 6. 2.8. Kutzbachs mobility equation The mobility equation proposed by Kutzbach [13] M 6 dm 1
p X 6 d fi i1
17
also represents the particular case of Eq. (12) for a spatial mechanism with b = 6 d, fi6 fi and C
p X 6 d fi : i1
18
In the literature, Eq. (17) is considered to be applicable to all mechanisms having the same d for each independent loop. By applying Eqs. (17) to the mobility calculation of the mechanism presented in Fig. 1 (for which m = 11, p = 12 and fi = 1, i = 1, 2, . . . , 12), we obtain: M = 6 (if we presume d = 3), M = 4 (if d = 2), M = 2 (if d = 1) and M = 0 (if d = 0). This shows that the results obtained for the mechanism analysed are also erroneous for all values presumed for d(d = 0, . . . , 3). So, we can say that Eq. (17) does not work for all mechanisms even if the independent loops have the same motion coecient. 2.9. Dobrovolskis mobility equation Dobrovolski named the constraint parameter d as the mechanism family and indicated the following mobility equation [14,15]: M d 6 dn
5 X
i dC i ;
19
id1
where C i C 6d represents the number of joints having the degree of constraint c6d i d. We i i can see that Eqs. (19) and (12) are similar by taking into consideration that n = m 1 and C
5 X
i dC i :
20
id1
1076
Dobrovolski considered d = 6 b = 0, . . . , 4, but he did not indicate any method for the determination of d. Eq. (19) written in the form M d 6 dm 1
6d1 X i1
6 d iF i
21
is also known as the ArtobolevskiDobrovolski mobility equation [28]. In Eq. (21), F i F 6d is i the number of pairs having the degree of connectivity fi6d i. Eqs. (19) and (21) are also considered in the literature to be applicable to any mechanism having the same d for each independent loop. By applying Eqs. (19) and (21) to the mobility calculation of the mechanism presented in Fig. 1 we obtain the same erroneous results that were obtained by using Eqs. (17) and (12): M = 6 (if we presume d = 3), M = 4 (if d = 2), M = 2 (if d = 1) and M = 0 (if d = 0). We can see that Eqs. (19) and (21) do not work for all mechanisms, even if the independent loops have the same motion coecient, as with Eqs. (12) and (17) from which they can be derived. 2.10. Contribution of Moroskine To calculate the mobility of a planar or spatial mechanism, Moroskine [17,18] proposed the formulas: M N r; M
5 X i1
22 23
iC i r;
where N is the total number of scalar kinematic parameters of the mechanism, rthe rank of the linear homogeneous set of equations dening the kinematic constraints, Cithe number of joints of class i (joints with the degree of freedom 6 i). The two formulas proposed by Moroskine are valid without exception, but these formulas do not give to us a quick calculation of mobility without the need to develop the kinematic equations and to calculate their rank. These calculations will be presented in Section 3 of this article. 2.11. Contribution of Voinea and Atanasiu Voinea and Atanasiu [19] proposed the following formulas for mobility calculation of singleloop closed mechanisms: M N r N r1 r2 we ; 24
where N is the total number of degrees of freedom in the joints given by the total number of kinematic joints with a connectivity of one (revolute, prismatic and helical joints) equivalent to the joints of the mechanism, r is the rank of the screw system equivalent to the joints of the singleloop mechanism, r1 and r2 are the ranks of the screw systems equivalent to the two open subchains
1077
connecting a kinematic element e to the xed element. In the single-loop mechanism the kinematic element e has the connectivity we related to the xed base. To calculate the mobility of a complex mechanism, Voinea and Atanasiu [19] proposed the formula: M N
q X j1
rj pp ;
25
where rj is the rank of the screw system of joints with connectivity one equivalent to the joints of the jth independent closed loop of the mechanism and pp is the total number of passive joints in mechanism. To calculate the rank rj, Voinea and Atanasiu used the theory of the instantaneous screw axis proposed by Ball [92]. An important contribution was set up by Voinea and Atanasiu by identifying the geometrical congurations of screw systems with 1 6 r 6 6 and by proposing an analytical method for computing the motion parameter bj = rj [19,93]. By applying Eq. (25) to the mobility calculation of the mechanism presented in Fig. 1 (for which N = p = 12, r1 = r2 = 5 and pp = 0) we obtain M = 2, which is an erroneous result. We can see that all the closed loops of the mechanism are identical and have the same rank (rj = 5). Eq. (25) is the rst mobility formula applicable to the mechanisms having independent closed loops with dierent values for the motion coecient bj = rj, but this formula does not work for all complex mechanisms, even if rj is the same for all independent loops. 2.12. Kolchins mobility equation Kolchin [20] modied ArtobolevskiDobrovolski mobility equation (21) and expressed it in the form: M 6m 1
6d1 X i1
6 iF i dq:
26
Kolchins contribution was also summarised in [94]. By applying Eq. (26) to the mobility calculation of the mechanism presented in Fig. 1, we obtain the same erroneous results that were obtained by using Eqs. (12), (17), (19) and (21). 2.13. Rossners contribution The mobility equation proposed by Rossner [21] p X fi 6p m 6 M
i1
27
also represents a particular case of Eq. (13) for the spatial mechanism with b = 6 (by taking into consideration Eulers formula q = p m + 1). Rossner also mentioned the existence of so called half open kinematic chain containing at least one link which must have at least four joints. The half open kinematic chain is also known in the literature as kinematic chain with fractionated freedom.
1078
2.14. Bodens mobility equation Boden [22] extended Eq. (27) proposed by Rossner to make it applicable to spatial mechanisms (b = 6) containing planar loops (b = 3): p X M fi 6p m 6 D; 28
i1
where D
z X k1
3pEk mEk 3:
29
z is the number of distinct directions of the joint axes belonging to planar loops, pEk and mEk are the number of joints and the number of elements in the planar loops having the axes of the revolute joints in kth direction. D takes into consideration the planar loops existing in the spatial mechanism. 2.15. Manafus formula In order to take into consideration the fact that the degree of mobility of a complex kinematic chain depends on the choice of the independent closed loops, Manolescu and Manafu [23] proposed the following mobility equation, presented as Manafus mobility equation [27]: ! q X 30 Mi Mc ; M max
i1
where Mi is the mobility of the elementary closed loop i and Mc is the mobility of the connecting mechanism (the mechanism formed with the common joints between dierent closed loops). To calculate the degree of mobility of an elementary closed loop, Manolescu and Manafu used Dobrovolskis mobility equation (19). The mobility of the connecting mechanism is given by the sum of the degrees of freedom of the common joints. Each elementary closed loop of the mechanism presented in Fig. 1 has d = 1 and Mi = 3 (i = 1,2). We can see that any two elementary closed loops have four common joints (Mc = 4). So, by using Eq. (30) we obtain the erroneous value of M = 2 for the mobility of the mechanism presented in Fig. 1. 2.16. Ozols formula Ozols formula [24]
5 X 6 cC c 6q M c1
31
represents a particular case of Eqs. P and (10) proposed by Hochman (for b = 6 and the nota(13) P tion F 6 F i and 5 6 cC c 5 iF i ) where Cc represents the number of joints of class c c1 i1 i and Fi the number of pairs having the degree of connectivity fi = i.
1079
2.17. Contribution of Waldron To calculate the mobility of a closed loop, Waldron [26] proposed the formula: M F b; 32
which also represents a particular case of Eqs. (13) and (10) proposed by Hochman (for q = 1). Waldron called b the order of the equivalent screw system of the closed loop and he dened it as the order of the screw system of a series chain containing the same joints as the loop in the same geometrical relationship. To calculate b, Waldron used the theory of the instantaneous screw axis proposed by Ball [92] and developed by Voinea and Atanasiu [19,93] and Phillips and Hunt [25,95]. Waldron [26] delineates the series and parallel laws for screw system theory and shows how to determine both the relative freedom between particular links and the mobility of certain class of multi-loop linkages in which some members (elements) are shared by two or more loops. He shows that such linkages may be handled by considering one loop to be a complex joint in the other. In such cases the values of b applicable to each closed loop may vary with the order in which the closed loops are considered. He emphasised on the importance of relative freedom between two particular members of a linkage in mobility calculation. An example is given in [26] for the mechanism known as the De Roberval Scale. 2.18. Contribution of Manolescu Manolescu and Manafu also proposed [23] the mobility equation: M 6n
5 X i1
iC i max
q X j1
dj
33
that extends formula (15), proposed by SomovMalytshe, by adding a supplementary term. In this term, dj is the family of the elementary closed loop j. By applying Eq. (33) to the mobility P calculation of the mechanism presented in Fig. 1, with n = 10, q = 2, C 5 iC i i1 12 5 60, we obtain: M = 0 (if we presume d1 = d2 = 0), M = 2 (if d1 = d2 = 1), M = 4 (if d1 = d2 = 2), M = 6 (if d1 = d2 = 3), M = 8 (if d1 = d2 = 4) and M = 10 (if d1 = d2 = 5). It is obvious that the mechanism presented in Fig. 1 has the same dj for all the closed loops, but the results obtained by using the formula proposed by Manolescu are erroneous even if the independent loops have the same motion coecient. In [27] Manolescu proposed the mobility formula M
5 X
6 cC c 6 dq
34
cd1
that extends formula (31), proposed by Ozol. By taking into consideration the notation 6 d = b, P P F 6 F i and 5 6 cC c 5 iF i , where Cc represents the number of joints of class c and Fi i c1 i1 the number of pairs having the degree of connectivity fi = i, we can note that Manolescus formula (34) is identical to Eq. (13) proposed by Hochman.
1080
Manolescu [96] described three kinds of kinematic chains having total, partial and fractionated mobility. A multi-loop kinematic chain has a total mobility M > 0 if each of its loops have a mobility Mi P M and a partial mobility if it has at least one loop of mobility Mi < M. The multi-loop kinematic chain of mobility M is said to have a fractionated mobility if it contains a so-called separation link which when cut into two split the chain into two separate subchains of mobilities M1 and M2 such that M = M1 + M2. 2.19. Contribution of Bagci Bagci [28] proposed the following mobility equation to calculate the degrees of freedom of motion in a mechanism of m links and q loops: M Mi Mr M0 D Mc Mp Pm1 35
in which Mi is the number of inputs required to drive the mechanism M r j1 frj is the total number of redundant freedoms in the mechanism; frj is the number of redundant freedoms of the link j. M 0 bm 1
r X i1
b iF i ;
36
where r = b dmin 1 is the maximum number of degrees of freedom that a joint can have in the motion space of the mechanism and dmin is the smallest number of general constraints in the loops of the mechanism. By taking into consideration the notation b = 6 d, Eq. (36) represents ArtobolevskiDobrovolskis mobility equation (21) when dmin = d. Pq D j1 d j is the total number of general constraints in the mechanism. This term is similar to the supplementary term introduced by Manolescu and Manafu in Eq. (33) to extend the formula proposed by SomovMalytshe. P M c Ng qcj 1 is the total number of overclosing constraints in the mechanism, Ngthe j1 number of groups of loops introducing overclosing constraints, qcjthe number of loops in the group j introducing overclosing constraints. P M p p fpj is the total number of passive mobilities in the joints of the mechanism, fpjthe j1 number of passive mobilities in joint j. The mechanism presented in Fig. 1 have Mc = Mp = 0. By applying Eq. (35) to the mobility calculation of this mechanism, we obtain the same erroneous results that were obtained by using Eqs. (33). 2.20. Contribution of Antonescu Antonescu proposed two mobility formulas applicable to the mechanisms having independent closed loops with dierent values for the motion coecient bi [29,30]. The rst formula [29] M da 6 d a m 1
5 X i d a C i i1
37
1081
represents a generalisation of Eq. (18) proposed by Dobrovolski, in which m 1 = n and da is the apparent family calculated as the average of the constraint parameters di(i = 1, 2, . . . , q) of the independent loops da
q 1X d i: q i1
38
By applying Eq. (37) to the mobility calculation of the mechanism presented in Figs. 1 and 2, we obtain the same erroneous results that were obtained by using Eq. (33). The second formula proposed by Antonescu [30] M
5 X i1
iF i
6 X j2
jRj
39
represents a particular case of Eq. (25) proposed by Voinea and Atanasiu where pp = 0. We can Pq P6 P5 see that N i1 iF i and j1 rj j2 jRj , where Fi represents the number of joints having the degree of connectivity fi = i and Rj represents the number of closed loops having the motion coefcient bj = j. By applying Eq. (39) to the mobility calculation of the mechanism presented in Fig. 1, we obtain obviously the same erroneous results that were obtained by using Eq. (25) from which Eq. (39) can be derived. 2.21. Contribution of Freudenstein and Alizade Freudenstein and Alizade proposed a mobility equation that applies to mechanisms without exception as the authors stated in [31]: M
E X i1
ei
q X k1
bi
40
in which ei is ith independent, scalar, displacement variable of mechanism (associated with the relative displacements of the joint), and E is the total number of independent, scalar, displacement variables. The authors named bi as mobility number and is given by the number of independent, scalar, dierential loop-closure equations for the ith independent loop. In the general case (absence of metric restrictions) this number is equal to the degree of freedom of the space within which the mechanism operates. If the value of bi is not identical in each independent loop, the mechanism is said to have mixed mobility. Three special cases of Eq. (40) are also presented in [31] when: (a) the displacement variables are in 1:1 correspondence with the degrees of freedom of the relative motion in joints p q X X M fi bk ; 41
i1 k1
(b) the number of independent scalar loop-closure equations is identical in each independent loop
1082
E X i1
ei qb;
42
(c) general kinematic chains satisfying simultaneously the two previous conditions. p X fi qb: M
i1
43
We can see that Eqs. (40)(43) represent particular cases of Eq. (25) proposed by Voinea and P P Atanasiu where pp = 0, N E ei (N p fi ) and rj = bk. Eq. (43) is identical to Eq. (13) proi1 i1 P posed by Hochman, by taking into consideration that F p fi . i1 By applying Eqs. (40)(43) to the mobility calculation of the mechanism presented in Fig. 1, we obtain obviously the same erroneous results that were obtained by using Eq. (25) from which these equations can be derived. In a recent work [76], Waldron and Kinzel presented a formula similar to Eq. (41) for the mobility calculation that accommodates overconstrained closures of arbitrary type. They critically analysed the utility of this equation by mentioning: Unfortunately, unless the value of bk associated with the dierent closures can be identied by inspection, such expressions have no value. The reason is that the mobility equation gives a quick check of the number of position variables and independent equations without the need to develop these equations. However, the only way to verify an overconstraint closure of type not identiable by inspection is to develop the closure equations and analyze them for dependency. Therefore the quick-check advantage of the mobility equation disappears, and there is no way to derive information about the linkage without performing a complete position analysis. By applying Eqs. (41) and (43) to the mobility calculation of the mechanism presented in Fig. 1, we obtain obviously the same erroneous results that were obtained by using Eq. (21) from which these equations can be derived. 2.22. Hunts contribution The formula proposed by Hunt [32] p X fi M bm p 1
i1
44
P is identical to Eq. (13) proposed by Hochman, by taking into consideration that F p fi and i1 q = p m + 1. Hunt also presented in [32] a formula similar to Eq. (41). A warning is added in [32] that this equation poses further questions of how to be sure of identifying suitable independent loops and how to assign the correct values to bk. 2.23. Herves contribution Herve [33,34] proposed a mobility formula based on the algebraic group structure of the displacement set

p X b fi ; i1
1083
M bm 1
45
where b is given by the dimension of the displacement subgroup associated with the kinematic chain and fi by the dimension of the displacement subset associated with the kinematic pair between the elements i and i + 1. This formula is identical to Kutzbachs mobility equation (17) by taking into consideration that b = 6 d. As with Eq. (17), Eq. (45) also represents a particular case of Eq. (12). Herve [33,34] considered the kinematic chains that obey to Eq. (45) as trivial chains and a warning is added concerning the application of this formula to exceptional chains and to paradoxical chains. The exceptional chain is a kinematic chain which involves several intersecting subgroups with dierent dimensions. The dimension of the displacement subgroup associated with a paradoxical chain depends on specic geometric constraints dened by link-length and twist angle relationships. In a more recent paper Herve [69] considered that paradoxical chains are still an enigma. By applying Eq. (45) to the mobility calculation of the mechanism presented in Fig. 1, we obtain obviously the same erroneous results that were obtained by using Eqs. (12) and (17) from which Eq. (45) can be derived. We note that the mechanism presented in Fig. 1 does not t Hervs e denitions of exceptional and paradoxical chains. 2.24. Gronowiczs contribution Gronowicz [37] presented a method for identication of mobility properties for multi-loop kinematic chains and he proposed the following formula for mobility calculation: M
q X i1
Mi
q1 q X X i1 ji1
F ij ;
46
where Mi is the mobility of the loop i and Fij is the mobility of the connecting mechanism made of the joints common between any two loops i and j (the mobility of the joints which have been counted twice in the q loops of the mechanism). We can see that Eq. (46) can be derived from Eq. (30) proposed by Manafu, by taking into acPq1 Pq count that i1 ji1 F ij M c and ignoring the fact that the degree of mobility of a complex kinematic chain depends on the choice of the independent closed loops, as in [23]. By applying Eq. (46) to the mobility calculation of the mechanism presented in Fig. 1, we obtain obviously the same erroneous results that were obtained by using Eq. (30) from which Eq. (46) can be derived. 2.25. Bakers contribution Baker [35] proposed an algorithm for determining the freedom between links which are separated by cross-jointing. The algorithm incorporates quantitative relationships and embraces earlier results, particularly the series and parallel laws of screw system theory expounded by Waldron [26] and Davies and Primrose [98], by examining relations among graph theory, the AronholdKenedy
1084
[99,100] theorem for planar linkages, the more general PhillipsHunt theorem [95] of three axes in spatial motion of three bodies, Plucker co-ordinates for screws and vector and projective spaces. Baker [35] used the motor notations of screw system algebra to represent all six co-ordinates of a screw, thereby resulting in relative magnitudes of screws becoming available for various relative freedoms investigated. Baker [36] placed the notion of mobility in perspective with the algorithm developed in [35] and he pointed out that the determination of gross mobility without regard to relative freedom between specic links is not possible by the known techniques (without hazard). By placing the calculation of gross mobility as a secondary stage after the study of relative freedom, Baker shows that the number of independent parameters of the linkage arose by consideration of the relative motion alone between individual members, for any pair of which we can write down the appropriate screw motor. He did not present any explicit formulas for the calculation of mechanism mobility by considering that we may nd the chains mobility as a consequence simply by counting the number of independent parameters. 2.26. Daviess contribution Davies [97] adapted Kirchhos circulation law for potential dierence to the purpose of nding a set independent instantaneous screw motors associated with any two links in a kinematic chain when the conguration of the kinematic chain is given. The procedure leads to a constraint matrix formulation and the rank calculation and is applicable to any kinematic chain: it does not require special cases to be identied. Davies [3840] used the procedure based on the constraint matrix to determine mobility, passivity and redundancy of mobile and immobile assemblies named mechanical networks. Davies proposed the following formulas for the calculation of the degree of mobility [38,39] M e r; M e
q X k1
47 bk ; 48
where e represents the number of joints with one degree of freedom associated to the mechanical network, r is the rank of the coecient matrix of constraint equations and bk is the order of the screw system of the loop (circuit) k. As Davies mentioned in [39], Eq. (48) is identical to Eq. (22) proposed by Moroskine (by taking into consideration that e = N) and Eq. (48) is identical to Eq (41) proposed by Freudenstein and Alizade [29] and by Hunt [32]. A warning is added in [39] that Eq. (48) poses further questions of how to assign the correct values to bk. The danger lies in the interpretation of the words bk is the order of the screw system of the circuit k. Davies stated that the interpretation that most would assume, and evidently the one intended in [32] is that bk is the order of the screw system to which the joints of loop (circuit) k belong when no other loop is closed. Using this interpretation Eq. (48) underestimates the value of M for some mechanical networks whichever set of independent loop is chosen. To give Eq. (48) universal applicability, Davies mentioned that bk must be dened as the order of the screw system of loop k when account has been taken of the constraints imposed by all previously closed loops.
1085
The loops can be considered in any sequence but account must be taken of constraints imposed by loops closed earlier in the sequence. He also noticed in [39] that this interpretation of bk is unfortunately rather more dicult to apply but there may be circumstances in which this stepwise approach proves easier than nding the rank of the constraint matrix of the mechanical network in its entirety. 2.27. Contribution of Agrawal and Rao Agrawal and Rao [41] developed analytical tests for fractionated degree of freedom kinematic chains based on path loop connectivity matrix. They used loop connectivity properties of multiloop kinematic chains to develop a seven-step hierarchical classication scheme of kinematic structures [42]. A formula is also proposed to calculate the mobility of a multi-loop mechanism with simple or multiple joints in terms of the mobility of its independent loops and connecting mechanism [43] q q1 q N1 N2 X X X1 X1 X 2 Mi F ij 49 m mi 2F mi n2 3ni 2F ni ; M 2 i 2 i i1 i1 i1 i1 ji1 where mi is the number of links forming the ith internal multiple joint, nithe number of links forming the ith external multiple joint, N1the total number of internal multiple joints, N2 the total number of external multiple joints, Fmi - the mobility of simple joint forming the ith internal multiple joint, Fnithe mobility of simple joint forming the ith external multiple joint. A multiple joint formed by mi links is equivalent to (mi 1) simple joints. An internal multiple joint is completely inside the mechanism, i.e. it is common to independent loops, and not peripheral loop. An external multiple joint is on the peripheral loop of the kinematic chain and hence it is common to both independent loops and the peripheral loop. We can see that Eq. (49) extends Eq. (46) proposed by Gronowicz to multiple jointed mechanisms. Agrawal and Rao [43] considered that Eq. (49) is applicable to any general mechanism with constant or variable general constraints with simple or multiple joints. In spite of this statement, by applying Eq. (49) to the mobility calculation of the mechanisms presented in Fig. 1 (which has only simple joints) we obtain the same erroneous results that were obtained by using Eq. (46). 2.28. Contribution of Angeles and Gosselin Angeles and Gosselin [44] addressed the problem of nding the mobility of an overconstraint mechanism, which is done by using the Jacobian matrix of a simple or multi-loop closed kinematic chain. They have shown that, once the Jacobian matrix (J) of a kinematic chain coupled by either revolute or prismatic pairs is suitably dened, the mobility of the chain can be uniquely computed as the dimension of the nullspace of J (the nullity of J): M nullityJ : 50
The authors mentioned that the idea developed in [44] was originally suggested by Freudenstein [101] in a very general manner. We also can see that Eq. (50) can be derived from Eq. (22) proposed by Moroskine. We take into account that in a linear transformation (with a Jacobian matrix J) of a nite-dimensional vector space V, the following equation can be written:
1086
rankJ nullityJ dimV
51
and the fact that r = rank(J) and N = dim(V). The Jacobian matrix produces the mobility of the kinematic chain, regardless of its type (single or multi-loop). Five fully examples, including Bennet mechanism and a planar three degrees of mobility parallel robotic manipulator are given in [44]. As with Moroskines equation, Eq. (50) are valid without exception, but it does not give to us a quick calculation of mobility without the need to develop the kinematic equations and to calculate the nullity of the Jacobian matrix. These calculations will be presented in Section 3. 2.29. Contribution of Dudit a and Diaconescu Dudit a and Diaconescu [45] proposed mobility formulas applicable to elementary or complex mechanisms. They demonstrated that the passive mobilities in joints do not inuence the mobility of an elementary (single loop) mechanism; consequently the following two formulas give the same results: M
p X i1 p X i1
fi b;
52
fie be ;
53
where fie denotes the eective (active) mobilities in ith joint and be is the dimension of the active motion space of the mechanism (the motion parameter obtained by taking into consideration only the active mobilities of the joints). We can see that Eq. (52) also represents a particular case of Eqs. (13) and (10) proposed by Hochman (for q = 1). Dudit a and Diaconescu called b the kine matic rank of the mechanism (the dimension of the motion space). To calculate the kinematic rank, they used the screw co-ordinates and the system of generators from the screw algebra. To calculate the degree of mobility of a complex (multi-loop) mechanism, Dudit a and Diacone scu [45] proposed the following formulas: p q X X fi bj ; 54 M
i1 p X i1 q X i1 j1 q X j1
fie
be ; j
55
M with
M i M c;
56
Mc
X e qj 1fcom:j ;
j
57
1087
e where Mc is the mobility of the common joints between dierent closed loops, fcom:j is the active degree of mobility of the jth common joint and qj is the number of loops to which the common joint j belongs. We can see that Eq. (54) represents a particular case of Eq. (25) proposed by Voinea and AtaP P P nasiu when pp = 0 (N p fi and q rj q bj ). By applying Eq. (54) to the mobility calcui1 j1 j1 lation of the mechanisms presented in Fig. 1, we obtain obviously the same erroneous results that were obtained by using Eq. (25) from which Eq. (54) can be derived. The same erroneous results are also obtained by using Eq. (55), in the mechanisms presented in Fig. 1 all the joint mobilities P P P P are eective ( p fi p fie and q bj q be ). By applying Eq. (56) to the mobility calcui1 i1 j1 j1 j lation of the mechanisms presented in Fig. 1, we obtain the same erroneous results that were obtained by using Eq. (30) proposed by Manafu.
2.30. Contribution of Fanghella and Galletti Fanghella and Galletti [46] developed a systematic approach to determining the mobility pro perties of single-loop kinematic chains based on displacement groups introduced by Herve [33] in 1978. Such properties are dened by: the mobility of the chain, the number of degrees of freedom of the relative motion between any two links in the chain (link connectivity), the type of relative displacements between any two links in the chain (the displacement group containing all their relative displacements), the set of invariant properties [47] of every displacement subgroup. The algorithm uses the following equation for determining mobility of single-loop kinematic chains: p X fi mincoii ; i 1; . . . ; m; 58 M
i1
where coii is the loop connectivity dened as the connectivity of the open chain obtained by cutting the link i of the closed loop. Any link i (i = 1, . . . , m) of the closed chain can be cut, and, due to non-associative characteristics of the kinematic constraints composition, dierent values of the connectivities coii can be obtained. The minimum value coii gives the correct loop connectivity. The approach is applicable to single-loop kinematic chains which can be dened by the composition of ten displacement groups dened in [46]. Any mechanism not complying with this scheme cannot be considered. The approach being independent of local singularities can not be used to determine the local or permanent changes in mechanism mobility due to singular congurations. By taking into account that min(coii, i = 1, . . . , m) = b, we can see that Eq. (58) also represents a particular case of Eq. (13) proposed by Hochman (for q = 1). The main contribution of Fanghella and Galletti [46] is to give a systematic approach to determine the loop connectivity b based on the displacement groups. 2.31. Fayets contribution Fayet [48] proposed a general iterative process to obtain the spaces of twists between any two bodies of a multi-loop mechanism. A linear application, represented by a matrix called generative matrix, is set up by a triangular projective method for the generalisation of the sum of
1088
dependent spaces in a multi-loop mechanism. At each addition of a kinematic chain, in order to obtain a new face in the graph of the mechanism, the space of the twists (consistent with the new mechanism) between the solids at the end of the chain is a subspace of the space consistent with the previous one. After each reconguration, the previous generative matrix is multiplied by a connexion matrix to obtain the new generative matrix relative to the solids taking place on the summits of the graph. By using the triangular projective method in the edges of the graph, the generative matrix is extended to other solids. The sum of dependent spaces all the spaces of twists for the whole mechanism are obtained. The iterative method proposed for obtaining the space of twists between any two bodies proposed in [48] is used by Fayet and Bonnet [49] to obtain the rank of constraint equations of a multi-loop mechanism. They bring out a general proof to the stepwise approach put forward in 1983 by Davies [39] to determine the order of the screw system of loop k when account has been taken of the constraints imposed by all previously closed loops. The proof is based on a lemma about the rank of a partitioned system of linear equations. In their iterative approach, the rank of the constraint equations of a mechanism A 0 showing q independent loops is equal to the rank of the constraint equations a mechanism A included in A 0 with q 1 independent loops plus the rank of a following virtual loop. The graph of this virtual loop is composed of the edge {i, . . . , j} which is not included in A and a virtual chain generating the space of twists consistent with A. Three examples are given in [49], including the mechanism analysed by Davies [39], to emphasize the applicability of the iterative approach proposed. This method has universal applicability but it gives the instantaneous mobility (mobility in a given position of the mechanism). The rank of the constraint equations is obtained by the rank of the twists consistent with the iterative approach dened for the given position. 2.32. Tsais formula To take into consideration the fact that passive (internal) degrees of freedom cannot be used to transmit motion or torque about an axis, Tsai [51] proposed to subtract the number of passive degrees of freedom, fp, from the degree of freedom equation: M bm p 1
p X i1
fi fp :
59
By applying Eq. (59) to the mobility calculation of the mechanisms presented in Fig. 1 having fp = 0, we obtain the same erroneous results that were obtained by using Eq. (13) from which Eq. (59) can be derived. 2.33. McCarthys formula To calculate the mobility of the platform linkages, in which the platform is connected to the ground by serial chains, McCarthy [52] proposed the mobility formula M b
pc X b M c ; i i1
60
1089
where pc represents the number of serial open chains connecting the platform to the ground and M c is the mobility of the ith chain including its part of the platform. By applying the formula (60) i to the mobility calculation of the mechanism presented in Fig. 1, having M c 4, we obtain the i erroneous results M = 0 (if we consider the motion parameter b = 6), M = 2 (if we consider b = 5), M = 4 (if we consider b = 4). 2.34. Contribution of Huang, Kong and Fang Huang, Kong and Fang proposed the formula M bm p 1
p X i1
fi t
61
considered as a correct application of the GrublerKutzbach criterion in the case of parallel mechanisms [53]. In Eq. (61) b = 6 d is called order of the mechanism and d is the number of independent common constraints in the mechanism. A common constraint is dened in [53] as a screw reciprocal to the unit twists associated with all kinematic pairs in the mechanism. The corrective term t represents the number of redundant constrains that are linearly dependent with other constraints. Eq. (61) gives the instantaneous mobility (mobility in a given position of the mechanism). The order of the mechanism and the number of redundant constraints are calculated for any given position.
2.35. Contribution of Rico, Gallardo and Ravani Rico and Ravani [54] extends the works of Herve [33,34,69], Fanghella and Galletti [46,47] and Angeles [102] in application of group theory to analysis of kinematic chains. They proposed the following formula to calculate the mobility of a single-loop closed mechanism: M
p X i1
fi dimH c i; j dimH cc i; j dimH a i; j;
62
where Hc(i, j) and Hcc(i, j) are the clockwise and the counterclockwise composite subgroups associated with the two open chains connecting two links i and j in the single-loop mechanism and Ha(i, j) is the absolute composite subgroup between i and j (the connectivity between links i and j). Dim stands for the dimension of the respective subgroup of the Euclidean group. We can see that Eq. (62) is equivalent to Eq. (24) proposed by Voinea and Atanasiu by taking into Pp account that N i1 fi , r1 = dim(Hc(i, j)), r2 = dim(Hcc(i, j)), and we = dim (Ha(i, j)). Rico, Gallardo and Ravani [55] demonstrated that mobility formula can be obtained either by using arguments of nite kinematics or by using arguments of innitesimal kinematics. In [55] the authors translated mobility criterion (62) from the nite kinematics language of group theory into innitesimal kinematics language of Lie algebra. The instantaneous form of the mobility criterion presented here is based on the theory of subspaces and subalgebras of the Lie algebra of the Euclidean group and their possible intersections.
1090
3. Why the formulas for quick calculation of mobility do not work for any mechanism Let us consider a mechanism with p joints and at least one closed loop. Each joint i with a degree of mobility (connectivity) fi, introduces fi independent motion parameters. The closed loops cancel the independence of a part of the joints independent parameters. By taking into consideration the mobility denition given by IFToMM [1], we can say that the number of independent co-ordinates (parameters) needed to dene the conguration of a mechanism with closed loops is Pp the dierence between the number of independent motion parameters of the joints ( i1 fi ) before loop closures provide further constraints and the number of joint parameters that lost their independence after loop closures (r): p X M fi r: 63
i1
Eq. (63) is valid without exception, as like Eq. (22) from which it also can be derived. Moroskine[17] indicated that the number of joint parameters that lost their independence in the closed loops of the mechanism (r) is given by the rank of the homogeneous linear set of velocity equations of the mechanism. To calculate this rank we need to set up the velocity constraint equations of the mechanism. These calculations are not easy applied in the case of complex mechanisms. The numerical calculation of the rank in the proximity of the singular positions introduces certain ambiguities in the interpretation of the results. It is therefore very dicult to make the dierence between a real zero and a very small numerical value close to zero in the calculation of the determinants. As we have mentioned in Section 1, this drawback is specic to all methods for mobility calculation based on rank calculation of constraint equations in a given position of the mechanism with joint location dened numerically. Symbolic calculation of the rank could overcome these limits if the constraint equations are dened symbolically in a generic position, as it will be presented in this section. The closure equations of the parallel Cartesian robotic manipulator presented in Fig. 1 can be established by the condition that the velocity of point H (expressed in the reference system O0x0y0z0see Fig. 1) must be the same in the three legs (H HA HB HC): ! ! ! 0 0 0 vHA vHB vHC 0 0 ; 64 0 xHA xHB xHC or
0 0
vHA xHA vHA xHA
! !
0 0
vHB xHB vHC xHC
! 0 ! 0: 66 65
and
0 0
0 0
Eqs. (65) and (66) represents the closure equations of the closed loops A B (0A 1A and AC (0A 1A 2A 4A = 2A 4A 4B 2B 1B 0B 0A) 4C 2C 1C 0C 0A). These loops can be considered two structurally independent
1091
closed loops of the Cartesian robotic manipulator, presented in Fig. 1. As we have seen, Eulers formula known in the theory of graphs and proposed by Hochman [8] to calculate the number of independent closed loops (q) of a complex mechanism (q = p m + 1 = p n) gives q = 12 10 = 2. By calculating the velocity of point H in the three legs of the parallel robotic manipulator, Eqs. (65) and (66) lead to the following sets of linear equations: T _ _ 67 D68 d 10A u21A u32A u43A d 10B u21B u32B u43B 081 ; _ _ _ _ _ _ _ E68 d 10A
_ F 1212 d 10A
_ u21A
_ u21A
_ u32A
_ u32A
_ u43A
_ u43A
_ d 10C
_ d 10B
_ u21C
_ u21B
_ u32C
_ u32B
_ u43C
_ u43B
081 ;
_ u21C _ u32C _ u43C T
68
0121 : 69
_ d 10C
By symbolic calculation of the rank of the matrices [D]68, [E]68, [F]1212 with MAPLE we obtain: r1 = rAB = rank(D68) = 5, r2 = rA C = rank(E68) = 5 and r = rABC = rank(F1212) = 9. We can see that r 5 r1 + r2. This result indicates that the structurally independent closed loops A-B (0A 1A 2A 4A 4B 2B 1B 0B 0A) and AC (0A 1A 2A 4A 4C 2C 1C 0C 0A) are not independent from a kinematic point of view. The motion parameters of these two closed loops are b1 = r1 = 5 and b2 = r2 = 5. In the general case, the rank (r) of the homogeneous linear set of kinematic constraint equations of a mechanism with q structurally independent closed loops is less than, or equal to, the sum of the ranks (ri, i = 1, 2, . . . , q) of the linear sets of kinematic constraint equations of the q loops r6
q X i1
ri :
70
We can establish the following property of structural limitation of the independence of the closed loops: Eulers formula known in the theory of graphs and proposed by Hochman [8] to calculate the number of independent closed loops (q) of a multi-loop mechanism (q = p m + 1 = p n) must be restricted, in the general case, to the structural independence (in the sense of the theory of graphs). Structural independence of q closed loops does not always involve the kinematic independence of the q closed loops. By using Eq. (63) we get the right value of mobility of the parallel Cartesian robotic manipulator presented in Fig. 1 (M = 12 9 = 3). The same result is obtained by using Eq. (50) proposed by Angeles and Gosselin [44] (M = nullity([F]1212) = 3). We recall that the rank of the matrices [D]68, [E]6 8 and [F]1212 can be calculated numerically or symbolically. The numerical calculation gives to us the instantaneous rank in a given position of the mechanism dened by numerical values of joint variables and geometric parameters. The symbolic calculation gives to us the global rank in a non-dened position of the mechanism without indicating numerical values of joint variables and geometric parameters. We just use the symbolic denition of these matrices. The general rank represents the maximum value of the instantaneous ranks. The mobility calculation based on the instantaneous rank gives to us the instantaneous mobility of the mechanism. By using symbolic calculation of the rank we calculate global or full cycle mobility of mechanisms.
1092
All formulas for quick calculation of mobility of multi-loop mechanisms based on the motion parameter (bi) or on the constraint parameter (di6 bi) associated to the loop i independently of any other closed loop do not have universal applicability. Their applicability is limited to the mechanisms that have the rank (r) of the homogeneous linear set of kinematic constraint equations equal to the sum of the motion parameters (bi) associated with the q structurally independent closed loops (i = 1, 2, . . . , q) r
q X i1
bi :
71
The mechanisms that do not obey Eq. (71) do not t various formulas for quick calculation of mobility presented in Section 2. These mechanisms have nothing enigmatic or paradoxical, as the literature considered. They just do not obey Eq. (71). This is the case of the parallel Cartesian robotic manipulator presented in Fig. 1. Paradoxical is the fact that the formulas for quick calculation of mobility are used inappropriately for these mechanisms. This can be explained by the lack of more appropriate formulas for quick calculation of mobility of multi-loop mechanisms with a wider applicability. The restricted applicability of all formulas for quick calculation of mobility of multi-loop mechanisms is due to the fact that the motion parameter (bi) or the constraint parameter (also called family di = 6 bi) is associated to the loop i independently of any other closed loop and to the fact that the motion parameter (bi) is considered to be order of the screw system to which the joints of the independent loop i belong when no other loop is closed. Critical analysis of some formulas for the calculation of mobility of multi-loop mechanisms was previously discussed by Waldron [26], Davies[39] and Fayet and Bonnet [49] as mentioned in Section 2, but they did not formalised the applicability limitation of various formulas for quick calculation of mobility.
4. A new formula for mobility calculation of parallel mechanisms with elementary legs The lack of formulas for quick calculation of mobility for multi-loop mechanism with wider applicability represents a stumbling block in structural (type) synthesis of spatial mechanisms. To overcome this, the author of this article have presented in [84] new formulas for quick calculation of mobility of multi-loop mechanisms that do not obey Eq. (71). We have demonstrated formulas to calculate r for various types of parallel mechanisms without calculating the rank of the homogeneous linear set of constraint equations associated with loops closure or without calculating the rank of the complete screw system associated to the joints of the mechanism. We have found our demonstrations on algebra of matrix transformations. The parameters used in these new formulas can be easily obtained by inspection. An analytical method to compute these parameters has also been presented just for verication and for a better understanding of the meaning of these parameters. These formulas were applied in structural synthesis of new parallel robotic manipulators [84]. The formula for quick calculation of mobility for parallel mechanisms with t P 2 elementary legs proposed by the author of this paper in [84] is

p X i1 t X j1
1093
fi
Sj Sp;
72
where fi represents the degrees of mobility of the ith kinematic pair (i = 1, . . . , p), Sj is the spatiality of the leg j and Sp is the spatiality of the mobile platform in the parallel mechanism. Leg spatiality Sj is dened by the connectivity between the extreme links (the mobile platform and the xed base) in the leg j considered isolated of the rest of the mechanism. Platform spatiality Sp is dened by the connectivity between the mobile platform and the xed base in the parallel mechanism. Leg spatiality is given by the maximum number of independent motion parameters between the mobile platform and the xed base in the serial open kinematic chain associated with the elementary leg j considered isolated of the rest of the mechanism. The platform spatiality is given by the maximum number of independent motion parameters between the mobile platform and the xed base in the parallel mechanism. All parameters from Eq. (72) can be easily determined by inspection. We need just to observe the independent motion parameters dening Sj and Sp. For the parallel Cartesian robotic manipulator presented in Fig. 1 we can easily obtain by inspection p = 12, fi = 1 (i = 1, . . . , 12), Sj = 4 (j = 1, . . . , 3) and Sp = 3 that gives M = 12 12 + 3 = 3. In future paper we will demonstrate that Eq. (72) represents the particular case (for parallel mechanism with elementary legs) of more general formula applicable to parallel mechanisms with complex legs. We recall that a serial open kinematic chain is associated with each elementary leg. One or more closed loops can be integrated in the structure of a complex leg.
5. Conclusions In the last 150 years, sustained eorts have been made to nd general formula for a quick calculation of mobility of any rigid body mechanism but the magic formula was not yet been found. Several dozen formulas/approaches have been proposed for the calculation of the mechanism mobility, but many of them are reducible to the same originated formula. Thirty ve contributions have been critically reviewed in this paper by setting up their genesis, similarities and limitations. Today, we note that formulas for a quick calculation of mobility do not t for many classical mechanisms or recent parallel robots. We have shown that no formula for quick calculation of mobility presented in the literature is applicable to the mobility calculation of the recent parallel robot CPM. We have explained why the previous formulas do not work for some multiloop mechanisms and we have delimited the applicability eld of these formulas. We have presented a new formula for quick calculation of mobility applicable to any parallel mechanisms with t P 2 elementary legs. In future paper we will demonstrate that this formula represents the particular case of more general formula applicable to parallel mechanisms with complex legs.
Acknowledgement This work was supported by the French National Council of Scientic Research (CNRS) in the framework of the project ROBEA-MAX, 20022003.
1094
References
[1] T.G. Ionescu, Terminology for mechanisms and machine science, Mech. Mach. Theory 38 (2003). ` [2] P.A. Chebychev, Theorie des mecanismes connus sous le nom de parallelogrammes, 1ere partie, Memoires ` presentes a lAcademie imperiale des sciences de Saint-Petersbourg par divers savants, 1854. ` [3] P.A. Chebychev, Theorie des mecanismes connus sous le nom de parallelogrammes, 2eme partie, Memoires ` presentes a lAcademie imperiale des sciences de Saint-Petersbourg par divers savants, 1869. [4] J.J. Sylvester, On recent discoveries in mechanical conversion of motion, Proc. Roy. Inst. Great Britain 7/5 (1874) 179198. [5] M. Grubler, Allgemeine Eigenschaften der Zwanglaugen ebenen kinematischen Ketten, Part I, Zivilingenieur 29 (1883) 167200. [6] M. Grubler, Allgemeine Eigenschaften der Zwanglaugen ebenen kinematischen Ketten, Part II, Verh. Ver. Bef. Gew. 64 (1885) 179223. [7] P.I. Somov, On the degree of freedom of motion of kinematic chains, J. Phys. Chem. Soc. Russia 19 (9) (1887) 443477 (in Russian). [8] K.I. Hochman, Kinematics of machinery (in Russian), Odesa, 1890. ` [9] G. Koenigs, Introduction a Une Theorie Nouvelle Des Mecanismes, Librairie Scientique A. Hermann, Paris, 1905, pp. 2728. [10] M. Grubler, Das Kriterium der Zwanglaugkeit der Schraubenkelten, Festschrift, O. Muhr. Zum 80, Gubertstag, Berlin, 1916. [11] M. Grubler, Getriebelehre: Eine Theorie Des Zwanglaufes Und Der Ebenen Mechanismen, Springer, Berlin, 1917. [12] A.P. Malytshe, Analysis and synthesis of mechanisms with a viewpoint of their structure (in Russia), Izvestiya Tomskogo of Technological Institute, 1923. [13] K. Kutzbach, Mechanische Leitungsverzweigung, ihre Gesetze und Anwendungen, Maschinenbau. Betrieb. 8 (1929) 710716. [14] V.V. Dobrovolski, Dynamic analysis of statically constraint mechanisms, Akad. Nauk. SSSR, Trudy Sem. Teorii Masin i Mekhanizmov 30 (8) (1949) (in Russian). [15] V.V. Dobrovolski, Theory of mechanisms (in Russian), Moscow, 1951. [16] I.I. Artobolevskii, Theory of mechanisms and machines (in Russian), Moscow, 1953. [17] Y.F. Moroskine, General analysis of the theory of mechanisms, Akad. Nauk. SSSR, Trudy Sem. Teorii Masin i Mekhanizmov 14 (1954) 2550 (in Russian). [18] Y.F. Moroskine, On the geometry of complex kinematic chains, Sov. Phys.Dokl. 3/2 (1958) 269272. ` nes cinematiques, Bull. Inst. Politechnic [19] R. Voinea, M. Atanasiu, Contribution a letude de la structure des cha Bucuresti XXII (1960) 2977. [20] I. Kolchin, Experiment in the construction of an expanded structural classication of mechanisms and a structural table based on it. Trans. 2nd All-Union Conf. Basic Problems of the Theory of Machines and Mechanisms (in Russian), Moscow, 1960. [21] W. Rossner, Zur strukturellen Ordnung der Getriebe, Wissenschaft. Tech. Univ., Dresden, vol. 10, 1961, pp. 11011115. [22] H. Boden, Zum Zwanglauf gemischt raumlich-ebener Getriebe, Maschinenbautechnik (Getriebetechnik) 11 (1962) 612615. [23] N. Manolescu, V. Manafu, Sur la determination du degre de mobilite des mecanismes, Bull. Inst. Politechnic Bucuresti 25 (1963) 4566. [24] O.T. Ozol, On a new structural formula of mechanisms, Izv.Vuzov. Maschinostroenie 2 (1963) (in Russian). [25] K.H. Hunt, J.R. Phillips, Zur Kinematic mechanischer Verbindung fur raumliche Bewegung, Maschinenbau. Getriebe. 14 (1965) 657664. [26] K.J. Waldron, The constraint analysis of mechanisms, J. Mech. 1 (1966) 101114. [27] N. Manolescu, For a united point of view in the study of the structural analysis of kinematic chains and mechanisms, J. Mech. 3 (1968) 149169. [28] C. Bagci, Degrees of freedom of motion in mechanisms, ASME J. Eng. Industry 93B (1971) 140148.
1095
[29] P. Antonescu, Extending of structural formula of Dobrovolski to the complex mechanisms with apparent family, in: Proceedings of the SYROM, Bucharest, 1973. [30] P. Antonescu, General formula for the d.o.f. of complex structure manipulators and robots, Tenth World Congress on the Theory of Machines and Mechanisms, Oulu, 1999. [31] F. Freudenstein, R. Alizade, On the degree-of-freedom of mechanisms with variable general constraint, Fourth World Congress on the Theory of Machines and Mechanisms, Newcastle upon Tyne, 1975. [32] K.H. Hunt, Kinematic Geometry of Mechanisms, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1978. [33] J.M. Herve, Analyse structurelle des mecanismes par groupe des deplacements, Mech. Mach. Theory 13 (1978) 437450. [34] J.M. Herve, Principes fondamentaux dune theorie des mecanismes, Rev. Roum. Sci. Tech.Mec. Appl. 23/5 (1978) 693709. [35] J.E. Baker, On relative freedom between links in kinematic chains with cross-jointing, Mech. Mach. Theory 15 (1980) 397413. [36] J.E. Baker, On mobility and relative freedoms in multiloop linkages and structures, Mech. Mach. Theory 16 (1981) 583597. [37] A. Gronowicz, Identizierungs-Methode der Zwanglaufbedingungen von kinematischen ketten, Mech. Mach. Theory 16 (1981) 127135. [38] T.H. Davies, Mechanical networksI: Passivity and redundancy, Mech. Mach. Theory 18 (1983) 95101. [39] T.H. Davies, Mechanical networksII: Formulae for degrees of mobility and redundancy, Mech. Mach. Theory 18 (1983) 103106. [40] T.H. Davies, Mechanical networksIII: Wrenches on circuit screws, Mech. Mach. Theory 18 (1983) 107112. [41] V.P. Agrawal, J.S. Rao, Fractionated freedom kinematic chains and mechanisms, Mech. Mach. Theory 22 (1987) 125130. [42] V.P. Agrawal, J.S. Rao, Structural classication of kinematic chains and mechanisms, Mech. Mach. Theory 22 (1987) 489496. [43] V.P. Agrawal, J.S. Rao, The mobility properties of kinematic chains, Mech. Mach. Theory 22 (1987) 497504. nes cinematiques, Trans. CSME 12/4 (1988) [44] J. Angeles, C. Gosselin, Determination du degre de liberte des cha 219226. [45] F. Dudit a, D. Diaconescu, Optimizarea structurala a mecanismelor, Tehnica, Bucuresti, 1987, pp. 3645, 229254. [46] P. Fanghella, C. Galletti, Mobility analysis of single-loop kinematic chains: an algorithmic approach based on displacement groups, Mech. Mach. Theory 29 (1994) 11871204. [47] P. Fanghella, Kinematics of spatial linkages by group algebra: a structure-based approach, Mech. Mach. Theory 23 (1988) 171183. [48] M. Fayet, Mecanismes multi-bouclesI: Determination des espaces de torseurs cinematiques dans un mecanisme multi-boucles quelqonque, Mech. Mach. Theory 30 (1995) 201217. [49] M. Fayet, P. Bonnet, Mecanismes multi-bouclesII: Processus de determination du rang des equations de liaisondistribution des mobilites, Mech. Mach. Theory 30 (1995) 219232. [50] M. Fayet, Mecanismes multi-bouclesIII: Hyperstatisme au sens de la dynamique et au sens de la cinematique dualite, Mech. Mach. Theory 30 (1995) 233252. [51] L-W. Tsai, Robot Analysis: the Mechanics of Serial and Parallel Manipulators, John Wiley, 1999. [52] J.M. McCarthy, Geometric Design of Linkages, Springer-Verlag, New York, 2000, pp. 38. [53] Z. Huang, L.F. Kong, Y.F. Fang, Mechanism Theory and Control of Parallel Manipulators, China Machine Press, 2003, quoted by Z. Huang, Q.C. Li, Type synthesis of symmetrical lower-mobility parallel mechanisms using the constraint-synthesis method, Int. J. Robotics Res. 22 (2003) 5979. [54] J.M. Rico Martinez, B. Ravani, On mobility analysis of linkages using group theory, Trans. ASME, J. Mech. Des. 135 (2003) 7080. [55] J.M. Rico, J. Gallardo, B. Ravani, Lie algebra and the mobility of kinematic chains, J. Robotics Syst. 20 (2003) 477499. ` [56] P. De Roberval, Nouvelle maniere de balance, Memoires de mathematiques et de physique, Tirez des registres de ` lAcademie Royale des Sciences depuis 1666 jusqua 1699, Tome X, Institut de France, Academie des sciences, 1670, pp. 494496.
1096
[57] P.F. Sarrus, Note sur la transformation des mouvements rectilignes alternatifs en mouvements circulaires et reciproquement, Academie des Sciences, CR Hebd. Sci., Paris 36 (1853) 10361038. ` ` [58] E. Delassus, Sur les systemes articules gauches, Premiere partie,, Ann. Sci. Ecole Norm. Superieure, Paris, 3 Series 17 (1900) 455499. ` ` ` ` [59] E. Delassus, Sur les systemes articules gauches, Deuxieme partie, Sur les systemes articules gauches, Deuxieme partie 19 (1902) 119152. ` [60] E. Delassus, Les chanes articules fermees et deformables a quatre membres, Bull. Sci. Math., Paris 46 (1922) 283 304. [61] G.T. Bennett, A new mechanism, Engineering 76 (1903) 777778. [62] R. BricardLecons De Cinematique, vol. 2, Gauthier-Villars, Paris, 1927, pp. 712. ` ` [63] F.E. Myard, Contribution a la geometrie des systemes articules, Bull. Soc. Math. France 59 (1931) 183210. [64] M. Goldberg, New 5-bar and 6-bar linkages in three dimensions, ASME J. Mech. 65 (1943) 649661. [65] F.G. Altman, Sonderformen Raumlieher Koppelgetriebe und Grenzen Ihrer Verwendbarkeit, Konstruktion, Werkstoe Versuchswesen 4 (1952) 97106. [66] J.E. Baker, Overconstrained 5-bars with parallel adjacent joint axes, Mech. Mach. Theory 13 (1978) 213218. [67] K.J. Waldron, Overconstrained linkages, Environ. Plan. B 6 (1979) 393402. [68] J.E. Baker, T. Duclong, P.S.H. Khoo, On atempting to reduce undesirable characteristics of the Schatz mechanism, ASME, J. Mech. Des. 104 (1982) 192205. [69] J.M. Herve, The Lie group of rigid body displacements, a fundamental tool for mechanism design, Mech. Mach. Theory 34 (1999) 719730. [70] R.L. Norton, Design of Machinery: an Introduction to the Synthesis and Analysis of Mechanisms and Machines, McGraw-Hill, Boston, 1999, pp. 3738. [71] D.H. Myszka, Machines and Mechanisms: Applied Kinematic Analysis, Prentice Hall, 2001, p. 21. [72] H.H. Mabie, C.F. Reinholtz, Mechanisms and Dynamics of Machinery, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1987, pp. 1315. [73] H.D. Eckhardt, Kinematic Design of Machines and Mechanisms, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1998, pp. 2037. [74] J. Phillips, Freedom in machineryIntroducing Screw Theory, vol. I, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1984, p. 5. [75] J. Phillips, Freedom in machineryScrew Theory Exemplied, vol. II, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1990, pp. 147166. [76] K.J. Waldron, G.L. Kinzel, Kinematics, Dynamics, and Design of Machinery, John Wiley & Sons Inc., 1999, pp.1726. [77] R. Clavel, Delta, a fast robot with parallel geometry, in: 18th International Symposium on Industrial Robots, Lausanne, 1988. [78] J.M. Herve, F. Sparacino, STAR, a new concept in robotics, in: 3rd International Workshop on Advances in Robot Kinematics, Ferrara, 1992. [79] F. Pierrot, O. Company, H4: a new family of 4 dof parallel robot, in: IEEE/ASME International Conference on Advanced Intelligent Mechatrionics, Atlanta, 1999. [80] P. Wenger, D. Chablat, Kinematic analysis of a new parallel machine tool: the orthoglide, in: J. Lenarcic, M.L. Stanisic (Eds.), Advances in Robot Kinematics, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2000, pp. 305314. [81] H.S. Kim, L.-W. Tsai, Evaluation of a Cartesian parallel manipulator, in: J. Lenarcic, F. Thomas (Eds.), Advances in Robot Kinematics, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2002, pp. 2128. [82] X. Kong, C.M. Gosselin, Type synthesis of linear translational parallel manipulators, in: J. Lenarcic, F. Thomas (Eds.), Advances in Robot Kinematics, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2002, pp. 453462. [83] M. Carricato, V. Parenti-Castelli, Singularity-free fully isotropic translational parallel mechanism, Int. J. Robotics Res. 21 (2) (2002) 161174. [84] G. Gogu, Structural synthesis of parallel robotic manipulators with decoupled motions. Report ROBEA MAX CNRS, 2003. [85] F. Wittenbauer, Grapische Dynamik, Springer, Berlin, 1923. [86] K. Federhofer, Graphische Kinematik Und Kinestostatik, Springer, Berlin, 1932. [87] A.N. Bogolyubov, History of the Mechanics of Machines (in Russian), Kiev, 1964.
1097
[88] T.S. Mruthyunjaya, Kinematic structure of mechanisms revisited, Mech. Mach. Theory 38 (2003) 279320. [89] L.-W. Tsai, Mechanism Design: Enumeration of Kinematic Structures According to Function, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, 2000, pp. 6672. ` [90] Dwelshauvres-Dery, Programme du cours de mecanique applique et de physique industrielle, professe a lEcole des Mines de Liege, Mons, 1876. ` [91] C. Laboulaye, Traite de cinematique: theorie et pratique ou Theorie des mecanismes, Troisieme edition, Librairie du Dictionnaire des Arts et manufactures, Paris, 1878, pp. 955961. [92] R.S. Ball, A Treatise on the Theory of Screws, Cambridge University Press, 1990. ` [93] R. Voinea, M. Atanasiu, Contributions a la theorie geometrique des vis, Bull. Polytech. Inst. Bucharest XXI (3) (1959) 6990. [94] A.G. Erdman, Modern Kinematics: Developments in the Last 40 Years, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1993, pp. 5455. [95] J.R. Phillips, K.H. Hunt, On the theorem of the three axes in the spatial motion of three bodies, Aust. J. Appl. Sci. 15 (1964) 267287. nes cinematiques et des mecanismes plans [96] N.I. Manolescu, Une methode unitaire pour la formation des cha articules avec dierents degres de liberte et mobilite, Rev. Roum. Sci. Tech.Mec. Appl. 9/6 (1964) 12631273. [97] T.H. Davies, Kirchos circulation law applied to multi-loop kinematic chains, Mech. Mach. Theory 16 (1981) 171183. [98] T.H. Davies, E.J.F. Primrose, An algebra for screw systems of pairs of bodies in a kinematic chain. in: Proceedings of the 3rd World Congress for the Theory of Machines and Mechanisms, Kupari, Yugoslavia, vol. D, Paper D-14, 1971, pp. 199212. [99] S.H. Aronhold, Outline of kinematic geometry, Verh. Ver. Gew. Fleiss. 51 (1872) 129155. [100] A.B.W. Kenedy, Mechanics of Machinery, Macmillan, London, 1886. [101] F. Freudenstein, On the variety of motions generated by mechanisms, Trans. ASME J. Eng. Industry 84 (1962) 156160. [102] J. Angeles, The qualitative synthesis of parallel manipulators, in: C.M. Gosselin, I. Ebert-Upho (Eds.), Proceedings of the workshop on Fundamental Issues and Future Research Directions for Parallel Mechanisms and Manipulators, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada, October 34, 2002.

6 Mobility of Mechanisms A Critical Review-Grigore Gogu

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

6 Mobility of Mechanisms A Critical Review-Grigore Gogu

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Mechanism and Machine Theory 40 (2005) 10681097

Mechanism and Machine Theory

Mobility of mechanisms: a critical review

G. Gogu / Mechanism and Machine Theory 40 (2005) 10681097

G. Gogu / Mechanism and Machine Theory 40 (2005) 10681097

G. Gogu / Mechanism and Machine Theory 40 (2005) 10681097

G. Gogu / Mechanism and Machine Theory 40 (2005) 10681097

G. Gogu / Mechanism and Machine Theory 40 (2005) 10681097

G. Gogu / Mechanism and Machine Theory 40 (2005) 10681097

G. Gogu / Mechanism and Machine Theory 40 (2005) 10681097

G. Gogu / Mechanism and Machine Theory 40 (2005) 10681097

G. Gogu / Mechanism and Machine Theory 40 (2005) 10681097

G. Gogu / Mechanism and Machine Theory 40 (2005) 10681097

G. Gogu / Mechanism and Machine Theory 40 (2005) 10681097

G. Gogu / Mechanism and Machine Theory 40 (2005) 10681097

G. Gogu / Mechanism and Machine Theory 40 (2005) 10681097

G. Gogu / Mechanism and Machine Theory 40 (2005) 10681097

G. Gogu / Mechanism and Machine Theory 40 (2005) 10681097

G. Gogu / Mechanism and Machine Theory 40 (2005) 10681097

G. Gogu / Mechanism and Machine Theory 40 (2005) 10681097

G. Gogu / Mechanism and Machine Theory 40 (2005) 10681097

rankJ nullityJ dimV

G. Gogu / Mechanism and Machine Theory 40 (2005) 10681097

G. Gogu / Mechanism and Machine Theory 40 (2005) 10681097

G. Gogu / Mechanism and Machine Theory 40 (2005) 10681097

fi dimH c i; j dimH cc i; j dimH a i; j;

G. Gogu / Mechanism and Machine Theory 40 (2005) 10681097

vHA xHA vHA xHA

vHB xHB vHC xHC

G. Gogu / Mechanism and Machine Theory 40 (2005) 10681097

G. Gogu / Mechanism and Machine Theory 40 (2005) 10681097

G. Gogu / Mechanism and Machine Theory 40 (2005) 10681097

G. Gogu / Mechanism and Machine Theory 40 (2005) 10681097

G. Gogu / Mechanism and Machine Theory 40 (2005) 10681097

G. Gogu / Mechanism and Machine Theory 40 (2005) 10681097

G. Gogu / Mechanism and Machine Theory 40 (2005) 10681097

Você também pode gostar