Fun With Bricard 2018

Fun
With a Symmetric Bricard Mechanism

Introduction
This article looks at a few features of a conservative, symmetric, 6R Bricard
mechanism model with zero potential and constant kinetic energy. Only the special
case of zero momentum is considered, which effectively immobilizes the
mechanism’s barycentric frame and produces a “single degree of freedom” (DOF)
model. The Bricard mechanism model has a single characteristic constraint equation
that allows its six joint angles and their first time derivatives to be expressed
analytically in terms of a parametric variable θ and its first time derivative θ . The
( )
model’s constant kinetic energy equation T θ ,θ = C allows θ to be evaluated for
!
any θ , which may be numerically integrated to obtain !θ (t ) . The equation
( ( )) ( )
12
θ = ± C T θ ,θ = 1 provides a simple way to evaluate θ , where T θ ,θ = 1
! !
corresponds to the kinetic energy evaluated at !θ = 1 .

Figure 1. Symmetric, floating Bricard mechanism with internal joint angles at 90°.
Figure 1 shows an orthographic 3D CAD image of a floating, seven-‐DOF symmetric
Bricard mechanism, which, according to Grubler’s mobility criteria, should have
only six DOF. The over-‐constrained model is composed of six rigid links, each with
an ideal revolute joint at both ends. Each link’s two joint axes are perpendicular to
its centerline and to each other. Connecting the six links end-‐to-‐end as shown in
Fig. 1 makes for some interesting kinematics.
© 2013 Roger A. Wehage

Symmetric Bricard Mechanism
Figure 1 illustrates the configuration where the link centerlines lie along edges of an
imaginary cube. The mechanism’s barycentric Cartesian frame !b , located in the
center of the image, remains fixed in space when the spatial momentum is zero.
The hexagon of colored vectors connecting the link centers and centers of mass
represents one form of progression around the mechanism’s kinematic loop. The
link centers of mass in this symmetric mechanism remain in the barycentric frame’s
x-‐y plane for all configurations, making it easier to specify their spatial locations as a
function of θ . (Right-‐handed Cartesian frames are color coded with red x-‐axis, green
y-‐axis, and blue z-‐axis for easier identification.) Placing reference frames at the link
centers of mass means that their origins also remain in the barycentric frame’s x-‐y
plane for all configurations. In addition, the reference frame origins and centers of
mass remain equidistant from the barycentric frame’s origin for all configurations.
Specifying the orientation of each link’s reference frame relative to the barycentric
frame is somewhat complicated and will be a major subject of this article.
Some Preliminaries
Disclaimer
This development is based on the pioneering work of many, dating as far back as the
eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. For the most part, this article contains nothing
new, and the sources are too numerous to list. Thus few references are included,
which is probably safe, because most of the original researchers are unlikely to
complain. Readers who need more information are encouraged to consult the
Internet. And if when you find mistakes, please let me know.
Why this article?

A few years ago I had set up a robust, double-‐precision multibody dynamics model
of this symmetric Bricard mechanism with zero potential and constant kinetic
energy. Starting the simulation from rest in the configuration shown in Fig. 1, I
applied an impulsive torque inside one joint to give it some kinetic energy. Then I
simulated it articulating for 1,000 hours using the numerical integration program
DE developed by Shampine and Gordon. The numerical integration was performed
with !10−12 absolute and zero relative error settings. At the end of the 1000 hour
simulation, total energy had remained constant to within one part per million. In
addition, the mechanism had drifted less than one kilometer and rotated less than
one revolution. These results verified that linear and angular momentum had
remained nearly zero and total energy nearly constant. (In an exact solution, total
linear and angular momentum would have remained zero, and the barycentric
frame would not have moved. And total energy would have remained constant. )
© 2013 Roger A. Wehage 2 raw915 (at) gmail.com

A nice screen saver?

An easier approach to modeling and simulating a floating mechanism of this sort
would be to pick one link as its base, reference that link to the inertial frame through
six DOF, and compute the kinematics and kinetics of the remaining five links relative
to it. Here we reference the mechanism’s floating barycentric frame to the inertial
frame and reference all six links to it. A nice feature of this approach is that fixing
the barycentric frame to ground does not immobilize any link, yet still effectively
removes six DOF. A bad feature is that referencing all links to the barycentric frame
is not a straightforward process. And yet another nice feature is that this method
exposes inherent symmetries that might otherwise go unnoticed, some of which are
apparent in Fig. 1.
So how about that screen saver? Imagine the barycentric frame as a pedestal upon
which the Bricard mechanism is mounted. When a conservative version is started
up, it will keep going and going and going like the Energizer Bunny. For added
variety, the barycentric frame could be freed up, giving the mechanism additional
rotational and translational DOF. To avoid getting lost in space, the frame’s origin
could be constrained to bounce off the interior walls of a 3D box.
This article describes how the spatial motion of a conservative, “seven DOF,”
symmetric Bricard mechanism with zero potential energy may be modeled and
simulated without setting up and solving its equations of motion. Imposing zero
momentum and constant kinetic energy constraints just makes it easier to illustrate
some properties of this mechanism.
Once a set of parameters has been provided, its kinetic energy may be set to any
constant, positive value. And with the barycentric frame fixed to ground, the first
time derivative of joint angles may be evaluated. In addition, the spatial position and
orientation of all six bodies relative to the barycentric frame may be computed. This
last feature is especially useful when animating the articulating mechanism, such as
for a screen saver.
When referenced to its fixed barycentric frame, the number of configurations
needed to represent the mechanism to within any specified tolerance is finite, which
means that the same finite number of velocities may be computed from the kinetic
energy equation. This equation provides a unique functional relationship between
the single parametric angle θ and its derivative θ for all possible configurations.
When simulating the floating Bricard mechanism by numerically integrating its
equations of motion, the θ and θ obtained from this solution could be compared
with the corresponding θ and θ obtained from the invariant equations.
Discrepancies between the θ and θ values obtained from numerical integration

may be associated with modeling errors or errors related to uncoupling the
equations and numerically integrating the variables. Assuming that the dynamics
model and the uncoupling processes are correct, then discrepancies can still result,
because the barycentric frame may gradually drift relative to the inertial frame,
allowing the mechanism to translate and rotate in space. Barycentric frame drift
violates the six invariant linear and angular momentum equations. Some drift is
inevitable when the invariant equations are not imposed, because the numerical
integration is only an approximation process. Regardless of the specified integration
error tolerance, exact numerical solutions cannot be obtained without the invariant
constraints. In the long run, accuracy is limited by numerical round-‐off errors.
Acknowledgements
The simulations, images, and plots for this article were obtained on a 2009 MacBook
Pro running OS X 10.6.8. Vectorworks 2010, http://www.vectorworks.net/ was the
CAD program used to generate the various images. Inkscape, http://inkscape.org/
running in XQuartz, http://xquartz.macosforge.org/landing/ was used to set up and
modify some of the images. Maxima http://maxima.sourceforge.net/ was used to
symbolically process the kinematic loop equations. GNU Octave
http://www.gnu.org/software/octave/ was used to solve the equations. And
Gnuplot http://www.gnuplot.info/ was used to produce the plots.
Preliminary kinematics
The woes of numerical methods
Six highly nonlinear constraint equations, expressed in terms of six revolute joint
variables, are required to define the Bricard mechanism’s kinematics. Bricard called
this and similar mechanisms paradoxical, because figuring out their correct mobility
is difficult. http://math.aalto.fi/~arponen/my_stuff/rapoversio_bricard.pdf
The mechanism’s six-‐by-‐six constraint Jacobian matrix, expressed in terms of its six
joint variables, has a rank of 5, which gives it one internal DOF. However, the
slightest of geometrical errors will cause the matrix to have a rank of 6 and prevent
articulation. This happens because even the slightest of errors in aligning or
positioning the joints will prevent the mechanism from assembling or articulating,
unless the joints are given sufficient clearances or the links are flexible. In this
development, all bodies are assumed to be rigid and zero-‐clearance joints are
assumed perfectly aligned, so technically the links will be able to articulate relative
to each other. However, numerical errors are always lurking.
Thus, in the presence of numerical round-‐off errors and constraint violations, even
when the zero-‐clearance joints are perfectly aligned, some multibody dynamics

programs may get the wrong solution. Rank-‐revealing numerical methods, such as
Gaussian Elimination with Complete Pivoting, may find an incorrect rank for
Jacobian matrices associated with constraints of this type. Research related to these
issues has been performed but will not be discussed here. It suffices to say that
incorrect processing of kinematic constraint equations may cause dynamic
simulations to fail or give unexpected, possibly undetected, unreliable results.
But, as will become apparent in the next section, we’ll not have to deal with such
issues here.
Dissecting the kinematic constraint equations

The constraint simplifications described in this article would generally not be
performed for machine design and analysis purposes, either because the processes
are too complicated or because such simplifications don’t exist. The constraints for
this symmetric mechanism were simplified to provide some insight into the model’s
kinematic and kinetic properties.
The symmetric Bricard mechanism’s loop constraint equations are complicated, but
a few simple equations among its six joint variables may be extracted using a
symbolic processor, such as Maxima. When the model is set up symmetrically, as
illustrated in Fig. 1, and the joint variables are numbered sequentially around the
loop from 0 to 5 and labeled θ i , i = 0,...,5 , then two sets of constraints on these
variables, namely θ 0 = θ 2 = θ 4 and θ1 = θ 3 = θ 5 , are immediately identified.
These constrains then eliminate four DOF from the model and leave only two unique
variables, labeled θ e and θ o , where the e and o subscripts stand for the respective
even and odd-‐numbered indices associated with the joints and links. Examples in
this paper will often use various numerical indices associated with the even and
odd-‐numbered variables and links, such as θ 0 and θ 5 , in place θ e and θ o .
Maxima extracted one more equation
(1+ cosθ e )(1+ cosθ o ) = 1 (1)
from the loop equations, which is this mechanism’s characteristic equation. With the
other four constraints implied, Eq. (1) is what makes the model perform as it does.
The expanded kinematic loop constraint equations could fill many pages, but they
essentially boil down to this one simple characteristic equation.
Thus Eq. (1) is the heart of this development. It shows the exact kinematic
relationship between θ e and θ o , between θ 0 and θ 5 , or between any pair of even
and odd-‐numbered joint variables, even when the two joints are not common to the

same link. In essence, Eq. (1) allows the introduction of a single parametric variable
θ to represent the entire mechanism’s internal kinematics, because, as will be
discovered shortly, it constrains each of the θ e and θ o variables to lie within the
limits of ± 2π 3 radians. Therefore no single joint variable can be suitable for
representing all configurations.
The barycentric frame

Figure 1 illustrates just one of an infinite but repeatable number of possible
configurations that the floating Bricard mechanism may take. In this configuration,
the links are oriented relative to each other such that their centerlines lie along six
edges of an imaginary cube. That is, the connecting joint angle in each pair of
adjacent links is set at 90°, so the adjacent link centerlines are at right angles to each
other, as in a cube. Thus the six links do not lie in a plane as the orthographic image
might at first suggest, but the rainbow of six vectors connecting their centers of
mass and forming the hexagon do, and variations of these six vectors will remain in
this plane for all configurations.
The plane containing the six long vectors is the plane of symmetry, the barycentric
plane to which a Cartesian coordinate frame b has been attached at the
mechanism’s geometrical center as shown in Fig. 1. The red x and green y-‐axes of
frame b lie in the barycentric plane, and the blue z-‐axis is perpendicular to it. The z-‐
axis then lies on the mechanism’s axis of symmetry.
When all six links have identical dimensions, have centers of mass at their
geometrical centers, and have principal inertia axes aligned with the body-‐fixed
frames at their centers, then the Bricard mechanism’s combined inertia, which is its
barycentric inertia, is centered on frame b . In essence, for all configurations, the
floating mechanism’s center of mass lies at the origin of frame b , and its principal
inertia axes are aligned with these axes. Thus the articulating mechanism’s 6 by 6
inertia matrix, referenced to and expressed in barycentric coordinates, is diagonal
for all configurations.
A bit on spatial velocity

The links, numbered from 0 to 5, are associated with the respective color-‐coded and
numbered joints. The symbol g denotes a Cartesian frame that represents ground or
an inertial frame. Let the 6 by 1 column matrix
⎡ t b ⎤
=⎢ b ⎥
gb,b
v b
(2)
gb,b
⎢ ω gb ⎥
⎣ ⎦

represent the spatial velocity of barycentric frame b , and let
⎡ t b ⎤ ⎡ t b ⎤ ⎡ t b ⎤
=⎢ b ⎥ + ⎢ bi,b ⎥ = ⎢ gi,b ⎥
gb,b
v b
=v b
+v
b
(3)
gi,b gb,b bi,b
⎢ ω gb ⎥ ⎢ ωb ⎥ ⎢ ω gib ⎥
⎣ ⎦ ⎣ bi ⎦ ⎣ ⎦
represent the spatial velocity of the ith link.
The general symbol tijb ,b represents the linear or translational velocity of frame ! j
!
relative to frame !i at the common points identified by the symbol !b following the
comma. That is, all linear velocities are taken at points that instantaneously coincide
with the origin of frame !b . The superscript !b indicates that the coordinates are
expressed in frame !b . In a similar manner, the general symbol ω bij represents the
!
angular or rotational velocity of frame ! j relative to frame !i , and the superscript
!b indicates that the coordinates are expressed in frame !b . Thus each spatial velocity
is expressed in the coordinates of frame b and referenced to its origin, as indicated
by the b superscript and the b subscript following the comma.
Spatial momentum
Total spatial momentum of the mechanism is given as
5
b
pb,b = ∑ M i,bb
bb b
vgi,b
i=0
( )
5
= ∑ M i,bb
bb b
vgb,b + vbi,b
b
i=0
(4)
⎛ 5 bb ⎞ b
5
⎜⎝ ∑ M i,bb ⎟⎠ vgb,b + ∑ M i,bb vbi,b

bb b
i=0 i=0
5
= M b,bb
bb b
vgb,b + ∑ M i,bb
bb b
vbi,b
i=0
= ∑ i=0 M i,bb
5
The 6 by 6 diagonal matrix M b,bb
bb bb
represents the mechanism’s second-‐
order barycentric inertia tensor, expressed at the origin of its barycentric frame !b
and in its coordinates, and the 6 by 1 column matrix pb,b
b
represents its spatial
momentum, also expressed at the origin of frame !b and in its coordinates.
When the spatial momentum is zero

The conservative Bricard mechanism model discussed in this paper assumes
that pb,b
b
is constant after having been given some energy by applying one or more

impulsive forces or torques. Or pb,b b

may simply be assigned any desired value. One
interesting and unique possibility is to apply equal and opposite activation impulses
or torques inside one or more of the joints or between links, which introduces
kinetic energy while keeping pb,b b
constant, or zero if it was zero to begin with. Or
b
pb,b could just be set to zero, as will be done here.
When the spatial momentum is set to zero, Eq. (4) yields
5
bb
M b,bb b
vgb,b = − ∑ M i,bb
bb b
vbi,b (5)
i=0
When the mechanism’s spatial momentum is zero, it must not drift through space
nor rotate about any axis. In essence, its barycentric frame b must not move, which
means that vgb,b
b
= 0 and
5
∑M bb b
v
i,bb bi,b = 0 (6)
i=0
Since the barycentric frame does not move when pb,b b

is zero, it becomes an inertial
frame. Equation (6) requires that the six constrained, articulating links move
relative to each other and the stationary barycentric frame b such that their
individual spatial momentums sum to zero for all allowable configurations. In this
development we assume that the mechanism moves relative to the barycentric
frame b in a specific way and later verify that Eq. (6) is satisfied.
The constant kinetic energy constraint

Maintaining constant momentum is a big demand for the Bricard mechanism, but
what if it must also satisfy the constant kinetic energy constraint
1 5 bT bb b
T= ∑ vbi,b M i,bbvbi,b = C
2 i=0
(7)
which now makes a total of seven velocity constraints, the same as its DOF?
Equation (6) handles the mechanism’s six floating velocity components, and Eq. (7)
takes care of the single internal velocity component.

Elements of the Bricard mechanism model

Six links and a hexagon

Figure 2. The even and odd-‐numbered links that form the Bricard mechanism.
Figure 2 shows the six links of the Bricard mechanism laid out for easy visualization.
Each link has a Cartesian coordinate reference frame attached at its geometrical
center, which is also its center of mass. The respective x, y, and z-‐axes of each
coordinate frame are colored red, green, and blue for easy identification. The green
y-‐axes of all frames are aligned along the link centerlines. Thus all y-‐axes in the
assembled configuration (refer to Fig. 1) align with a positive traversal around the
mechanism’s kinematic loop; they also represent a positive circuit around the
barycentric frame’s blue z-‐axis.
Coordinate systems attached at the pin and hinge ends of the links are oriented so
that the even and odd-‐numbered joint angles θe and θo are zero when adjacent links
! !
form a straight line. The included angles π − θe and π − θo are sometimes used in
! !
equations instead of θe and θo . Since θe and θo can take on values between !±2π 3 ,
! ! ! !
these included angles have values between !π 3 and !5π 3 . Figure 1 shows included
angles of !π 2 , and two upcoming examples will show included angles of π and !π 3
for joint angles of zero and !2π 3 . When θe or θo are less than zero, the mechanism
! !
essentially turns inside out, and the included link angles become greater than π .


Figure 3. Vectors joining adjacent link centers of mass in the barycentric frame’s x-‐y
plane.
As noted earlier, when the conservative mechanism has zero spatial momentum, its
barycentric frame remains fixed in space as the bodies articulate around it. The link
centers of mass remain in the barycentric frame’s x-‐y plane, and they undulate
about six central points spaced at 60° intervals on a circle of varying radius and
centered on the blue z-‐axis. Figure 3 shows six equal-‐length vectors with their heads
and tails located at the link centers of mass for the configuration shown in Fig. 1, so
these vectors also lie in the barycentric frame’s x-‐y plane.
The six corners of the hexagon in Fig. 3 identify central points about which the
centers-‐of-‐mass will undulate in the barycentric plane. What this means, as will be
illustrated shortly, is that the six link centers of mass don’t remain stationary in the
barycentric plane, but move along small arc-‐like paths in the plane as the
mechanism articulates. We won’t draw out these paths, but later figures will show
points at both ends of these short curves. And, as mentioned earlier, the six corners
of the hexagon in Fig. 3 identify the center points of these curves.
Let  represent the length of each link, which is the distance between adjacent
revolute joint axes. Then, for the configuration in Fig. 1, each edge of the hexagon in
Fig. 3 is the hypotenuse of a right triangle with equal leg lengths of  2 . Thus each
vector has a length of ( )
2 / 2  . The geometry in Fig. 3 also indicates that each link’s
center of mass is r = ( )
2 / 2  away from the barycentric frame’s origin, which is at
the center of a radius r circle containing all six points. Equations to evaluate the
circle radius r and the lengths, e and o , of the even and odd-‐numbered vectors
! !
for all configurations will be derived later.

Figure 3 also shows that the barycentric frame’s red x-‐axis is perpendicular to and
points toward the midpoint of the long red vector, and it is perpendicular to and
points away from the midpoint of the cyan vector. Orienting the barycentric frame’s
x and y-‐axes relative to the Bricard mechanism is arbitrary, but the orientation will
not change once set. Thus the red x-‐axis will remain perpendicular to and centered
on the long red and cyan vectors for all configurations. However, as will be seen
shortly, the six vectors will continually change magnitude and position as the
mechanism articulates, but each vector’s direction and orientation will remain fixed
relative to the barycentric frame. And all vectors will remain in the barycentric
frame’s x-‐y plane for all configurations.
Views tangent to the barycentric plane

Figure 4. Side view of Bricard mechanism looking down the long red vector.

Figure 5. Skewed side view of Bricard mechanism showing all six links and joints.
Figures 4 and 5 show the Bricard mechanism viewed tangent to its barycentric
plane, which is horizontal in these images. The orthographic view in Fig. 4 is looking
straight down the long red vector from its tail end and straight down the cyan vector
from its head end. These figures show another symmetric property of the
mechanism, where centers of the even-‐numbered red, green, and blue joints are
equidistant below the barycentric frame’s x-‐y plane, and centers of the odd-‐
numbered yellow, cyan, and magenta joints are equidistant above it. As the
mechanism articulates, the two sets of joints will periodically swap positions, the
even-‐numbered joints either above or below the x-‐y plane, the odd-‐numbered joints
always on the opposite side, and the two sets of joints always equidistant from the
plane. At those configurations where the two sets of joints are just swapping
positions, the centers of all six joints will also lie in the barycentric frame’s x-‐y plane.
Two examples of such configurations are shown later.

Two flavors of links

The six links in Fig. 2 are not all kinematically identical. Consider the three even-‐
numbered links in the upper, right part of the figure. Moving from the frame
attached to the red, green, or blue pin end of each link to the respective frame
attached to the yellow, cyan, or magenta hinge end requires a 90° twist to the left
around each link’s centerline. In a similar manner, for the three links in the lower,
left part of the figure, moving from the frame attached to the yellow, cyan, or
magenta pin end of each link to the respective frame attached to the green, blue, or
red hinge end requires a 90° twist to the right around each link’s centerline. The
different sets of hinge-‐end orientations are required to maintain symmetry in the
constraint equations, and the different orientations are assumed to have no effect on
the links’ inertia properties. The frame at the pin end of each link has the same
orientation as the link’s reference frame at its center, but the frame at the opposite
end has a different orientation as a result of the above twists.
From a cube to a triangle and a new hexagon

Figure 6. Top view of Bricard mechanism with θ e = 0 and θ o = 2π 3 .
Figure 6 shows another Bricard mechanism configuration where the centerlines of
all links and the centers of all joints lie in the barycentric frame’s x-‐y plane. In this
case, the red, green, and blue joint angles θ e are zero, and the yellow, cyan, and
magenta joint angles θ o are 2π / 3 radians or 120°. This value for θ o is as large as
any joint angle can get, and it will be shown later that each angle can range between
±2π / 3 radians or ±120° . In this configuration, the long red, green, and blue vectors
lie along the link centerlines, and the shorter yellow, cyan, and magenta vectors
subtend the respective yellow, cyan, and magenta joint angles, each to form one side
of an equilateral triangle whose edge lengths are  2 . These lengths may be verified
by inspecting Fig. 6.


plane.
Figure 7 shows the six long vectors that connect the centers of mass in the
barycentric plane of the mechanism in Fig. 6. The barycentric frame’s red x-‐axis is
still orthogonal to and centered on the red and cyan vectors as before, and the six
vectors still have the same angular orientations, but their magnitudes and positions
have changed. Where in the previous example each vector had a magnitude of
( )
2 / 2  , now the long red, green, and blue vectors have a magnitude of  , and the
yellow, cyan, and magenta vectors have a magnitude of  / 2 . The radius of the mass-‐
center circle (to the corners of the hexagon) has also increased from r = 6 12 to
r = 7 /12 . These are the extreme values of r . A formula for computing r for all
configurations will be derived later, and r will be plotted as a function of θ .
Another triangle and hexagon

Figure 8. Top view of Bricard mechanism with θ e = 2π 3 and θ o = 0 .

Figure 8 shows a third Bricard mechanism configuration where the centerlines of all
links and the centers of all joints again lie in the barycentric frame’s x-‐y plane. Now
the even-‐numbered red, green, and blue joints have positive angles of θ e = 2π / 3
radians or 120°, and the odd-‐numbered yellow, cyan, and magenta joints have
angles of θ o = 0 . In this case the red, green, and blue vectors have a magnitude of
 / 2 , and the yellow, cyan, and magenta vectors have a magnitude of  .

plane.
Figure 9 shows how the six long vectors are laid out relative to the barycentric
frame for the configuration in Fig. 8. Again, these vectors have the same orientation
relative to the barycentric frame, and only their lengths and symmetric positions
have changed.
Comparing the three configurations

Figure 10. Overlaid vectors for the Bricard mechanism configurations in Figs. 1, 6,
and 8.

The hexagons formed by the six vectors connecting the link centers and centers of
mass for the Bricard mechanism configurations shown in Figs. 1, 6, and 8 are
overlaid in Fig. 10 for comparison. The link centers of mass do not circulate around
the barycentric frame’s blue z-‐axis, but undulate within small regions in its x-‐y plane
as suggested by the figure. From the earlier calculations, the centers of mass are
( )
seen to move radially no more than 7 /12 − 6 /12  = 0.0566 . The
circumferential movement of these points is a little more difficult to quantify, but
the corners of the hexagons in Figs. 7 and 9 represent the extremes. The
superimposed images in Fig. 10 suggest that these points move back and forth along
small arc-‐like segments spaced at 60° intervals around the barycentric frame’s z-‐
axis.
Parameterizing the equations, the recipe

The six conservation-‐of-‐spatial-‐momentum equations and the single kinetic-‐energy
equation are sufficient to express the Bricard mechanism’s six articulating body
velocities in terms of a single parametric angle variable θ and its first time
derivative θ . The examples given here are for a mechanism with zero spatial
momentum, so the barycentric frame remains fixed in space as the mechanism
articulates. Thus the absolute spatial displacement and velocity of each link in the
conservative model are expressed relative to the fixed barycentric frame in terms of
θ and θ .
Equations for expressing the mechanism’s even and odd-‐numbered joint angles,
θ e and θ o , and their first time derivatives in terms of θ and θ are derived later, but
the process might go as follows. To start the analysis, require that the spatial
momentum be zero and set a positive value for the kinetic energy. Since the
barycentric frame !b is fixed, let it replace the global inertial frame !g .
First specify an initial value for θ and evaluate θ e and θ o . With θ e and θ o known,
assemble the mechanism relative to its barycentric frame; obtain equations to
evaluate θe and θo as functions of θ e , θ o , and θ ; express the spatial velocity of each
link relative to the barycentric frame in terms of θ e , θ o , θe , and θo ; and use these
equations to express the kinetic energy in terms of θ e , θ o , and θ and solve this
equation for θ .
Then with θ known, numerically integrate it to get the next value for θ and repeat
the process. Using numerical integration to obtain the next value of θ is useful,
because the conservation equations do not indicate how θ should evolve over time,
given current values for θ and θ . However, if synchronizing θ with time is not
important, then any value for θ may be used for the next step.

Normalized parametric velocity

The problem with the above method is that the Bricard mechanism is subject to
some complex constraint equations, and it may be cumbersome and expensive to
symbolically process the necessary relationships among its variables. Simulating the
Bricard mechanism with constant kinetic energy means that a symbolic equation for
its kinetic energy, expressed in terms of θ and θ , must be formed and solved for θ
for each θ . Then θ may be evaluated and numerically integrated to get the next
value for θ .
There are some issues associated with symbolically solving for θ from the kinetic
energy equation. First, this equation is somewhat complex, making it difficult to
isolate and solve for θ . Second, the parametric variable θ is not natural to the
model, and the slopes of various intermediate quantities that multiply with θ are
discontinuous at transition points between the equations relating θ e and θ o to θ .
It turns out to be easier and more efficient to give θ a normalized value of θ = 1 for
any value of θ and then solve for the normalized kinetic energy T (θ ,θ = 1) . Now
T (θ ,θ = 1) will generally not be equal to the desired constant T (θ ,θ ) = C , but the
two quantities are related as
T (θ ,θ ) = θ 2T (θ ,θ = 1) (8)
from which θ may be solved for as
θ = ± T (θ ,θ ) T (θ ,θ = 1) (9)
Equation (8) holds because each spatial velocity vbi,b b

in Eq. (7) is proportional to the
scalar θ . Thus T (θ ,θ ) in Eq. (7) is proportional to the scalar θ 2 , and θ 2 may be
factored out.
The sign on θ in Eq. (9) is set according to whether θ is to be increasing or
decreasing with time. The values computed for θ from Eq. (9) will be referred to as
the scaled θ , and the slope of its curve as a function of θ will be discontinuous.
Curves for normalized quantities that depend linearly on θ , but have been
evaluated using the normalized θ = 1 for the purpose of computing T (θ ,θ = 1) , will
also have discontinuous slopes. As noted earlier, these slopes are discontinuous
because second derivatives of the parametric equations relating θ e and θ o to θ are
discontinuous at the transition points. These discontinuities will be discussed later.

However, rescaling the normalized curves with discontinuous slopes by the scaled
θ curve with discontinuous slope generates new scaled curves with continuous
slopes and provides values that would have been used to evaluate the desired
constant T (θ ,θ ) if θ were known. Plots of the various normalized and scaled
quantities involved in computing T (θ ,θ = 1) and T (θ ,θ ) will be presented as a
function of θ for comparison purposes.
The resulting differences between normalized and scaled curves are sometimes
striking, especially the scaled curve for θ . It should be expected that all curves used
to evaluate T (θ ,θ ) have continuous slopes, because the kinetic energy is constant,
which clearly has a continuous slope. But before these curves are obtained, it will be
useful to take a closer look at the Bricard mechanism.
Building a symmetric Bricard mechanism

Displacement across an odd-‐numbered joint

Figure 11. Section of the Bricard mechanism with even and odd-‐numbered links,
and odd-‐numbered connecting joint.
This discussion will show how adjacent Cartesian reference frames on links are
related to each other through their connecting revolute joints. Figure 11 shows two
links connected by an odd-‐numbered joint 1 (yellow), with an even-‐numbered link 0
(red/yellow) on the right and an odd-‐numbered link 1 (yellow/green) on the left.
The matrix product
Deo = Ty (  / 2 ) Ry ( −π / 2 ) Rz (θ o ) Ty (  / 2 ) (10)

represents the spatial displacement from the middle reference frame attached to the
even-‐numbered link (red/yellow) on the right to the middle reference frame
attached to the odd-‐numbered link (yellow/green) on the left. The spatial
transformation Ty (  / 2 ) means translate (along the green y-‐axis) half the distance
along the even-‐numbered (red/yellow) link’s centerline, Ry ( −π / 2 ) means rotate by
−π / 2 around the centerline of the even-‐numbered (red/yellow) link (again around
the green y-‐axis), Rz (θ o ) means rotate by θ o around the blue z-‐axes of the odd-‐
numbered (yellow) joint, and Ty (  / 2 ) means translate half the distance along the
odd-‐numbered (yellow/green) link’s centerline (another green y-‐axis.) These
displacement matrices represent how the middle frame on the odd-‐numbered link
(yellow/green) would be displaced away from the middle frame on the even-‐
numbered link (red/yellow) into its relative spatial position shown in Fig. 11.
Displacement across an even-‐numbered joint

Figure 12. Section of the Bricard mechanism with odd and even-‐numbered links,
and even-‐numbered connecting joint.
Similar to the previous discussion, Fig. 12 shows two links connected by an even-‐
numbered (green) joint, with an odd-‐numbered (yellow/green) link on the right and
an even-‐numbered (green/cyan) link on the left. In this case the product
Doe = Ty (  / 2 ) Ry (π / 2 ) Rz (θ e ) Ty (  / 2 ) (11)
represents the spatial displacement from the middle frame of the odd-‐numbered
link (yellow/green) on the right to the middle frame of the even-‐numbered link
(green/cyan) on the left, where the only difference between Eqs. (10) and (11) is
that Ry (π / 2 ) in Eq. (11) means rotate by π / 2 radians around the centerline of the
odd-‐numbered link (yellow/green).

The expanded displacement matrices

Equation (10) is expanded into 4 by 4 matrix form as
Deo = Ty (  / 2 ) Ry ( −π / 2 ) Rz (θ o ) Ty (  / 2 )
⎡ 1 0 0 0 ⎤⎡ 1 0 0 0 ⎤⎡ 1 0 0 0 ⎤⎡ 1 0 0 0 ⎤ (12)
⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥ ⎢ 0 cosθ − sin θ o
⎥
0 ⎥⎢ 0 ⎥
0 1 0 0 0 0 0 −1 ⎥ ⎢ 1 0 0
=⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎢ ⎥
o
⎢ /2 0 1 0 ⎥⎢ 0 0 1 0 ⎥ ⎢ 0 sin θ o cosθ o 0 ⎥⎢  / 2 0 1 0 ⎥

⎢ 0 ⎥⎢ ⎢ ⎥⎢
⎣ 0 0 1 ⎦⎣ 0 1 0 0 ⎥⎦ ⎢ 0 0 0 1 ⎥⎦ ⎣ 0 0 0 1 ⎥
⎦
⎣
⎡ 1 0 0 0 ⎤
⎢ ⎥ ⎡
0 0 0 −1⎥=⎢ 1 0 ⎤
= ⎢⎢ ⎥
(1+ cos θ o)  / 2 sin θo cosθ o 0 ⎥ ⎢ t eo
e
R eo ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎣ ⎦
⎢⎣ − sin θ o  / 2 cosθ o − sin θ o 0 ⎥
⎦
From Eq. (12) the translational and rotational parts of this spatial displacement are
identified as
⎡ 0 ⎤
⎢ ⎥
e
t eo = ⎢ (1+ cosθ o )  / 2 ⎥ (13)
⎢ − sin θ  / 2 ⎥
⎣ o
⎦
and
⎡ 0 0 −1 ⎤
⎢ ⎥
R = ⎢ sin θ o
eo
cosθ o 0 ⎥ (14)
⎢ cosθ o − sin θ o 0 ⎥
⎣ ⎦
In a similar manner Eq. (11) gives
Doe = Ty (  / 2 ) Ry (π / 2 ) Rz (θ e ) Ty (  / 2 )
⎡ 1 0 0 0 ⎤⎡ 1 0 0 0 ⎤⎡ 1 0 0 0 ⎤⎡ 1 0 0 0 ⎤
⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥⎢ 0 cosθ e − sin θ e
⎥
0 ⎥⎢ 0 ⎥
=⎢
0 1 0 0 ⎥⎢ 0 0 0 1 ⎥⎢ ⎢ 1 0 0 ⎥
⎢ /2 0 1 0 ⎥⎢ 0 0 1 0 ⎥⎢ 0 sin θ e cosθ e 0 ⎥⎢  / 2 0 1 0 ⎥
⎢ 0 0 0 1 ⎥⎢ 0 −1 0 0 ⎥⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥ (15)
⎣ ⎦⎣ ⎦ ⎢⎣ 0 0 0 1 ⎥⎦ ⎣ 0 0 0 1 ⎦
⎡ 1 0 0 0 ⎤
⎢ ⎥ ⎡
0 0 0 1 ⎥=⎢ 1 0 ⎤
= ⎢⎢ ⎥
(1+ cosθ e )  / 2 sinθ e cosθ e 0 ⎥ ⎢ t oe
o
R oe ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎣ ⎦
⎢⎣ sin θ e / 2 − cosθ e sin θ e 0 ⎥
⎦

where
⎡ 0 ⎤
⎢ ⎥
t o
oe = ⎢ (1+ cosθ e )  / 2 ⎥ (16)
⎢ sin θ e / 2 ⎥
⎣ ⎦
and
⎡ 0 0 1 ⎤
⎢ ⎥
R = ⎢ sin θ e
oe
cosθ e 0 ⎥ (17)
⎢ − cosθ e sin θ e 0 ⎥
⎣ ⎦
The translation matrix t eo

e
in Eq. (13) is in the even-‐numbered link’s coordinate
system, so its x-‐component is zero because joint rotation takes place around an axis
parallel to the even-‐numbered frame’s x-‐axis. The z-‐displacement component is
positive, because the link’s local z-‐axis points to the left and the rotation is to the
left. The y-‐displacement component is also positive, because the y-‐axis points
forward and the displacement is in this direction.
The direction cosine matrix R eo is a little more interesting. The third column shows
that the z-‐axis of the even-‐numbered frame is projected onto the x-‐axis of the odd-‐
numbered frame, which can be verified by inspection. The first and second columns
show how the y and z-‐axes of the even-‐numbered frame are projected onto the x
and y-‐axes of the odd-‐numbered frame.
One third of the loop displacement

As a mental exercise, carry out the symbolic product
⎡ 1 0 ⎤⎡ 1 0 ⎤
Deo Doe = ⎢ e ⎥⎢ o ⎥
⎢⎣ t eo R eo ⎥ ⎢ t oe R oe ⎥
⎦⎣ ⎦
(18)
⎡ 1 0 ⎤
=⎢ e ⎥
⎢⎣ t eo + R t oe
eo o
R R oe
eo
⎥⎦
To save space let ce = cosθ e , se = sin θ e , co = cosθ o , and so = sin θ o . Thus

⎡ 0 0 −1 ⎤ ⎡ 0 0 1 ⎤
⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥
R R = ⎢ so
eo oe
co 0 ⎥ ⎢ se ce 0 ⎥
⎢ co −so 0 ⎥ ⎢ −ce se 0 ⎥
⎣ ⎦⎣ ⎦
(19)
⎡ ce −se 0 ⎤
⎢ ⎥
= ⎢ co se co ce so ⎥
⎢ −s s −so ce co ⎥
⎣ o e
⎦
and
⎡ 0 ⎤ ⎡ 0 −1 ⎤ ⎡
0 0 ⎤
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥
e
t eo + R eo t oe
o
= ⎢ (1+ co )  / 2 ⎥ + ⎢ so 0 ⎥ ⎢ (1+ ce )  / 2
co ⎥
⎢ −s  / 2 ⎥ ⎢ co −so 0 ⎥ ⎢ se  / 2 ⎥
⎣ o
⎦ ⎣ ⎦⎣ ⎦
⎛⎡ 0 ⎤ ⎡ 0 0 −1 ⎤ ⎡ 0 ⎤⎞
⎜⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥ (20)
= ⎜ ⎢ 1+ co ⎥ + ⎢ so co 0 ⎥ ⎢ 1+ ce ⎥⎟⎟  / 2
⎜ ⎢ −so ⎥ ⎢ co −so 0 ⎥ ⎢ se ⎥⎟⎠
⎝⎣ ⎦ ⎣ ⎦⎣ ⎦
⎛⎡ ⎤ ⎡ −se ⎤⎞
0
⎜⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥⎟
= ⎜ ⎢ 1+ co ⎥ + ⎢ co (1+ ce ) ⎥⎟  / 2
⎜ ⎢ −s
⎜⎝ ⎣ ⎥ ⎢ −s (1+ c ) ⎥⎟
o
⎦ ⎢⎣ o e ⎥⎦⎟⎠
More on the characteristic equation

The product Deo Doe goes one-‐third of the way around the Bricard mechanism, and
as noted earlier, the other two sections that make up the remaining two-‐thirds of
the mechanism are identical to the first section. Thus the product ( Deo Doe ) goes full
3
circle and comes back to the starting point. Returning to the kinematic starting point
yields a null spatial displacement equation
( Deo Doe )3 = I (21)
from which the kinematic loop constraint equations may be extracted. It is a chore
to expand and reduce this product into meaningful constraint equations, so it was
set up in Maxima and simplified. A common occurrence after symbolic expansion
and reduction, which has been reported more than once in the literature, is the
characteristic equation presented in Eq. (1) and repeated here for reference as
(1+ ce )(1+ co ) = 1 (22)

This simple equation controls the complete internal kinematics of the complex
Bricard mechanism. Now how can it be used? First, rearrange Eq. (22) into
−co
ce = (23)
1+ co
and
−ce
co = (24)
1+ ce
Then solve for
⎛ −co ⎞
θ e = ± cos −1 ⎜ (25)
⎝ 1+ co ⎟⎠
and
⎛ −ce ⎞
θ o = ± cos −1 ⎜ (26)
⎝ 1+ ce ⎟⎠
The sign ambiguity in these last two equations comes because cos x = cos ( −x ) .
The parametric equations

There is a problem using Eq. (25) or (26) to represent all solutions to Eq. (22) or to
represent a continuous progression of the Bricard mechanism’s articulation,
because −2π /3 ≤ θe ≤ 2π /3 and −2π /3 ≤ θo ≤ 2π /3 . An independent parametric
! !
variable θ is introduced to obtain a continuous representation of the mechanism
and to avoid problems evaluating θ e or θ o . In terms of θ , the following assignments
pi ⎛ − sin θ ⎞
θ e = −θ + θ o = cos −1 ⎜ 0 ≤θ < π
⎝ 1+ sin θ ⎟⎠
; ;
2
3pi ⎛ sin θ ⎞
θ o = −θ + θ e = − cos −1 ⎜ π ≤ θ < 2π
⎝ 1− sin θ ⎟⎠
; ;
2
(27)
5 pi ⎛ − sin θ ⎞
θe = θ − θ o = − cos ⎜ −1
2π ≤ θ < 3π
⎝ 1+ sin θ ⎟⎠
; ;
2
7 pi ⎛ sin θ ⎞
θo = θ − θ e = cos −1 ⎜ 3π ≤ θ < 4π
⎝ 1− sin θ ⎟⎠
; ;
2
describe a full cycle of the Bricard mechanism and cover all possible internal
configurations.


Figure 13. θ e and θ o for one complete cycle of the Bricard mechanism.
Figure 13 shows the resulting even and odd-‐numbered joint angles plotted over the
domain of 0 ≤ θ < 4π , which represents one complete cycle of the Bricard
mechanism, starting and ending with the configuration shown in Fig. 1. The values
for θ e and θ o repeat outside the domain of θ in Fig. 13. The graphs show that the
curves and their slopes are continuous across the four boundary intervals. Now with
θ e and θ o known for 0 ≤ θ < 4π , it is possible to express all configurations of the
Bricard mechanism in terms of just one independent variable θ .
While these curves and their first derivatives are continuous across the transitions,
their second derivatives are not. This is easily verified by differentiating the
equations in Eq. (27) twice with respect to θ . Thus we will find later that plots of θ
and various quantities expressed in terms of normalized !θ = 1 as a function of θ
have discontinuous slopes. These discontinuities have some interesting
ramifications that will be discussed later.
Calculating joint mobility numbers

Kinematicians often refer to a mechanism’s DOF as its mobility. For example, a
mechanism with three DOF has a mobility of three, which one might also refer to as
its mobility number. What is the meaning of a mobility number? What are the

differences between mechanisms with mobility number zero versus three versus
six? Might one imagine that a mechanism with more mobility is more dexterous, like
the robot’s dexterous end effector?
What about the joints that make up a mechanism? When effort is put into some joint
of a mechanism, it may be easy to induce displacement or motion, but when effort is
put into some other joint it may be difficult or impossible to induce any
displacement or motion. We might relate the ability of a joint to control the
mechanism it is in by the mechanical advantage afforded its DOF; high mechanical
advantage requires less effort and low mechanical advantage requires more effort to
accomplish its tasks. But computing mechanical advantage requires specifying
input/output relationships.
There is a more generic qualitative method obtained by expressing a joint’s mobility
number. A mechanism with mobility number !d , which stands for its DOF, is said to
have an abstract !d -‐dimensional manifold with !d orthogonal tangent directions
along which motion is allowed. Now if the mechanism is composed of !n joint DOF,
represented by a total of !n translational, rotational, and generalized variables, then
each variable must in some way contribute to the mechanism’s mobility. For if not
one single joint variable were allowed to change, then surely the mechanism must
have zero mobility and a zero mobility number.
It seems that each joint’s DOF should somehow be related to the mechanism’s
constraint manifold. For example, if a joint DOF were tangent to the constraint
manifold, it should have maximum mobility, and if it were orthogonal to the
manifold, it should have zero mobility. Thus a joint’s DOF could be assigned a
mobility number related to its direction cosine or orientation relative to the
constraint manifold. Squaring each variable’s direction cosine would then provide
mobility numbers between zero and one. Using this approach, what would be the
sum of all joint mobility numbers in a mechanism? Perhaps it is the mechanism’s
mobility number or DOF, which is also the dimension of its constraint manifold.
Is there a reliable and repeatable method for assigning such joint mobility numbers?
Suppose that !A represents an !m by !n Jacobian matrix with rank !n − d . Then !A has
an !n by !d null-‐space matrix !N with full column rank such that !AN = 0 . The !d
columns of !N span the tangent space of the constraint manifold. Applying Gram-‐
Schmidt orthogonalization to the !d columns of !N yields an orthonormal matrix !V ,
where its !d orthonormal columns also span the manifold’s tangent space.
The inner product of the ! jth column of !V with itself is 1, which is also the mobility
number associated with the ! jth orthogonal tangent direction of the constraint
manifold. The sum of all !d such inner products is !d , which is the mechanism’s
mobility number. Likewise, the inner product of the !ith row of !V with itself is less

than or equal to 1, and this corresponds to the mobility number of the !ith joint
variable. By this definition, the sum of all !n such inner products or joint mobility
numbers is also !d , which is the mechanism’s mobility number and the dimension of
its constraint manifold.
With this definition, each joint variable’s mobility number, the square of its direction
cosine, is related to its degree of alignment with the constraint manifold. If a joint’s
mobility number is 1, its angle relative to the constraint manifold surface is zero, if
the mobility number is !1/2 , its angle is 45°, and if 0, its angle is 90°. Independent
joint variables will have higher mobility numbers and dependent variables will have
lower mobility numbers.
For the mechanism configuration shown in Fig. 1, the normalized null-‐space matrix
is
T
⎡ 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 ⎤⎥ (28)
⎣⎢ ⎦
Squaring the norms of the rows in Eq. (28) gives the joint mobility numbers
T
⎡ 1 6 1 6 1 6 1 6 1 6 1 6 ⎤ (29)
⎣ ⎦
and they add up to unity as expected. When the mobility numbers are all equal, all
variables are equally independent and dependent, and there is no preference for
which one to select as independent. The Bricard mechanism’s joint mobility
numbers will all be equal whenever θ e = ±π / 2 and θ o = ±π / 2 . Inspecting Fig. 13
reveals that this happens on the ±nπ boundaries of θ where n is any integer. The
transition points at ±nπ in Eq. (27) were selected at configurations where all joint
mobility numbers are equal.
Now consider the Bricard mechanism configuration shown in Fig. 6. It corresponds
to θ = π 2 in Fig. 13 where θ e = 0 and θ o = 2π / 3 . The normalized null-‐space matrix
for this configuration is
T
⎡ 3 3 0 3 3 0 3 3 0 ⎤⎥ (30)
⎢⎣ ⎦
and the mobility numbers are

T
⎡ 1 3 0 1 3 0 1 3 0 ⎤ (31)
⎣ ⎦

Equation (31) shows that the odd-‐numbered joint variables have zero mobility. This
means that these variables will have no ability to control the mechanism and must
be dependent. It also means that these joints have zero mechanical advantage
relative to the other variables.
Inspecting Fig. 6 reveals that the odd-‐numbered joints are at the corners of the
equilateral triangle, and the even-‐numbered joints, which are orthogonal to the odd-‐
numbered joints, will block any attempted rotation of the links. In essence, the three
sides of the triangle appear rigid to the odd-‐numbered joints.
The situation is different for the even-‐numbered joints. In this case, rotating any one
of these joints will cause the three sides of the triangle to start bending in their
centers and start the three odd-‐numbered angles to gradually change magnitude.
Look back at Fig. 13 and compare the two curves around the θ = π 2 point. In fact,
compare the two curves at each θ = ( 2n − 1) π 2 point where n is any integer.
The Bricard mechanism shown in Fig. 8 has joint values of θ e = 2π / 3 and θ o = 0 .
The normalized null-‐space matrix and mobility numbers in this case are
T
⎡ 0 3 3 0 3 3 0 3 3 ⎤⎥ (32)
⎣⎢ ⎦
and
T
⎡ 0 1 3 0 1 3 0 1 3 ⎤ (33)
⎣ ⎦
According to the plot in Fig. 13, this configuration occurs at θ = 7π 2 . The role of
even and odd-‐numbered joint variables has reversed.
Simple method to evaluate joint mobility numbers

Since Eq. (1) is the only constraint among the even and odd-‐numbered variables,
differentiating it gives
(1+ ce ) soθo + (1+ co ) seθe = 0 (34)
and shows that θe and θo are elements of the null-‐space matrix, which may be
expressed as
T
q = ⎡ θe θo θe θo θe θo ⎤ (35)
⎣ ⎦

Thus !Aq = 0 shows that !q also represents the null space of !A , and when normalized
to unity yields the desired normalized null-‐space matrix. Thus we have a simple way
of obtaining a plot of joint mobility numbers as a function of θ .

Figure 14. Even and odd-‐numbered joint mobility numbers.
For all 0 ≤ θ < 4π , setting either θe or θo to unity as appropriate, evaluating the
other quantity using Eq. (34), normalizing the resulting matrix in Eq. (35), and
squaring each entry gives the mobility numbers of the Bricard mechanism’s even
and odd-‐numbered joint variables. These mobility numbers are seen to range
between zero and one-‐third, as the examples showed. The plot shows the relative
degree of independence and dependence of each variable. A variable will be highly
dependent when its mobility number is near zero, and in these situations it must not
be used as an independent variable. The domain divisions shown in Eq. (27) were
selected to insure that the independent variable’s mobility number was at least 1/6
and would range from 1/6 to 1/3.
Assembling the Bricard mechanism

Preliminaries
We have shown that all values for θ e and θ o may be expressed as a function of θ , as
represented by the curves in Fig. 13. And all values for θe and θo may be expressed

as functions of θ and θ by differentiating the equations in Eq. (27). We will obtain
these values later, but the interesting fact is that all of these quantities may be
obtained without assembling the mechanism, evaluating its loop constraint
equations and Jacobian matrix, or solving the loop velocity equations. However, we
may wish to correctly position the links for other purposes such as animating the
mechanism or evaluating its spatial velocities and momentum.
Three thirds make a whole

Obtaining spatial displacements of the links relative to the barycentric frame is not
intuitive or easy and will require some additional development. We start by
knowing the position, orientation, and magnitude of the six vectors that connect the
link reference frame origins and form the hexagon. Thus the reference frame origin
positions relative to the barycentric frame !b are known. What remains is to specify
the orientation of the six link reference frames relative to frame !b . Developing those
equations will take some effort.
Earlier we showed in Eq. (18) that a spatial displacement Deo Doe from the origin of
one even-‐numbered link to the origin of the next even-‐numbered link could be
expressed. Then we indicated in Eq. (21) that ( Deo Doe ) = I takes us full circle
3
around the loop. This shows that the mechanism may be divided into three identical
segments by slicing through the center of each even-‐numbered link. Imagine that we
first evaluate the displacement for just one pair of links. Then rotate a copy by 120°
around the barycentric frame’s z-‐axis and reattach the adjacent even-‐numbered link
components. In a similar manner, rotate a second copy by -‐120° around the
barycentric frame’s z-‐axis and again reattach the adjacent even-‐numbered link
components. With this, we have assembled the entire mechanism.
Given Eq. (22), the loop constraint equations don’t have to be evaluated, so only the
spatial displacement matrices Dbe and Dbo from the barycentric frame !b out to the
respective even and odd-‐numbered link reference frames !e and !o are required. We
b b
already know the linear part of these displacements as t be and t bo , so only the
! !
b b
orientation parts !Rbe and !Rbo remain to be evaluated. Matrices t be and t bo
! !
represent coordinates in frame !b of position or translation vectors from its origin to
origins of the particular even and odd-‐numbered link reference frames. Matrices !Rbe
and !Rbo represent direction cosine matrices relating orientation of the particular
even and odd-‐numbered link reference frames relative to frame !b . Once these
quantities have been evaluated for the first segment, copies may be rotated around
the barycentric frame’s z-‐axis by ±120° to obtain the remaining four displacement
matrices.

Examples of one-‐third mechanism segments

Figure 15. Section of the Bricard mechanism common to red and yellow vectors.
Figure 15 shows a section of the Bricard mechanism positioned relative to
barycentric frame !b . The lower two links are used to illustrate the relative spatial
displacement from the center of an odd-‐numbered link 5 (magenta/red) through an
even-‐numbered joint (red) to the center of an even-‐numbered link 0 (red/yellow).
The long red vector between the two frame origins and link centers of mass
represents the translational component of this displacement. The upper two links
are used to illustrate the relative displacement from the center of an even-‐
numbered link 0 (red/yellow) through an odd-‐numbered joint (yellow) to the
center of an odd-‐numbered link 1 (yellow/green). The long yellow vector between
the two frame origins and link centers of mass represents the translational
component of this displacement. These two spatial displacements in sequence
represent one-‐third of the circuit around the Bricard mechanism, which
corresponds to an angular displacement of 2π / 3 radians around the barycentric
frame’s z-‐axis.
We have selected the odd-‐numbered link 5 (magenta/red) and even-‐numbered link

0 (red/yellow) pair instead of the even and odd-‐numbered links 0 and 1 for the
following development. This is because they are centered on the barycentric frame’s
red x-‐axis. The advantage of this symmetric pair is that setting up the displacement
matrices Db0 and Db5 will be very similar, requiring less effort in the long run. Thus
! !

our sequential transformation for the one-‐third segment would be Doe Deo instead of
!
the previous DeoDoe . In terms of the actual links in Fig. 15 it would be D50D01 where
! !
links 5 (magenta/red), 0 (red/yellow), and 1 (yellow/green) are involved.

Figure 16. Section of the Bricard mechanism showing long green and cyan vectors.
Figure 16 shows a different segment of the Bricard mechanism. It is basically a
rotated copy of the first segment shown in Fig. 15, where the colors have been
changed to represent different links 1 (yellow/green), 2 (green/cyan), and
3(cyan/blue), different joints, and different connecting vectors. This segment is
rotated 2π / 3 radians around the barycentric frame’s blue z-‐axis from the segment
in Fig. 15. The relative even and odd-‐numbered joint displacements in this segment
are identical to those in the first segment, and the green and cyan vector lengths are
the same as the respective red and yellow vector lengths. In essence every local
property of the rotated copy matches the original. The only difference is that the
links, frames, and vectors in the rotated version have different absolute spatial
displacements relative to the barycentric frame !b .
A second copy of the links, joints, and vectors in Fig. 15 would be rotated by −2π / 3
radians around the barycentric frame’s blue z-‐axis to form the third segment of the
Bricard mechanism.

Referencing links to the barycentric frame b

Setting up to displace link 0 relative to frame b

Figure 17. Starting position for displacing link 0 (red/yellow) relative to barycentric
frame !b .
Figure 17 shows the starting configuration for positioning the assembled part of the
mechanism in Fig. 15, consisting of link 5 (magenta/red), link 0 (red/yellow), and
link 1 (yellow/green), relative to the barycentric frame !b . Frame !b is not apparent
in the image, because the frames attached to the red-‐joint ends of links 5
(magenta/red) and 0 (red/yellow) are sitting on top of it. Frame !b is oriented so
that its red x-‐axis points toward the center of the long red vector and its blue z-‐axis
points upward. For this assembly process, the long red and yellow vectors are fixed
relative to frame !b , and they lie in its x-‐y plane as indicated in Fig. 3.
In the ensuing assembly process, the link trio will be translated and rotated together
until particular origins of the three link reference frames align with ends of the two
long vectors. Once these origins are aligned with the vectors, this group of links will
be correctly positioned and oriented relative to the barycentric frame !b . This is true
because tips of the two vectors define three vertices of a triangle or three points not
on a straight line, which is sufficient to position and orient objects in space.
The trick to setting up this displacement is to first insert a floating frame f inside
the red joint common to links 5 (magenta/red) and 0 (red/yellow), where both links
are allowed to rotate relative to frame f around their common blue z-‐axes, but only
in a specific way. In Fig. 17 the red-‐joint ends of links 5 and 0 hide this floating
frame f , which initially coincides with frame !b . Thus the red x-‐axis of frame f
points toward the center of the long red vector and its blue x-‐axis points upward. As
this group of links is moved into place, the red and blue axes of frame f will remain
in the x-‐z plane of frame !b , and the green y-‐axes of frames !b and f will remain
parallel and maintain the same orientation.

Refer to Fig. 15 to see where this group of links will end up relative to frames !b and
f after performing the series of spatial displacements described next. Specifically
note the position and orientation of the long red vector relative to frame !b and the
position and orientation of the red-‐joint end of links 5 and 0 relative to the long red
vector. It will be helpful to periodically refer back to Fig. 15 as we go through the
following discussion.
Initially the axes of floating frame f align with those of the frame attached to the
red-‐joint end of link 0 (red/yellow). To obtain the final configuration, link 0
(red/yellow) and link 1 (yellow/green) must be rotated together relative to frame
f so that their two red-‐joint frames become centered on frame f . Thus, after the
three-‐link combination has been displaced to its final spatial position and
orientation relative to the barycentric frame, it will have been rotated by θ 0 2 = π 4
radians (in this example) relative to the floating frame f about its blue z-‐axis.
In summary, the origin of floating frame f will have been translated in the
barycentric frame’s x-‐z plane along its red x-‐axis, and frame f will then have been
rotated around its green y-‐axis. Referring back to Fig. 15, imagine the final position
and orientation of frame f , centered between the two red-‐joint ends of links 5 and
0. Its green y-‐axis will be parallel to the green y-‐axis of frame !b , and its blue z-‐axis
will be aligned with the blue z-‐axes of the two red-‐joint ends.
Four spatial displacements for link 0

The process of lining up the three link-‐frame origins with the fixed arrow tips is
somewhat involved. It consists of performing four sequential spatial displacements
in this order: Tx ( r cos ( β 0 2 )) , Ry (φ0 ) , Tx ((  2 ) sin (θ 0 2 )) , and Rz (θ 0 2 ) .
The first displacement Tx ( r cos ( β 0 2 )) translates the origin of frame f relative to
frame !b by the distance r cos ( β 0 2 ) along the common red x-‐axes of frames !b and
f . See Fig. 32 for the definition of !r and β0 , where β0 corresponds to βe in that
! ! !
figure. Translating frame f causes the three links to also translate with it. After this
translation, according to Fig. 15, the origin of frame f will lie on the center of the
long red vector with its green y-‐axis aligned with the long red vector and its blue z-‐
axis pointing upward, parallel to the blue z-‐axis of frame !b .
The second displacement Ry (φ0 ) rotates frame f around its green y-‐axis (also
around the long red vector) by an angle φ0 that must be determined. Again the three
!
links rotate with frame f . An equation to evaluate φ0 will be developed later.
!

The third displacement Tx ((  2 ) sin (θ 0 2 )) translates the origin of frame f and the
three links along its red x-‐axis a distance of
(  2 ) sin (θ 0 2 ) = (  2 ) cos ((π − θ 0 ) 2 ) (36)
Refer back to Fig. 15 to see where this distance comes from. Note that the long red
vector forms the base of an isosceles triangle, where the other two sides each have
length ! 2 and the angle between them is π − θ0 . Thus the perpendicular distance
!
from the center of the long red vector to the center of the common red joints is
(  2 ) sin (θ 0 2 ) , and this distance may be negative when !θ0 < 0 .
At this point the floating frame f will have been properly displaced relative to the
barycentric frame !b , but its axes coincide with those of the frame in the red-‐joint
attached to link 0 (red/yellow). The two red-‐joint frames attached to links must be
centered on frame f , so the three-‐link combination must be rotated around the
blue z-‐axis of frame f by θ0 2 . The final rotation Rz (θ 0 2 ) accomplishes this.
!
In the illustrations for this discussion, the angle between the two link-‐fixed frames
that form the red joint is θ 0 = π 2 radians around their common z-‐axes, which is the
value set for the example in Fig. 1. As noted earlier, this angle could take on any
value between ± 2π 3 radians, depending on the configuration being assembled for
the particular value of !0 ≤ θ < 4π . Likewise the angle between the two link-‐fixed
frames that form the yellow joint is θ1 = π 2 radians, and this angle could also take
on any value (subject to the constraint between θ 0 and θ1 ) between ± 2π 3 radians,
also depending on the value of !0 ≤ θ < 4π .
While the sequential spatial displacement process described above effectively

places all three links into position relative to frame !b for any value of !0 ≤ θ < 4π , it
is intended only to place link 0 (red/yellow) into position. The four steps needed to
place link 0 (red/yellow) into position in any configuration are the same; only the
joint angles and the length and position of the long red and yellow vectors are
different for different values of θ . The joint displacements and the length, position,
and orientation of the two long vectors can be determined for any value of θ
without knowing the link locations and orientations. The only unknown quantity
remaining to be determined is φ0 , and its equation will be developed next.
!

Obtaining the equation to evaluate !φ0

The angle φ0 cannot be evaluated using results of the spatial displacements
!
performed in the order described above. To identify an equation suitable for
computing φ0 , the three links first have to be placed into a different starting
!
position. Then, after the equation for φ0 has been identified, the spatial
!
displacements can take place in the order described earlier. Figure 18 will illustrate
how φ0 is evaluated, and Fig. 19 will show a plot of φ0 for all values of the parametric
! !
variable !0 ≤ θ < 4π . Then Figs. 20 to 23 will illustrate the four steps described
earlier for displacing the links to their final spatial position relative to the
barycentric frame !b for the configuration shown in Fig. 1.

Figure 18. Temporary configurations for determining the rotation angle φ0 .
To help evaluate the rotation angle φ0 from the geometry of the three links in Fig.
18, two configurations are shown, where the centers of link 5 (magenta/red) and
link 0 (red/yellow) coincide with the respective tail and head ends of the long red
vector. The figure illustrates the spatial orientation of the links relative to
barycentric frame !b and the long red and yellow vectors before and after rotation
by φ0 around the long red vector. In the orientation before rotation, the center of
link 1 (yellow/green) is below the barycentric frame’s x-‐y plane and is not close to
the head of the long yellow vector. (Unfortunately this is difficult to see in the image,
but notice that its green end is substantially below its yellow end.) In the orientation
after rotation, the center of link 1 (yellow/green) has been rotated upward by angle
φ0 so it then coincides with the head of the yellow vector. (Now the green end of link

1 has been swung upward relative to its yellow end.) In this orientation, the centers
of all three links are in their final positions in the x-‐y plane of frame !b , which means
that this three-‐link section of the Bricard mechanism is in its final spatial position
relative to frame !b .
To determine φ0 , a vector from the center of link 0 (red/yellow) to the center of link
1 (yellow/green) is first expressed in the red joint’s floating frame f coordinates,
which is centered in the red joint in this case. Then frame f and this vector are
rotated by φ0 around its green y-‐axis and the long red vector, which is also oriented
with and parallel to the barycentric frame’s green y-‐axis.
Let
⎡ cos (θ 2 ) − sin (θ 2 ) 0 ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
⎢ 0 0
⎥⎢ 0 ⎥
v 0 = ⎢ sin (θ 0 2 ) cos (θ 0 2 ) 0 ⎥ ⎢  2
f
⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢⎣ 0 0 1 ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ 0 ⎥⎦
(37)
⎡ − sin (θ 2 ) ⎤
⎢ 0
⎥
= ⎢ cos (θ 0 2 ) ⎥  2
⎢ ⎥
⎢⎣ 0 ⎥⎦
represent coordinates of the vector from the center of link 0 (red/yellow) to the
center of joint 1 (yellow) in floating frame f . This transformation by θ0 2 around
!
the blue z-‐axis is required, because the red joint is centered on frame f , and the
frame attached to the red-‐joint end of link 0 (red/yellow) has been rotated away
from frame f about their common blue z-‐axes by that amount.
In a similar manner let
⎡ cos (θ 2 ) − sin (θ 2 ) 0 ⎤ ⎡ ⎡ cosθ1 − sin θ1 0 ⎤ ⎡ 0 ⎤

⎢ 0 0
⎥ ⎢ 0 0 −1 ⎤⎥ ⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥
v 1 = ⎢ sin (θ 0 2 ) cos (θ 0 2 ) 0 ⎥ 0 1 0 ⎢ sin θ1 cosθ1 0 ⎥ ⎢  2
f
⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢
⎢⎣ 0 0 1 ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ 1 0 0 ⎥⎦ ⎣ 0 0 1 ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ 0 ⎥⎦
(38)
⎡ − sin (θ 2 ) cosθ ⎤
⎢ 0 1
⎥
= ⎢ cos (θ 0 2 ) cosθ1 ⎥ 2
⎢ ⎥
⎢⎣ − sin θ1 ⎥⎦

represent coordinates of the vector from the center of joint 1 (yellow) to the center
of link 1 (yellow/green), also in floating frame f . The first transformation results
for the same reason as in the first case. The second transformation results, because
the joint reference frame for the yellow-‐joint end of link 0 (red/yellow) has been
rotated by !− π 2 radians about the common green y-‐axes lying along the link 0
(red/yellow) centerline. The third transformation results because link 1
(yellow/green) has been rotated about the yellow joint’s blue z-‐axes by angle θ1 .
!
The vector being transformed in this case lies along the centerline of link 1
(yellow/green) and has only the single nonzero y-‐coordinate ! 2 in the link frame.
Coordinates of the desired vector are then the sum of these two matrices or
f
v 01 = v 0f + v 1f
⎡ − sin (θ 2 ) ⎤ ⎡ − sin (θ 2 ) cosθ ⎤
⎢ 0
⎥ ⎢ 0 1
⎥
= ⎢ cos (θ 0 2 ) ⎥  2 + ⎢ cos (θ 0 2 ) cosθ1 ⎥  2 (39)
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢⎣ 0 ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ − sin θ1 ⎥⎦
⎡ − sin (θ 2 ) (1+ cosθ ) ⎤
⎢ 0 1
⎥
= ⎢ cos (θ 0 2 ) (1+ cosθ1 ) ⎥ 2
⎢ ⎥
⎢⎣ − sin θ1 ⎥⎦
To find the rotation angle φ0 , use Ry (φ0 ) to rotate the link combination around the
common long red vector and green y-‐axis of frame ! f to bring the link-‐1
(yellow/green) reference frame origin into alignment with the arrowhead end of the
long yellow vector. This rotation is equivalent to the matrix product v b01 = Ry (φ0 ) v 01
f

or
sin φ0 ⎤ ⎢ − sin (θ 0 2 ) (1+ cosθ1 ) ⎢ ( )

⎡ cosφ0 ⎡ ⎤ ⎡ sin φ sin θ − cosφ sin (θ 2 ) (1+ cosθ ) ⎤
0
⎢ ⎥ ⎥ 0 0 0 1
⎥ (40)
⎢ 0 1 0 ⎥ ⎢ cos (θ 0 2 ) (1+ cosθ1 ) ⎥ 2 = ⎢ cos (θ 0 2 ) (1+ cosθ1 ) ⎥ 2
⎢ − sin φ0 0 cosφ0 ⎥ ⎢⎢ − sin θ1
⎥
⎥⎦
⎢ ⎥
⎣ ⎦⎣ ⎢⎣ 0 ⎥⎦
In essence, v 01
f
has been rotated by φ0 around the y-‐axis of frame ! f to zero out its z-‐
component. Thus the third equation in Eq. (40) is used to obtain
sin θ1
tan φ0 = (41)
sin (θ 0 2 ) (1+ cosθ1 )

Equation (41) has two problems in that the denominator may go to zero, and the
correct quadrant for determining φ0 cannot be determined. However, the angle φ0
can be determined correctly using the programming-‐style function
φ0 = atan2 ( sin θ1 ,sin (θ 0 2 ) (1+ cosθ1 )) (42)
to avoid dividing by zero and to identify the correct quadrant.
There is also one more condition to consider. As θ progresses from 0 to 4π radians,
φ0 will execute a full 360° rotation, starting at 54.74° for the configuration shown in
Fig. 1 and ending at 414.74°, again at the configuration in Fig. 1. The atan2 function
is designed to find angles between ±π and cannot give a continuous curve for φ0
over the full domain of θ . Thus additional logic
φ0 = φ0 + 2π ; 3π 2 ≤ θ < 4π (43)
is required to adjust the results from the atan2 function to give a continuous curve
for φ0 . A continuous plot of φ0 will be shown after looking at some examples.
Checking the equation to evaluate !φ0

To test Eq. (42), consider the three example configurations shown in Figs. 1, 6, and
8. In Fig. 1, the angles are θ 0 = θ1 = π 2 . Substituting these values into Eq. (42) gives
(
φ0 = atan2 1, 2 2 ) (44)
= 54.74°
As can be verified from Fig. 4 or Fig. 20, the links must be rotated around the
floating frame’s green y-‐axis by φ0 = 54.74° so that the center point of link 1
(yellow/green) moves into the barycentric frame’s x-‐y plane.
In Fig. 6, θ 0 = 0 and θ1 = 2π 3 . Substituting these values into Eq. (42) gives

φ0 = atan2 ( 3 2,0 ) (45)
= 90°
In this case, Fig. 6 shows that the links must be rotated around the floating frame’s
green y-‐axis by φ0 = 90° so that the center point of link 1 moves into the barycentric
frame’s x-‐y plane.
In Fig. 8, θ1 = 0 and θ 0 = 2π 3 . Substituting these values into Eq. (42) gives


φ0 = atan2 0, 3 ( ) (46)
= 0°
Inspecting Fig. 8 reveals that the center point of link 1 is already in the barycentric
frame’s x-‐y plane with the floating frame’s blue z-‐axis pointing upward, so the
bodies need no rotation. (In reality, as shown in Fig. 19 below, the bodies were
rotated to 360°, but the atan2 function was unable to detect this.)

Figure 19. Rotation angle φ0 of the floating frame f centered in joint 0.
Figure 19 shows the rotation angle φ0 around the green y-‐axis of floating frame ! f ,
centered in joint 0, for one complete cycle of the Bricard mechanism. The angle φ0
starts at 54.74°, which corresponds to the configuration in Fig. 1, and ends at
414.74° = 54.74° + 360°, which again corresponds to the configuration in Fig. 1. The
configuration in Fig. 6 is at θ = π 2 radians, and the plot shows that φ0 is 90°, which
was computed above. The configuration in Fig. 8 occurs at θ = 7π 2 radians, and the
plot shows that φ0 is 360°, which was evaluated as 0° in the above calculation.

Illustrating the four spatial displacements

Figure 20. First translation for placing link 0 (red/yellow).
Figure 20 shows the first step in the assembly process where the image of the
displaced segment was superimposed on the image of the original configuration in
Fig. 17 to illustrate the relative spatial displacement. The floating frame ! f and the
three links were translated along its red x-‐axis until its origin intersected the long
red vector. (Refer again to Fig. 15.) The distance translated is r cos ( β 0 2 ) . (Again see
Fig. 32 for the definition of β e and β o , where β 0 is an instance of β e , corresponding
to an even-‐numbered joint and link. Equations to evaluate r and β 0 are derived
later.) In this configuration the floating frame’s green y-‐axis now aligns with and
points in the direction of the long red vector.

Figure 21. First rotation by φ0 for placing link 0 (red/yellow).

Figure 21 shows the next step in relocating the links, with the previous and new
positions superimposed. For example, the magenta end of link 5 (magenta/red) is
now rotated upward relative to its original position about the centerline of link 0
(red/yellow) by the angle φ0 , which is not shown in the figure.

Figure 22. Second translation for placing link 0 (red/yellow).
Figure 22 shows the next configuration superimposed on the previous one from Fig.
21. The floating frame ! f and the three links are now translated a distance of
(  2 ) sin (θ 0 2 ) along its red x-‐axis, which is still aligned with the centerline of link 5
(magenta/red). The red x-‐axis of frame ! f is barely visible in Fig. 22, because it is
hidden by the green y-‐axis of the red-‐joint frame of link 5 (magenta/red).

Figure 23. Second rotation for placing link 0 (red/yellow).

Figure 23 shows the final step in relocating the links, where the previous and new
positions are again shown. The mechanism has now been rotated θ 0 2 radians
relative to frame ! f around the common blue z-‐axes in the red joint, which
corresponds to π 4 radians in this example. Frame ! f was not rotated, so its red x-‐
axis remains orthogonal to the long red vector. Effectively the red-‐joint frame
attached to link 0 (red/yellow) has been rotated θ 0 2 radians away from frame ! f ,
and the red joint frame attached to link 5 (magenta/red) has been rotated −θ 0 2
radians away from frame ! f . After this second rotation, the centers of links 5, 0, and
1 in Fig. 23 coincide with appropriate ends of the red and yellow vectors, just as
they do in the temporary configuration in Fig. 18 and in Fig. 1.
Verifying the link spatial displacement equation

The matrix product
Tx ( r cos ( β 0 2 )) Ry (φ0 ) Tx ((  2 ) sin (θ 0 2 )) Rz (θ 0 2 ) (47)
represents the sequence of displacements described in Figs. 20 to 23. Equation (47)
is expanded as
⎡ 1 0 0 0 ⎤⎡ 1 0 0 0 ⎤⎡ 1 0 0 0 ⎤⎡ 1 0 0 0 ⎤
⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥ ⎢ 0 cos (θ 2 ) − sin (θ 2 ) ⎥
⎢ r cos ( β 0 2 ) 1 0 0 ⎥ ⎢ 0 cosφ0 sin φ0 ⎥ ⎢ (  2 ) sin (θ 0 2 )
= (48)
0 1 0 0 ⎥⎢ 0 0 0 ⎥
⎢ 0 ⎥⎥
⎢ 0 0 1 0 ⎥⎢ 0 0 1 0 ⎥⎢ 0 0 1 0 ⎥ ⎢ 0 sin (θ 0 2 ) cos (θ 0 2 )
⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥
0 cosφ0 ⎥ ⎢⎢ ⎥
⎢⎣ 0 0 0 1 ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ 0 − sin φ0 ⎦⎣ 0 0 0 1 ⎥⎦ ⎢ 0 0 0 1 ⎥⎦
⎣
⎡ 1 0 0 0 ⎤
⎢ ⎥
⎢ r cos ( β 0 2 ) + cos φ 0 (  2 ) sin (θ 0 2 ) cos φ 0 cos (θ 0 2 ) − cos φ 0 sin (θ 0 2 ) sin φ0 ⎥
⎢ 0 sin (θ 0 2 ) cos (θ 0 2 ) 0 ⎥⎥
⎢
⎢
⎢⎣ − sin φ0 (  2 ) sin (θ 0 2 ) − sin φ0 cos (θ 0 2 ) sin φ0 sin (θ 0 2 ) cosφ0 ⎥⎥
⎦
Equation (48) describes where the coordinate frame attached to the red joint-‐end
on link 0 (red/yellow) will be located relative to the barycentric frame b . However,
it does not describe the position and orientation of the reference frame attached to
link 0 (red/yellow) at its center of mass relative to frame b . Additional
transformations would be needed to express the displacement of link 0’s reference
frame relative to frame b .
To check this displacement, consider the example shown in Fig. 1. Set  = 1 ,
r = 2 2 , θ 0 = π 2 ,  0 = cos (θ 0 2 ) = 2 2 , β 0 = 2sin −1 (  0 2r ) = 2sin −1 (1 2 ) = π 3 ,
cosφ0 = 3 3 , and sin φ0 = 6 3 . Substituting these quantities into Eq. (48) gives

⎡ 1 0 0 0 ⎤
⎢ ⎥ ⎡ 1 0 0 0 ⎤
⎢ 6 3 6 6 − 6 6 6 3 ⎥ ⎢ 0.816 0.408 −0.408 0.816 ⎥
⎢ ⎥=⎢ ⎥ (49)
⎢ 0 2 2 2 2 0 ⎥ ⎢ 0 0.707 0.707 0 ⎥
⎢ − ⎢ ⎥
⎢⎣ 3 6 − 3 3 3 3 3 3 ⎥⎥ ⎣ −0.289 −0.577 0.577 0.577 ⎦
⎦
Refer back to Figs. 1, 4, and 5 to verify that these numbers look reasonable. The
bottom three entries in the first column of the matrix in Eq. (49) locate the red
joint’s center relative to barycentric frame !b and in its coordinates. The figures
show that the joint lies in the barycentric plane, so the y-‐component is zero as
expected. The figures also indicate that the z-‐component is negative, the x-‐
component is positive, and the magnitudes look reasonable when referring to Fig. 4.
The bottom three entries of the fourth column in Eq. (49) indicate the red joint’s
blue z-‐axis projection onto frame !b axes. Figure 1 shows that this vector lies in the
barycentric frame’s x-‐z plane, so its projection onto the y-‐axis is zero, and Figs. 4 and
5 show that its projection onto the x and z-‐ axes are positive and reasonable.
The bottom three entries of the second and third columns in Eq. (49) indicate red x-‐
axis and green y-‐axis projections of the red joint (of link 0 (red/yellow)) onto the
barycentric frame’s three axes. The numbers for the red x-‐axis vector are a bit more
difficult to verify, because a green y-‐axis vector from another frame has hidden the
red x-‐axis vector. But this red x-‐axis vector points up and to the right in Fig. 1, so the
x and y components in column two look reasonable. And the green y-‐axis points up
and to the left in Fig. 1, so the x and y components in column three also look
reasonable. Verifying the z-‐components in these columns is a bit more difficult.
Figure 4 shows that the red joint is below the barycentric frame’s x-‐y plane, so its
visible green y-‐axis in Fig. 4 is pointing upward toward this plane and has a positive
z-‐component. In a similar manner, the red joint’s hidden red x-‐axis is aligned with
the centerline of link 5 (magenta/red) and pointing away from barycentric frame’s
x-‐y plane, so it has a negative z-‐component.

Illustrating the spatial displacements for link 5 (magenta/red)

Figure 24. Initial configuration for placing link 5 (magenta/red).
A similar sequence of operations is performed using links 4, 5, and 0 instead of links
5, 0, and 1 to place link 5 (magenta/red) relative to the barycentric frame. In
general, there would be no need to position link 5 (magenta/red) using the same
method as described above, because it could be placed relative to link 0
(red/yellow) using the connecting red joint’s angular displacement. But placing link
5 (magenta/red) using techniques similar to the previous method will show how its
absolute displacement and velocity may be evaluated directly, independent of link 0.
And doing this will provide some other benefits as discussed later.
Once the absolute displacement and velocity of links 0 and 5 have been evaluated,
the absolute displacement and velocity of the other links may be evaluated by
rotating copies of these two links and their displacements and velocities by ± 2π 3
around the barycentric frame’s blue z-‐axis. Because the kinematics of each pair of
links is based on the same relative displacements and velocities, this approach
avoids extra overhead.

Figure 24 shows the section of the Bricard mechanism composed of links 4, 5, and 0
with internal joint angle values corresponding to those in Fig. 1. This three-‐link
combination is set up so that frame ! f and the red-‐joint frame attached to link 5
(magenta/red) are initially aligned with frame !b . The known and fixed positions
and orientations of the long magenta and red vectors are also shown relative to
frame !b .
In this example, the coordinate frame of the red joint attached to link 5
(magenta/red) is initially aligned with that joint’s floating frame f , and both frames
are aligned with the barycentric coordinate frame b . This is the starting
configuration shown in Fig. 24. Just as in the previous example, the red x-‐axes of the
two frames in the red joint point toward the center of the long red vector. The long
magenta and red vectors are used in this example, because they will connect the
centers of links 4, 5, and 0.

Figure 25. First translation for placing link 5 (magenta/red).
Figure 25 shows the first adjustment step, where the bodies are translated by
r cos ( β 0 2 ) along the floating frame’s red x-‐axis until its origin lies on the long red
vector. The previous configuration in Fig. 24 is also shown for reference.


Figure 26. First rotation for placing link 5 (magenta/red).
In Fig. 26 the same φ0 used in the previous example rotates the bodies, because it is
the same frame ! f in the red joint used to rotate link 0. This rotation has now
brought the center of link 4 (blue/magenta) closer to the tail of the magenta vector.

Figure 27. Second translation for placing link 5 (magenta/red).

In Fig. 27 the bodies are translated along the floating frame’s red x-‐axis a distance of
(  2 ) sin (θ 0 2 ) , which is also the same distance used in the previous example. In fact,
the relative displacements in Figs. 25-‐27 are the same as those used in the first
example in Figs. 20 to 22 to place link 0 (red/yellow).

Figure 28. Second rotation for placing link 5 (magenta/red).
Only the spatial displacement in the final step shown in Fig. 28 differs from the
previous example. In the final step of that example in Fig. 23, the bodies were
rotated relative to frame ! f by θ 0 2 . In Fig. 28, the bodies are rotated relative to
frame ! f by − θ 0 2 . The origins of the center frames on the three links now coincide
with the appropriate heads and tails of the long magenta and red vectors. The
spatial displacement of link 5 (magenta/red) at its red joint end relative to the
barycentric frame b is obtained by replacing Rz (θ 0 2 ) with Rz ( − θ 0 2 ) in Eq. (47).
Just as was noted for link 0 (red/yellow), this displacement does not describe the
position and orientation of the reference frame attached to link 5 (magenta/red/) at
its center of mass. Additional transformations are required to express the
displacement of link 5’s reference frame relative to frame !b .
Evaluating other displacement quantities

Evaluate distance between link reference frames
Now that a method is available to directly position and orient the six links relative to
the barycentric frame for any value of θ , the rest of the kinematics is relatively

straightforward. However, the quantities needed to place the bodies into their
correct locations for any value of θ still have to be evaluated.
The assembled mechanism in Figs. 1, 4-‐6, and 8 show that each vector representing
one edge of the hexagon is also the base of an isosceles or equilateral triangle, where
the other two sides have a length of  2 . Since the even or odd-‐numbered joint
angle opposite the respective even or odd-‐numbered vector at the triangle’s base is
known, the corresponding vector’s length may be obtained as
 e = sin ( (π − θ e ) 2 ) = cos (θ e 2 )
(50)
 o = sin ( (π − θ o ) 2 ) = cos (θ o 2 )

Figure 29. Normalized length of even and odd-‐numbered vectors connecting link
centers for  = 1 .
Figure 29 shows plots of  e and  o representing the length of vectors subtending
the respective even and odd-‐numbered joint angles for  = 1 . These vectors range in
magnitude from  2 to  .

Evaluate radius of link centers in barycentric frame

Figure 30. Layout for determining the radius r of link centers.
The radius r of the circle containing the six mass centers is evaluated next. An
equilateral triangle was drawn in black around the outer edges of the hexagon
shown in Fig. 7. (A similar equilateral triangle with the same orientation may be
drawn around each hexagon no matter what configuration the Bricard mechanism
takes. For example, compare the superimposed triangles in Fig. 10.)
Consider the larger right triangle in Fig. 30 with its top leg labeled x and its divided
vertical leg extending to the lower corner of the large equilateral triangle. The upper
part of this vertical leg has a length of  e 2 and the lower part has a length of  o .
(The roles of  e and  o could be reversed and yield the same results.) The two
segments are equal in this example, but in general they are not. Regardless of their
relative size, the lower angle of this triangle is always π 6 , because it is half of the
equilateral triangle’s angle of π 3 . From this triangle is obtained the relationship
x ⎛π⎞ 3 (51)
= tan ⎜ ⎟ =
e 2 + o ⎝ 6⎠ 3
Then the smaller right triangle with r as its hypotenuse and x and  e 2 as its two
legs yields
r 2 = x 2 + 2e 4
= (  e 2 +  o ) 3 + 2e 4
2
(52)
= ( 2e + 2o +  e o ) 3
(
= (  e +  o ) −  e o
2
)3
or
r= (( +  ) −   ) 3
e o
2
e o
(53)


Figure 31. Normalized radius r of link reference frames and mass centers for  = 1 .
Figure 31 shows how the radius r varies in a somewhat sinusoidal fashion, ranging
from a minimum of 6 12 when all six joint angles have values of ± π 2 radians to
a maximum of 7 12 when three of the angles are zero and the other three are
± 2π 3 radians.
Evaluate subtended angles to adjacent-‐link vectors

Figure 32. Layout for determining subtended angles β e and β o .
Referring to Fig. 32 with r ,  e , and  o known, the subtended angles β e and β o may
be determined from
⎛ ⎞
β e = 2sin −1 ⎜ e ⎟
⎝ 2r ⎠ (54)
⎛ ⎞
β o = 2sin −1 ⎜ o ⎟ = 2π 3 − β e
⎝ 2r ⎠


Figure 33. Subtended angles β e and β o .
Figure 33 shows the subtended angles in the center-‐of-‐mass circle for all possible
mechanism configurations. For any value of θ it is easily verified that
β e + β o = 2π 3 , which corresponds to one third of the Bricard mechanism, one third
of the hexagon, and one third of the center-‐of-‐mass circle.
Evaluate position of link centers

Coordinates of the six vectors locating the link centers of mass relative to the
barycentric frame b are expressed in this frame as
⎡ cβ 0 ⎤ ⎡ −cβ − 3sβ ⎤ ⎡ −cβ + 3sβ ⎤

⎢ ⎥ r⎢ ⎥ r⎢ ⎥
0 0 0 0
b
r b0 = r ⎢ sβ 0 ⎥;
b
r b2 = ⎢ 3cβ 0 − sβ 0 ⎥; r bb 4 = ⎢ − 3cβ − sβ ⎥
⎢ 0 ⎥ 2⎢ ⎥ 2⎢ 0 0
⎥
⎣ ⎦ ⎢⎣ 0 ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ 0 ⎥⎦ (55)
⎡ cβ 0 ⎤ ⎡ −cβ + 3sβ ⎤ ⎡ −cβ − 3sβ ⎤
⎢ ⎥ r⎢ ⎥ r⎢ ⎥
0 0 0 0
b
r b5 = r ⎢ −sβ 0 ⎥; r b1 = ⎢
b
3cβ 0 + sβ 0 ⎥; r b 3 = ⎢ − 3cβ + sβ
b
⎥
⎢ 0 ⎥ 2⎢ ⎥ 2⎢ 0 0
⎥
⎣ ⎦ ⎢⎣ 0 ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ 0 ⎥⎦
where cβ 0 = cos ( β 0 2 ) and sβ 0 = sin ( β 0 2 ) . (The symbol !r was used in Eq. (55) to
represent coordinates of translation or position vectors instead of !t introduced
earlier. This discrepancy results from associating !r with the circle radius symbol !r

of link centers in the barycentric plane.) All six vectors are expressed in terms of just
two variables r and β 0 , which makes it easier and more efficient to evaluate their
coordinates and first time derivatives. As indicated in Fig. 32, coordinates of r b0 b
and
b
r b5 are simply reflections of each other around the barycentric frame’s red x-‐axis.
Coordinates of the other four vectors are obtained by rotating copies of r b0
b
and r b5
b

by ± 2π 3 radians around the barycentric frame’s blue z-‐axis. It is easy to verify
from Eq. (55) that
∑
5
i=0
rbib = 0 (56)
Evaluate first time derivatives

Time derivative of position vectors
Since the barycentric frame b is not moving in this development, coordinates of the
position vectors in Eq. (55) may be differentiated directly yielding
⎡ −sβ 0 ⎤ ⎡ −sβ 0 ⎤
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
b b
r b0
r r b5
r
r b0 = r + ⎢ cβ 0 ⎥ β0 ; r b5 = r + ⎢ −cβ 0 ⎥ β0
b b
r 2⎢ ⎥ r 2⎢ ⎥
⎣ 0 ⎦ ⎣ 0 ⎦
⎡ sβ − 3cβ ⎤ ⎡ sβ + 3cβ ⎤

b
r b2
r ⎢ 0 0
⎥ ⎢
b
r b1
r
0 0
⎥ (57)
r b2 = r + ⎢ − 3sβ − cβ ⎥ β0 ; r b1 = r + ⎢ − 3sβ + cβ ⎥ β0
b b
r 4⎢ 0 0
⎥ r 4⎢ 0 0
⎥
⎢⎣ 0 ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ 0 ⎥⎦
⎡ sβ + 3cβ ⎤ ⎡ sβ − 3cβ ⎤
r bb 4 r⎢ ⎥ ⎢
r bb 3 ⎥
0 0 0 0
r
r bb 4 = r + ⎢ 3sβ − cβ ⎥ β0 ; r bb 3 = r + ⎢ 3sβ + cβ ⎥ β0
r 4⎢ 0 0
⎥ r 4⎢ 0 0
⎥
⎢⎣ 0 ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ 0 ⎥⎦
Differentiating Eq. (56) also gives
∑
5
i=0
rbib = 0 (58)
Time derivative of joint angles

Equation (57) expresses the translational velocities relative to the barycentric frame
b in terms of r and β0 , which must be evaluated in terms of θ . To express
quantities in terms of θ , first differentiate Eq. (22) with respect to time as
(1+ ce ) soθo + (1+ co ) seθe = 0 (59)

Then use Eq. (59) to express derivatives of the equations in Eq. (27) in terms of θ as
θe = − θ; θo =

(1+ co ) se θ; 0 ≤θ < π
(1+ ce ) so
θo = − θ; θe =
(1+ ce ) so θ; π ≤ θ < 2π
(1+ co ) se (60)
θe = θ; θo = −

(1+ co ) se θ; 2π ≤ θ < 3π
(1+ ce ) so
θo = θ; θe = −
(1+ ce ) so θ; 3π ≤ θ < 4π
(1+ co ) se
Applying the constant kinetic energy constraint

The challenge is to evaluate θ for each θ , given a value for the constant kinetic
energy, T (θ ,θ ) = C . A value for θ could be obtained from T (θ ,θ ) if a simple
equation was available, but the equation is rather complex, and manipulating it to
isolate θ can be avoided. An easier approach is to first set θ = 1 and evaluate a
normalized kinetic energy T (θ ,θ = 1) . Then, since T (θ ,θ ) is proportional to θ 2 , Eq.
(9) may be used to obtain θ .
Figure 34. θ for Bricard mechanism model and constant kinetic energy T (θ ,θ ) .

Figure 34 shows a typical plot of scaled θ for constant kinetic energy with specified
mass and moments of inertia. The actual parameter values are not important for this
illustration. An interesting feature of the scaled θ as a function of θ in Fig. 34 is that
its slope is not continuous. As discussed earlier, the reason for this lack of continuity
in slope is that θ is not a natural variable to the Bricard mechanism; it was
introduced as a parametric quantity to simplify evaluating the joint angles.
While the slope of the scaled θ curve in Fig. 34 is not continuous, the slopes of all
other velocity curves based on this scaled quantity must be continuous. Since all
other scaled quantities are used to compute constant kinetic energy over the
Bricard mechanism’s full cycle, and because the slope of a constant curve is
continuous, these curves must have continuous slopes.
Figure 35. Normalized and scaled values for θe and θo .
Figure 35 shows scaled plots of θe and θo superimposed on normalized plots of θe
and θo evaluated using θ = 1 . The scaled θ curve in Fig. 34 was multiplied with the
normalized θe and θo curves in Fig. 35 to obtain the smooth, scaled θe and θo
curves. The scaled θ and normalized θe and θo curves each have discontinuous
slopes, but when multiplied together to evaluate the scaled θe and θo curves, the
discontinuities have mysteriously canceled out, giving the smooth results. These
smooth, scaled curves are what would have been used to evaluate the smooth,
constant T (θ ,θ ) curve if θ were known.

Time derivative of other intermediate quantities

Next, the translational velocity of each link’s center of mass is expressed relative to

frame !b . Let rb0 denote the vector from the origin of frame !b to the reference frame

origin of link 0 (red/yellow). The angle β e 2 gives the angle of vector rb0 relative to

the barycentric frame’s fixed red x-‐axis. Thus βe gives the rotational rate of rb0

around the barycentric frame’s blue z-‐axis. The length r of rb0 also changes,
requiring that r be evaluated as well. To find r , differentiate 3r 2 = 2e + 2o +  e o ,
obtained from Eq. (52), to get
r =
( 2 e +  o )  e + ( 2 o +  e )  o (61)
6r
Then differentiate Eq. (50) to obtain
−sin (θ e 2 ) 
 e = θe
2
(62)
 o =
−sin (θ o 2 ) θo
2
Figure 36. Normalized and scaled values for  e and  o .

Figure 36 shows scaled plots of  e and  o superimposed on normalized plots of  e
and  o evaluated using θ = 1 . Just as was done for the previous case, the scaled θ
curve in Fig. 34 was multiplied with the normalized  e and  o curves in Fig. 36 to
obtain the scaled  e and  o curves. And again the discontinuities in slopes have
canceled out to give smooth results. These smooth scaled curves are what would
have been used to evaluate T (θ ,θ ) if θ were known.

Figure 37. Normalized and scaled values for r .
With  e and  o known, Eq. (61) is used to evaluate the time derivative of the center-‐
of-‐mass circle radius r . Figure 37 shows the scaled r superimposed on the
normalized plot. In this case, both curves appear to have continuous slopes, because
the discontinuities in slopes occur where r = 0 .
With  e and r known, differentiate  e = 2r sin ( β e 2 ) from Eq. (54) to obtain
 e = (  e r ) r + r cos ( β e 2 ) βe (63)
and solve for βe as
 e − (  e r ) r
βe = (64)
r cos ( β e 2 )

A similar equation for βo may be obtained as
 o − (  o r ) r
βo = = − βe (65)
r cos ( β o 2 )
The last identity in Eq. (65) comes from differentiating β o = 2π 3 − β e in Eq. (54).
Figure 38. Normalized and scaled values for βe and βo .
Figure 38 shows scaled plots of βe and βo superimposed on their normalized plots.
Again multiplying the normalized curves with the scaled θ curve in Fig. 34 has
given scaled curves with continuous slopes in Fig. 38.
Angular velocity of the links

To determine the Bricard mechanism’s motion from its specified constant kinetic
energy, the equation for T (θ ,θ ) must be developed so that it can be used to solve
for θ . The linear velocity of each link’s center of mass was already developed, but
the angular velocity of the even and odd-‐numbered links still needs to be
determined. The direction cosine matrix

Rb0 = Ry (φ0 ) Rz (θ 0 2 ) (66)
is extracted from Eq. (47) and differentiated with respect to time to express the
angular velocity of link 0 (red/yellow) relative to the barycentric frame !b as
R b0 = R y (φ0 ) Rz (θ 0 2 ) + Ry (φ0 ) R z (θ 0 2 )
= ω bfb Ry (φ0 ) Rz (θ 0 2 ) + Ry (φ0 )ω ff 0 Rz (θ 0 2 )
(67)
( )
= ω bfb + ω bf 0 Ry (φ0 ) Rz (θ 0 2 )
= ω b0
b
Rb0
In Eq. (67) ω bfb is the angular velocity of the frame f in red joint 0 relative to frame
b , and ω bf 0 is the angular velocity of link 0 (red/yellow) relative to frame f . Thus
ω b0
b
= ω bfb + ω bf 0 (68)
expresses the angular velocity of link 0 (red/yellow) relative to frame b . In earlier
discussions it was noted that the y-‐axis of frame f in red joint 0 remains oriented
with the barycentric frame’s y-‐axis, so
⎡ 0 ⎤
⎢ ⎥
ω =ω = ⎢
b
bf
f
bf φ0 ⎥ (69)
⎢ 0 ⎥⎦
⎣
In a similar manner, the blue z-‐axes of frame ! f and the link 0 (red/yellow)
reference frame have the same orientation, so
⎡ 0 ⎤
⎢ ⎥
ω ff 0 = ω 0f 0 = ⎢ 0 ⎥ (70)
⎢ θ0 2 ⎥
⎣ ⎦
Transforming ω ff 0 to frame b gives

ω bf 0 = Ry (φ0 )ω ff 0
⎡ cosφ0 0 sin φ0 ⎤ ⎡ 0 ⎤
⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥
=⎢ 0 1 0 ⎥ ⎢ 0 ⎥ (71)
⎢ − sin φ0 0 cosφ0 ⎥ ⎢⎣ θ0 2 ⎥⎦
⎣ ⎦
⎡ sin φ θ 2 ⎤
⎢ 0 0
⎥
=⎢ 0 ⎥
⎢ cosφ θ 2 ⎥
⎣ 0 0
⎦
Combining Eqs. (69) and (71) then yields
⎡ sin φ θ 2 ⎤
⎢ 0 0
⎥
ω b0
b
=⎢ φ0 ⎥ (72)
⎢ ⎥
⎢⎣ cosφ0 θ0 2 ⎥⎦
The only difference between the absolute angular velocities of links 0 and 5 is that
link 0 (red/yellow) rotates at θ0 2 radians/second relative to frame f , and link 5
(magenta/red) rotates at − θ0 2 radians/second relative to it. Thus
⎡ − sin φ θ 2 ⎤
⎢ 0 0
⎥
ω b5
b
=⎢ 
φ0 ⎥ (73)
⎢ ⎥
⎢⎣ − cosφ0 θ0 2 ⎥⎦
Rotational velocities of the remaining links are simply copies of ω b0
b
and ω b5
b
rotated
by ± 2π 3 radians about the barycentric frame’s blue z-‐axis. Since copies of links 0
and 5 were also rotated by ± 2π 3 radians about the barycentric frame’s z-‐axis to
position the other four links, their local angular velocity vectors align with their
local inertia matrices, just like they do with links 0 and 5.
The even and odd-‐numbered links have identical local inertia matrices, are
symmetrical about their centerlines, and have principal inertia axes aligned with
their reference frame axes. With these requirements, all six links have the same
constant, diagonal local inertia matrix J , where its first and third components are
equal.
Using the local angular velocities

ω b0
0
= RzT (θ 0 2 ) RyT (φ0 )ω b0
b
⎡ cos (θ 2 ) sin (θ 2 ) 0 ⎤ ⎡ cosφ 0 − sin φ0 ⎤ ⎡⎢ sin φ0 θ0 2 ⎤⎥

⎢ 0 0
⎥⎢ 0
⎥
= ⎢ − sin (θ 0 2 ) cos (θ 0 2 ) 0 ⎥ ⎢ 0 1 0 ⎥⎢ φ0 ⎥ (74)
⎢ ⎥⎢
1 ⎥⎦ ⎣ sin φ0 0 cosφ0 ⎥ ⎢ cosφ θ 2 ⎥⎥
⎢
⎢⎣ 0 0 ⎦⎣ 0 0
⎦
⎡ sin (θ 2 )φ ⎤
⎢ 0 0
⎥
= ⎢ cos (θ 0 2 )φ0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ θ0 2 ⎥
⎣ ⎦
and
ω b5
5
= RyT ( − π 2 ) RzT ( −θ 0 2 ) RyT (φ0 )ω b5
b
⎡ 0 0 1 ⎤ ⎡ cos (θ 0 2 ) − sin (θ 0 2 ) 0 ⎤ ⎡ cosφ0 0 − sin φ0 ⎤ ⎡⎢ − sin φ0 θ0 2 ⎤⎥

⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥ (75)
= ⎢ 0 1 0 ⎥ ⎢ sin (θ 0 2 ) cos (θ 0 2 ) 0 ⎥ ⎢ 0 1 0 ⎥ ⎢ 
φ ⎥
⎢ ⎥ 0
⎢⎣ −1 0 0 ⎥⎦ ⎢⎢ ⎥⎢
1 ⎥⎦ ⎣ sin φ0 0 cosφ0 ⎥ ⎢⎢ − cosφ θ 2 ⎥⎥
⎣ 0 0 ⎦⎣ 0 0
⎦
⎡ − θ0 2 ⎤
⎢ ⎥
= ⎢ cos (θ 0 2 )φ0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ sin (θ 0 2 )φ0 ⎥
⎣ ⎦
each link may be verified to have the same rotational kinetic energy. The extra
transformation in Eq. (75) compared to Eq. (74) is necessary because the reference
frame for link 5 (magenta/red) has a different orientation than the frame in the red
joint attached to link 5 (magenta/red). (Refer to Fig. 2.)
Kinetic energy equations

The Bricard mechanism’s total kinetic energy is expressed initially as
1 5 bT b 1 5 iT i
T = m ∑ r bi r bi + ∑ ω bi Jω bi (76)
2 i=0 2 i=0
From Eq. (57) it follows that

bT b
r b0 r b0 r2  2 r2
r r =
bT
b0
b
b0 r2 + β 0 = r2 + β02
r2 4 4
bT b
(77)
r b5 r b5 r2 r2
r r =
bT
b5
b
b5 r + β02 = r2 + β02
2
r2 4 4
Equations (77) and earlier discussions show that the linear component of kinetic
energy of each link is the same, and so is the angular component of kinetic energy
for each link as indicated in the previous discussion. Thus Eq. (76) simplifies to
⎛ r2 ⎞
T = 3m ⎜ r2 + β02 ⎟ + 3ω b0
0T
Jω b0
0
(78)
⎝ 4 ⎠
Equation (78) is implicitly quadratic in θ and could be symbolically manipulated to
solve for θ . However, as noted earlier, it will be easier to set θ = 1 and use
normalized quantities in Eq. (78) to first evaluate T (θ ,θ = 1) , and then use Eq. (9) to
solve for θ and scale the normalized quantities to their true values, if they are even
needed.
To evaluate the normalized kinetic energy T (θ ,θ = 1) based on Eq. (78), start with
the normalized θ = 1 and use Eq. (60) to get
θ0 = − 1; θ5 =
(1+ cosθ 5 ) sinθ 0 ; 0 ≤θ < π
(1+ cosθ 0 ) sinθ 5
θ5 = − 1; θ0 =
(1+ cosθ 0 ) sinθ 5 ; π ≤ θ < 2π
(79)
θ0 = 1; θ5 = −
(1+ cosθ 5 ) sinθ 0 ; 2π ≤ θ < 3π
θ5 = 1; θ0 = −
(1+ cosθ 0 ) sinθ 5 ; 3π ≤ θ < 4π
Then use Eq. (62) to evaluate the normalized  0 and  5 , use Eq. (61) to evaluate the
normalized r , and use Eq. (64) to evaluate the normalized β . 0
Time derivative of !φ0

Evaluating the angular velocity of link 0 also requires a normalized value for φ0 ,
which may be obtained by differentiating Eq. (41) with θ1 replaced by θ 5 to get

sin (θ 0 2 ) (1+ cosθ 5 ) cosθ 5θ5 − sin θ 5 ( cos (θ 0 2 ) (1+ cosθ 5 ) 2 θ0 − sin (θ 0 2 ) sin θ 5θ5 )
φ0 = cos 2 φ0
sin 2 (θ 0 2 ) (1+ cosθ 5 )
2
(sin (θ 2 )(1+ cosθ ) cosθ + sin 2 θ 5 sin (θ 0 2 ))θ5 − ( sin θ 5 cos (θ 0 2 ) (1+ cosθ 5 ) 2 )θ0
= cos 2 φ0 (80)
0 5 5
sin 2 (θ 0 2 ) (1+ cosθ 5 )

2
sin (θ 0 2 )θ5 − ( sin θ 5 cos (θ 0 2 ) 2 )θ0

= cos 2 φ0
sin 2 (θ 0 2 ) (1+ cosθ 5 )
cos 2 φ0 ⎛ sin θ 5 ⎞
= ⎜ θ5 − θ0 ⎟
sin (θ 0 2 ) (1+ cosθ 5 ) ⎝ 2 tan (θ 0 2 ) ⎠
Now there is a problem with Eq. (80), because θ 0 can go to zero and cause a divide
by 0. Thus an alternate equation for φ0 is required for situations where θ 0 is close to
zero. This may be obtained by differentiating
1 sin (θ 0 2 ) (1+ cosθ 5 )

= (81)
tan φ0 sin θ 5
Equation (81) is just the inverse of Eq. (41) with θ 5 substituted for θ1 , and it is valid
for small values of θ 0 , because, as Fig. 13 shows, θ 5 is far from zero when θ 0 is close
to zero. Differentiating Eq. (81) gives
( )
⎛ sin θ 5 ( cos (θ 0 2 ) (1+ cosθ 5 ) 2 )θ0 − sin (θ 0 2 ) sin θ 5θ5 − sin (θ 0 2 ) (1+ cosθ 5 ) cosθ 5θ5 ⎞
φ0 = − sin 2 φ0 ⎜ ⎟
⎜⎝ sin 2 θ 5 ⎟⎠
sin 2 φ0 (82)
=
sin 2 θ 5
(
(sin2 θ 5 sin (θ 0 2 ) + sin (θ 0 2 )(1+ cosθ 5 ) cosθ 5 )θ5 − (sinθ 5 cos (θ 0 2 )(1+ cosθ 5 ) 2 )θ0 )
sin 2 φ0 (1+ cosθ 5 ) ⎛  sin θ 5 cos (θ 0 2 ) θ ⎞
=
sin 2 θ 5 ⎜⎝ sin (θ 0 2 )θ 5 − 2
0⎟
⎠
The logic for selecting the correct equation to evaluate φ0 is then given as
sin 2 φ0 (1+ cosθ 5 ) ⎛ 5 − sin θ 5 cos (θ 0 2 ) θ0 ⎞ ;


φ0 =
sin θ 5
2 ⎜⎝ sin (θ 0 2 )θ
2 ⎟⎠ 0 ≤θ < π
φ0 = ⎜ θ5 − θ0 ⎟ ; π ≤ θ < 2π
sin (θ 0 2 ) (1+ cosθ 5 ) ⎝ 2 tan (θ 0 2 ) ⎠
(83)
sin 2 φ0 (1+ cosθ 5 ) ⎛ 5 − sin θ 5 cos (θ 0 2 ) θ0 ⎞ ; 2π ≤ θ < 3π
φ0 =
sin θ 5
2 ⎜⎝ sin (θ 0 2 )θ
2 ⎟⎠
φ0 = ⎜ θ5 − θ0 ⎟ ; 3π ≤ θ < 4π
sin (θ 0 2 ) (1+ cosθ 5 ) ⎝ 2 tan (θ 0 2 ) ⎠

Figure 39. Normalized and scaled values for φ0 .
Figure 39 shows the normalized values for φ0 based on the normalized θ = 1 and the
corresponding scaled values based on the scaled θ . Compare the values of the
normalized curve in Fig. 39 with the slope of the φ0 curve in Fig. 21. Note that it is
!
the discontinuous normalized curve that matches the slope of the φ0 curve in Fig. 21,
!
not the scaled curve. The reason for this is that θ is the parametric quantity whose
time derivative θ does not represent a natural progression of any of the
mechanism’s joint variables through time.
With this current normalized value for φ0 , all normalized quantities are available to
evaluate the normalized kinetic energy in Eq. (78), which is then used in Eq. (9) to
evaluate the scaled θ . Then θ is numerically integrated to get the next value for θ ,
if desired, and the process repeats. A nice feature of this method is that no scaled
velocity quantity except θ is needed to simulate the Bricard mechanism.
Summary of steps for simulating the Bricard mechanism

The following steps summarize a minimum set of operations that must be
performed to simulate the Bricard mechanism.

1. Set a constant value for T (θ ,θ ) .

2. Set an initial value for θ .
3. Evaluate θ 0 and θ 5 using Eq. (27).
4. Evaluate φ0 using Eq. (42).
5. Evaluate  0 and  5 using Eq. (50).
6. Evaluate r using Eq. (53).
7. Evaluate β 0 using Eq. (54).
8. Evaluate normalized θ0 and θ5 using Eq. (79).
9. Evaluate normalized  0 and  5 using Eq. (62).
10. Evaluate normalized r using Eq. (61).
11. Evaluate normalized β0 using Eq. (64).
12. Evaluate normalized φ0 using Eq. (80) or Eq. (82).
13. Evaluate normalized ω b0 0
using Eq. (74).
14. Evaluate normalized T (θ ,θ = 1) using Eq. (78).
15. Evaluate scaled θ using Eq. (9).
16. Numerically integrate scaled θ , if desired, to get next value for θ .
17. Stop when finished or return to Step 3.
The scaled θ can be multiplied with normalized quantities, and other scaled
quantities can be evaluated in terms of the scaled θ if needed for output. Quantities
depending only on θ can also be directly evaluated for output if desired.
Animating the Bricard mechanism

Evaluating the link position vectors
When a Bricard mechanism animation is desired, such as for a screen saver, each
link’s graphics would be referenced to the barycentric frame b . The absolute
position of the six frames in barycentric frame b coordinates would be evaluated
using Eq. (55). To reduce the number of multiplications, the equations in Eq. (55)
are modified to
⎡ rcβ 0
⎢
⎤ ⎡ rxb0 ⎤
⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎡
( )
⎢ − (1 2 ) rxb0 − 3 2 ryb0
⎤
⎥
⎡
( )
⎢ − (1 2 ) rxb0 + 3 2 ryb0
⎤
⎥
=⎢ ⎥; = ⎢ − 3 2 r − (1 2 ) r ⎥
= ⎢ rsβ 0 ⎥ = ⎢ ryb0 ⎥ ; ( )
3 2 rxb0 − (1 2 ) ryb0 ( )
b b
r b0 r b2 r bb 4
⎢ 0 ⎥ ⎢ 0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ xb0 yb0 ⎥ (84)
⎣ ⎦ ⎣ ⎦ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎣ 0 ⎦ ⎣ 0 ⎦
⎡ rxb0
⎢
⎤
⎥
⎡
( )
⎢ − (1 2 ) rxb0 + 3 2 ryb0
⎤
⎥
⎡
( )
⎢ − (1 2 ) rxb0 − 3 2 ryb0
⎤
⎥
r b1 = ⎢ ⎥; r b 3 = ⎢ − 3 2 r + (1 2 ) r ⎥
= ⎢ −ryb0
( )
3 2 rxb0 + (1 2 ) ryb0 ( )
b b b
r b5 ⎥; ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
xb0 yb0
⎣ 0 ⎦ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎣ 0 ⎦ ⎣ 0 ⎦

Equation (84) shows that only six multiplications are required to evaluate the six
position vectors.
Link direction cosine matrices

The link orientations are best represented using normalized quaternions or Euler
parameters. Graphics packages such as OpenGL will take normalized quaternions
directly as input to evaluate their direction cosine matrices, so no additional
processing has to be performed. Example direction cosine matrices for links 0 and 5
are expanded to help verify the quaternion relationships. Equation (66) gives the
direction cosine matrix for link 0 (red/yellow) as
Rb0 = Ry (φ0 ) Rz (θ 0 2 )
⎡ cosφ0 0 sin φ0 ⎤ ⎡ cos (θ 0 2 ) − sin (θ 0 2 ) 0 ⎤

⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥
=⎢ 0 1 0 ⎥ ⎢ sin (θ 0 2 ) cos (θ 0 2 ) 0 ⎥ (85)
⎢ − sin φ0 0 cosφ0 ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎣ ⎦ ⎢⎣ 0 0 1 ⎥⎦
⎡ cosφ cos (θ 2 ) − cosφ sin (θ 2 ) sin φ ⎤
⎢ 0 0 0 0 0
⎥
= ⎢ sin (θ 0 2 ) cos (θ 0 2 ) 0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ − sin φ0 cos (θ 0 2 ) sin φ0 sin (θ 0 2 ) cosφ0 ⎥
⎣ ⎦
and the direction cosine matrix for link 5 (magenta/red) is
Rb5 = Ry (φ0 ) Rz ( −θ 0 2 ) Ry ( −π 2 )
(86)
⎡ cosφ0 0 sin φ0 ⎤ ⎡ cos ( − θ 0 2 ) − sin ( − θ 0 2 ) 0 ⎤ ⎡ cos ( −π 2 ) 0 − sin ( −π 2 ) ⎤
⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥
=⎢ 0 1 0 ⎥ ⎢ sin ( − θ 0 2 ) cos ( − θ 0 2 ) 0 ⎥ ⎢ 0 1 0 ⎥
⎢ − sin φ0 0 cosφ0 ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ sin −π 2 0 cos −π 2
( ) ( ) ⎥
⎣ ⎦ ⎢⎣ 0 0 1 ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ ⎥⎦
⎡ sin φ cosφ0 sin (θ 0 2 ) − cosφ0 cos (θ 0 2 ) ⎤
⎢ 0
⎥
=⎢ 0 cos (θ 0 2 ) sin (θ 0 2 ) ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ cosφ0 − sin φ0 sin (θ 0 2 ) sin φ0 cos (θ 0 2 ) ⎥
⎣ ⎦
(Refer to Fig. 2 to see why the third transformation is required in Eq. (86).) The
orientation of links 2 and 1 are obtained by rotating copies of links 0 and 5 by 2π 3
radians around the barycentric frame’s z-‐axis using the direction cosine matrix

⎡ cos ( 2π 3) − sin ( 2π 3) 0 ⎤
⎢ ⎥
Rz ( 2π 3) = ⎢ sin ( 2π 3) cos ( 2π 3) 0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢⎣ 0 0 1 ⎥⎦
(87)
⎡ −1 2 − 3 2 0 ⎤
⎢ ⎥
=⎢ 3 2 12 0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢⎣ 0 0 1 ⎥⎦
This matrix was also used to rotate copies of the position vectors in Eq. (84).
Applying this matrix to the previous direction cosine matrices gives
Rb2 = Rz ( 2π 3) Rb0
(88)
Rb1 = Rz ( 2π 3) Rb5
The direction cosine matrices for links 4 and 3 are obtained by rotating links 0 and 5
by − 2π 3 radians around the barycentric frame’s z-‐axis. They are represented as
Rb 4 = Rz ( −2π 3) Rb0
(89)
Rb 3 = Rz ( −2π 3) Rb5
Using normalized quaternions for increased efficiency

When normalized quaternions are used, there is no need to evaluate direction
cosine matrices, because the quaternions can be obtained directly with fewer
operations. Let q1 and q 2 be quaternions representing direction cosine matrices R1
 
and R 2 where R12 = R1 R 2 . Then
⎡ q12 ⎤ ⎡ q10 −q11 −q12 −q13 ⎤ ⎡ q02 ⎤

⎢ 0
⎥ ⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥
⎢ q112 ⎥ ⎢ q11 q10 −q13 q12 ⎥ ⎢ q12 ⎥
⎢ ⎥=⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥ (90)
⎢ q12
2 ⎥ ⎢ q12 q13 q10 −q11 ⎥ ⎢ q22 ⎥
⎢ 12 ⎥ ⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥
⎢⎣ q3 ⎥ ⎢ q13 −q12 q11 q10 ⎥ ⎢ q32 ⎥
⎦ ⎣ ⎦⎣ ⎦
is the quaternion representing the rotation described by R12 . The two quaternions
representing the orientation of link 0 (red/yellow) are

⎡ cos (φ 2 ) ⎤
⎢ 0
⎥
⎢ 0 ⎥
q bf = ⎢ ⎥ (91)
 ⎢ sin (φ0 2 ) ⎥
⎢ 0 ⎥
⎣ ⎦
and
⎡ cos (θ 4 ) ⎤
⎢ 0
⎥
⎢ 0 ⎥
qf0 =⎢ ⎥ (92)
 0
⎢ ⎥
⎢ sin (θ 0 4 ) ⎥
⎣ ⎦
where f corresponds to the floating frame in the red joint 0. Recall that quaternions
are based on half-‐angles. Substituting Eqs. (91) and (92) for the quaternions in Eq.
(90) gives
⎡ q0b0 ⎤ ⎡⎢ cos (φ0 2 ) 0 − sin (φ0 2 ) 0 ⎤⎡

⎥ ⎢ cos (θ 0 4 )
⎤
⎢ ⎥ ⎥
⎢ q1 ⎥ ⎢
b0
0 cos (φ0 2 ) 0 sin (φ0 2 ) ⎥ ⎢ 0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥ = ⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥
⎢ q2 ⎥ ⎢ sin (φ0 2 )
b0
0 cos (φ0 2 ) 0 ⎥⎢ 0
⎥
cos (φ0 2 ) ⎥ ⎢⎣ sin (θ 0 4 )
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢⎣ q3b0 ⎥ ⎢
⎦ ⎣ 0 − sin (φ0 2 ) 0 ⎥
⎦
⎦
(93)
⎡ cos (φ0 2 ) cos (θ 0 4 ) ⎤
⎢ ⎥
⎢ sin (φ0 2 ) sin (θ 0 4 ) ⎥
=⎢ ⎥
⎢ sin (φ0 2 ) cos (θ 0 4 ) ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢⎣ cos (φ0 2 ) sin (θ 0 4 ) ⎥
⎦
To check Eq. (93), let θ 0 4 = 22.5° and φ0 2 = 27.37° for the Bricard mechanism
configuration in Fig. 1, giving
⎡ q0b0 ⎤ ⎡⎢ cos (φ0 2 ) cos (θ 0 4 ) ⎤

⎢ ⎥ ⎥ ⎡ 0.888 * 0.924 ⎤ ⎡ 0.821 ⎤
⎢ q1b0 ⎥ ⎢ sin (φ0 2 ) sin (θ 0 4 ) ⎥ ⎢ 0.460 * 0.383
⎥ ⎢
0.176
⎥
⎢ ⎥=⎢ ⎥=⎢ ⎥=⎢ ⎥ (94)
⎢ q2b0 ⎥ ⎢ sin (φ0 2 ) cos (θ 0 4 ) ⎥ ⎢ 0.460 * 0.924 ⎥ ⎢ 0.425 ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
cos (φ0 2 ) sin (θ 0 4 ) ⎥ ⎣
0.888 * 0.383 ⎦ ⎣ 0.340 ⎦
⎢⎣ q3b0 ⎥ ⎢
⎦ ⎣ ⎦

The direction cosine matrix for this quaternion has the form
⎡
⎢
b0 2
( b0 2
)
⎢ 2 ( q0 ) + ( q1 ) − 1 2 ( q1 q2 − q0 q3 )
b0 b0 b0 b0
2 ( q1b0 q3b0 + q0b0 q2b0 )
⎤
⎥
⎥
b0
⎢ ( 2
)
R = ⎢ 2 ( q1b0 q2b0 + q0b0 q3b0 ) 2 ( q0b0 ) + ( q2b0 ) − 1 2 ( q2b0 q3b0 − q0b0 q1b0 )
2
⎥ (95)
⎥
⎢
⎢ 2 ( q1 q3 − q0 q2 )
⎣
b0 b0 b0 b0 2 2
(
2 ( q2b0 q3b0 + q0b0 q1b0 ) 2 ( q0b0 ) + ( q3b0 ) − 1 ) ⎥
⎥
⎦
Substituting the values from Eq. (94) into Eq. (95) gives the entries in Eq. (49) to
within round-‐off error.
To simplify evaluating quaternions for the link 5 (magenta/red) transformation

matrix in Eq. (86), it can be written in partitioned form as
( )
Rb5 = Ry (φ0 ) Rz ( −θ 0 2 ) Ry ( −π 2 ) (96)
(Refer again to Fig. 2 to see why the third transformation is required in Eq. (96).)
With this partitioning, it follows that the quaternions
⎡ q0b* ⎤ ⎡⎢ cos (φ0 2 ) 0 − sin (φ0 2 ) 0 ⎤⎡

⎥ ⎢ cos (θ 0 4 )
⎤
⎢ ⎥ ⎥
⎢ q1 ⎥
b* ⎢ 0 cos (φ0 2 ) 0 sin (φ0 2 ) ⎥ ⎢ 0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥ = ⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥
⎢ q2 ⎥ ⎢ sin (φ0 2 )
b*
0 cos (φ0 2 ) 0 ⎥⎢ 0
⎥
cos (φ0 2 ) ⎥ ⎢⎣ − sin (θ 0 4 )
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢⎣ q3b* ⎥ ⎢
⎦ ⎣ 0 − sin (φ0 2 ) 0 ⎥
⎦ (97)
⎦
⎡ cos (φ0 2 ) cos (θ 0 4 ) ⎤ ⎡ q0b0 ⎤
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ − sin (φ0 2 ) sin (θ 0 4 ) ⎥ ⎢ −q1b0 ⎥
=⎢ ⎥=⎢ ⎥
⎢ sin (φ0 2 ) cos (θ 0 4 ) ⎥ ⎢ q2b0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢⎣ − cos (φ0 2 ) sin (θ 0 4 ) ⎥ ⎢⎣ −q3b0 ⎥
⎦
⎦
represent Ry (φ0 ) Rz ( −θ 0 2 ) , and q b5 is evaluated as



⎡ q0b5 ⎤ ⎡ q0b* −q1b* −q2b* −q3b* ⎤ ⎡ cos ( − π 4 ) ⎤

⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥
⎢ q1b5 ⎥ ⎢ q1b* q0b* −q3b* q2b* ⎥ ⎢ 0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥=⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥
⎢ q2b5 ⎥ ⎢ q2b* q3b* q0b* −q1 ⎥ ⎢ sin ( − π 4 ) ⎥
b*
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢⎣ q3b5 ⎥ ⎢ q3b* −q2b* q1b* q0b* ⎥ ⎢⎣ 0 ⎥
⎦
⎦ ⎣ ⎦
⎡ q0b0 q1b0 −q2b0 q3b0 ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
⎢ ⎥⎢ 2 2
⎥
⎢ −q1b0 q0b0 q3b0 q2 ⎥ ⎢
b0 (98)
0 ⎥
=⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥
⎢ q2b0 −q3b0 q0b0 q1 ⎥ ⎢ − 2 2
b0
⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢⎣ −q3b0 −q2b0 −q1b0 q0b0 ⎥ ⎢⎣ 0 ⎥
⎦
⎦
⎡ q0b0 + q2b0 ⎤
⎢ ⎥
⎢ −q1b0 − q3b0 ⎥
=⎢ ⎥ 2 2
⎢ q2b0 − q0b0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢⎣ −q3b0 + q1b0 ⎥
⎦
Equation (98) requires only four multiplications.
The transformations in Eq. (88) may be carried out in a similar manner. For
example, the quaternions for links 2 and 1 are
⎡ cos (π 3) 0 0 − sin (π 3) ⎤ ⎡ q0b0 ⎤ ⎢

⎡
q0b0 2 − ( ) ⎤
3 2 q3b0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ 0 cos ( π 3) − sin ( π 3) 0 ⎥ ⎢ q1b0 ⎥ ⎢ q1b0 2−( )
3 2 q2b0 ⎥ (99)
q =⎢
b2
⎥⎢ ⎥=⎢ ⎥
 ⎢ 0 sin (π 3) cos (π 3) 0 ⎥ ⎢ q2b0 ⎥ ⎢ q2b0 2+( )
3 2 q1b0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ b0 ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢⎣ sin (π 3) cos (π 3) ⎥ ⎢⎣ q3
2+(
0 0
⎦ ⎥⎦ ⎢
⎢⎣
q3b0 )
3 2 q0b0 ⎥
⎥⎦
and
⎡ cos (π 3) 0 0 − sin (π 3) ⎤ ⎡ q0b5 ⎤ ⎢

⎡
q0b5 2 − ( ) ⎤
3 2 q3b5 ⎥
⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ 0 cos ( π 3) − sin ( π 3) 0 ⎥ ⎢ q1b5 ⎥ ⎢ q1b5 2−( )
3 2 q2b5 ⎥ (100)
q b1 = ⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥=⎢ ⎥
 ⎢ 0 sin (π 3) cos (π 3) 0 ⎥ ⎢ q2b5 ⎥ ⎢ q2b5 2+( )
3 2 q1b5 ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ b5 ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢⎣ sin (π 3) cos (π 3) ⎥ ⎢⎣ q3
2+(
0 0
⎦ ⎥⎦ ⎢
⎢⎣
q3b5 )
3 2 q0b5 ⎥
⎥⎦
Similar quaternions for links 4 and 3 are

⎡ cos ( −π 3) 0 0 − sin ( −π 3) ⎤ ⎡ q0b0 ⎤ ⎢

⎡
q0b0 2 + ( ) ⎤
3 2 q3b0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ 0 cos ( −π 3) − sin ( −π 3) 0 ⎥ ⎢ q1b0 ⎥ ⎢ q1b0 2+( )
3 2 q2b0 ⎥ (101)
qb 4 =⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥=⎢ ⎥
 ⎢ 0 sin ( −π 3) cos ( −π 3) 0 ⎥ ⎢ q2b0 ⎥ ⎢ q2b0 2−( )
3 2 q1b0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ b0 ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢⎣ sin ( −π 3) cos ( −π 3) ⎥ ⎢⎣ q3
2−(
0 0
⎦ ⎥⎦ ⎢
⎢⎣
q3b0 )
3 2 q0b0 ⎥
⎥⎦
and
⎡ cos ( −π 3) 0 0 − sin ( −π 3) ⎤ ⎡ q0b5 ⎤ ⎢

⎡
q0b5 2 + ( ) ⎤
3 2 q3b5 ⎥
⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ 0 cos ( − π 3) − sin ( − π 3) 0 ⎥ ⎢ q1b5 ⎥ ⎢ qb5
1 2+( )
3 2 q2b5 ⎥ (102)
qb 3 = ⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥=⎢ ⎥
 ⎢ 0 sin ( −π 3) cos ( −π 3) 0 ⎥ ⎢ q2b5 ⎥ ⎢ q2b5 2−( )
3 2 q1b5 ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ b5 ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢⎣ sin ( −π 3) cos ( −π 3) ⎥ ⎢⎣ q3
2−(
0 0
⎦ ⎥⎦ ⎢
⎢⎣
q3b5 )
3 2 q0b5 ⎥
⎥⎦
Equations (101) and (102) require no multiplications, because they use the same
quantities as evaluated in Eqs. (99) and (100). Equations (97) and (98) each require
four multiplications, not counting the trig function evaluations, so the number of
multiplications for the six links averages to four per quaternion. This is substantially
less than first forming direction cosine matrices and then converting them to
quaternions.
To check the validity of these quaternions, consider the Bricard mechanism
configuration shown in Fig. 6 where φ0 = π 2 and θ 0 = 0 . Equation (85) gives
⎡ 0 0 1 ⎤
R = Ry (φ0 ) Rz (θ 0 2 ) = ⎢ 0 1 0 ⎥
b0
(103)
⎢ ⎥
⎢⎣ −1 0 0 ⎥⎦
and Eq. (86) gives
⎡ 0 0 1 ⎤ ⎡ 0 0 −1 ⎤ ⎡ 1 0 0 ⎤
R = Ry (φ0 ) Rz ( −θ 0 2 ) Ry ( −π 2 ) = ⎢ 0 1 0 ⎥ ⎢ 0 1 0 ⎥ = ⎢ 0 1 0 ⎥ (104)
b5
⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢⎣ −1 0 0 ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ 1 0 0 ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ 0 0 1 ⎥⎦
From Eqs. (93) and (98), the quaternions for links 0 and 5 are

⎡ cos (φ0 2 ) cos (θ 0 4 ) ⎤ ⎡

⎢ ⎥ ⎢ 2 2 ⎤
⎥
⎢ sin (φ0 2 ) sin (θ 0 4 ) ⎥ ⎢ 0 ⎥
q b0 = ⎢ ⎥=⎢ ⎥ (105)
 ⎢ sin (φ0 2 ) cos (θ 0 4 ) ⎥ ⎢ 2 2 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢⎣ cos (φ0 2 ) sin (θ 0 4 ) ⎥ ⎢⎣ 0 ⎥⎦
⎦
and
⎡ q0b0 + q2b0 ⎤ ⎡
⎢ ⎥ 2 2+ 2 2 ⎤ ⎡ 1 ⎤
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ −q1b0 − q3b0 ⎥ ⎢ 0 ⎥ 0
q b5 = ⎢ ⎥ 2 2=⎢ ⎥ 2 2 = ⎢⎢ ⎥
⎥
(106)
 ⎢ q2 − q0 ⎥
b0 b0
⎢ 2 2− 2 2 ⎥ 0
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ 0 ⎥
−q3b0 + q1b0 ⎥ ⎣ 0 ⎦ ⎣ ⎦
⎢⎣ ⎦
Substituting Eq. (105) into Eq. (95) gives
⎡
⎢
(
b0 2 b0 2
)
⎢ 2 ( q0 ) + ( q1 ) − 1 2 ( q1 q2 − q0 q3 )
b0 b0 b0 b0
2 ( q1b0 q3b0 + q0b0 q2b0 )
⎤
⎥
⎥
b0
⎢
2
( 2
)
R = ⎢ 2 ( q1b0 q2b0 + q0b0 q3b0 ) 2 ( q0b0 ) + ( q2b0 ) − 1 2 ( q2b0 q3b0 − q0b0 q1b0 ) ⎥
⎥

⎢
⎢ 2 ( q1 q3 − q0 q2 )
⎣
b0 b0 b0 b0
(
2 ( q2b0 q3b0 + q0b0 q1b0 ) 2 ( q0b0 ) + ( q3b0 ) − 1
2 2
) ⎥
⎥
⎦ (107)
⎡ ⎤
( ) ( )
2 2
⎢ 2 2 2 −1 0 2 2 2 ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎡ 0 0 1 ⎤
( ) ⎥=⎢ 0 1 0 ⎥
2
=⎢ 0 4 2 2 −1 0
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ −1 0 0 ⎥
⎥ ⎢⎣ ⎥⎦
⎢
( ) ( )
2 2
⎢⎣ −2 2 2 0 2 2 2 −1 ⎥
⎦
Equation (107) agrees with Eq. (103), and clearly Eq. (106) yields Eq. (104).
Now, rotating copies of links 0 and 5 around the barycentric frame’s z-‐axis by 2π 3
gives the direction cosine matrices
⎡ cos ( 2π 3) − sin ( 2π 3) 0 ⎤ ⎡ ⎡ −1 2 ⎤
⎢ ⎥ 0 0 1 ⎤ ⎢ 0 − 3 2 ⎥ (108)

Rb2 = Rz ( 2π 3) Rb0 = ⎢ sin ( 2π 3) cos ( 2π 3) 0 ⎥ ⎢ 0 1 0 ⎥ = ⎢ 0 −1 2 3 2 ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢⎢ −1 0 0 ⎥⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢⎣ 0 0 1 ⎥⎦ ⎣ ⎦ ⎢⎣ −1 0 0 ⎥⎦
and

⎡ cos ( 2π 3) − sin ( 2π 3) 0 ⎤ ⎡ ⎡ ⎤
⎢ ⎥ 1 0 0 ⎤ ⎢ −1 2 − 3 2 0 ⎥
Rb1 = Rz ( 2π 3) Rb5 = ⎢ sin ( 2π 3) cos ( 2π 3) 0 ⎥ ⎢ 0 1 0 ⎥ = ⎢ 3 2 −1 2 0 ⎥
(109)
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢⎣ 0 0 1 ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ 0 0 1 ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ 0 0 1 ⎥⎦
From Eqs. (99) and (100) the quaternions for links 2 and 1 are
⎡
⎢ q0b0 2 − ( ) ⎤
3 2 q3b0 ⎥ ⎡
2 4 ⎤
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ q1b0 2−( )
3 2 q2b0 ⎥ ⎢ − 6 4 ⎥
q b2 = ⎢ ⎥=⎢ ⎥ (110)
 ⎢ q2b0 2+( )
3 2 q1 ⎥
b0 ⎢ 2 4 ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ q3b0 2+( 3 2 q0)
b0 ⎥ ⎢
⎣
6 4 ⎥
⎦
⎢⎣ ⎥⎦
and
⎡
⎢ q0b5 2 − ( ) ⎤
3 2 q3b5 ⎥
⎡ 12 ⎤
⎢ b5 ⎥
⎢ q1b5 2−( )
3 2 q2 ⎥ ⎢ 0 ⎥
q b1 = ⎢ ⎢ ⎥
⎥=⎢ (111)
2+( ) ⎥
 ⎢ q2b5 3 2 q1 ⎥ ⎢ 0 ⎥
b5
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ 3 2 ⎥
⎢ q3b5 2+( )
3 2 q0b5 ⎥ ⎣ ⎦
⎢⎣ ⎥⎦
The direction cosines for links 2 and 1 based on these quaternions are
⎡
⎢
(b2 2 b2 2
)
⎢ 2 ( q0 ) + ( q1 ) − 1 2 ( q1 q2 − q0 q3 )
b2 b2 b2 b2
2 ( q1b2 q3b2 + q0b2 q2b2 )
⎤
⎥
⎥
⎢ ( 2 2
)
Rb2 = ⎢ 2 ( q1b2 q2b2 + q0b2 q3b2 ) 2 ( q0b2 ) + ( q2b2 ) − 1 2 ( q2b2 q3b2 − q0b2 q1b2 ) ⎥
⎥
⎢
⎢ 2 ( q1 q3 − q0 q2 )
⎣
b2 b2 b2 b2
( 2
)
2 ( q2b2 q3b2 + q0b2 q1b2 ) 2 ( q0b2 ) + ( q3b2 ) − 1
2 ⎥
⎥
⎦
⎡
((
2
) (
⎢ 2 2 4 + − 6 4 −1
⎢
2
)) (
2 − 6 4 2 4− 2 4 6 4 ) 2 (− 6 4 6 4 + 2 4 2 4 )
⎤
⎥ (112)
⎥
⎢
( ) 2 (( 2 4 ) + ( 2 4 ) ) − 1 2 ( 2 4 6 4 + 2 4 6 4 ) ⎥
2 2
= ⎢ 2 − 6 4 2 4+ 2 4 6 4 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
(
⎢ 2 − 6 4 6 4− 2 4 2 4 ) 2 ( 2 4 6 4 − 2 4 6 4 ) 2 (( 2 4 ) + ( 6 4 ) ) − 1 ⎥
2 2
⎢⎣ ⎥⎦
⎡ 0 − 3 2 −1 2 ⎤
⎢ ⎥
=⎢ 0 −1 2 3 2 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢⎣ −1 0 0 ⎥⎦

and
⎡
⎢
(
⎢ 2 ( q0 ) + ( q1 ) − 1
b1 2 b1 2
) 2 ( q1b1q2b1 − q0b1q3b1 ) 2 ( q1b1q3b1 + q0b1q2b1 )
⎤
⎥
⎥
Rb1 = ⎢ 2 ( q1b1q2b1 + q0b1q3b1 )
⎢
2
(
2 ( q0b1 ) + ( q2b1 ) − 1
2
)
2 ( q2b1q3b1 − q0b1q1b1 ) ⎥
⎥
⎢
⎢ 2 ( q1 q3 − q0 q2 )
⎣
b1 b1 b1 b1
2 ( q2b1q3b1 + q0b1q1b1 )
2
(
2 ( q0b1 ) + ( q3b1 ) − 1
2
) ⎥
⎥
⎦

⎡
⎢ 2 (1 2 ) − 1
2
(
2 −1 2 3 2 ) 0
⎤
⎥ (113)
⎢ ⎥
(
=⎢ 2 12 3 2 ) 2 (1 2 ) − 1
2
0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢
⎢⎣
0 0 (
2 (1 2 ) +
2
( 3 2 ))
2
−1 ⎥
⎥⎦
⎡ −1 2 − 3 2 0 ⎤
⎢ ⎥
= ⎢ 3 2 −1 2 0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢⎣ 0 0 1 ⎥⎦
The quaternions for links 4 and 3 may be verified in a similar manner.
Verifying that total spatial momentum is zero

This section verifies that ∑ i=0 M i,bb
5
bb b
vbi,b = 0 in Eq. (6). Consider the combined spatial
momentum of links 5 and 0 as
b
pb5,b + pb0,b
b
= Tb5b−T pb5,5
b
+ Tb0b−T pb0,0
b
= Tb5b−T M 5,55
bb b
vb5,5 + Tb0b−T M 0,00
bb 0
vb0,0
⎡ I 0 ⎤ ⎡ m r b5 ⎤ ⎡ I 0 ⎤ ⎡ m r b0 ⎤
b b
=⎢ b ⎥ ⎢ ⎥+⎢ b ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢⎣ r b5 I ⎥ ⎢ Rb5 Jω 5 ⎥ ⎢ r b0 I ⎥ ⎢ Rb0 Jω 0 ⎥ (114)
⎦⎣ b5
⎦ ⎣ ⎦⎣ b0
⎦
⎡
⎢ m r b5
b
+ r b0
b
( ) ⎤
⎥
=⎢ ⎥
b5 5 b0 0 b b b
(
⎢⎣ R Jω b5 + R Jω b0 + m r b5 r b5 + r b0 r b0
b
) ⎥⎦
The transformations in (114) moved spatial momentum from the origins of link
frames 0 and 5 to the origin of barycentric frame !b . The 3 by 1 matrix r b5
b
+ r b0
b
has
no z-‐component, so it represents a vector in the barycentric frame’s x-‐y plane.
Rotating copies of this matrix by ± 2π 3 radians around the barycentric frame’s z-‐
axis yields three matrices representing vectors in the x-‐y plane whose entries sum
to zero. Thus the linear component of momentum is verified to be zero. That this
linear component of momentum is zero may also be verified directly using Eq. (58).

The entries in
⎡ 0 0 −ry ⎤ ⎡ rx ⎤ ⎡ 0 0 ry ⎤ ⎡ rx ⎤

⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥
r b5
b
r b5
b
+ r b0
b
r b0
b
=⎢ 0 0 −rx ⎥ ⎢ − ry ⎥+⎢ 0 0 −rx ⎥ ⎢ ry ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎥ ⎢ −r ⎥
⎢⎣ ry rx 0 ⎥ ⎢⎣ 0 ⎦ ⎢⎣ y rx 0 ⎥ ⎢⎣ 0 ⎥
⎦
⎦ ⎦ (115)
⎡ 0 ⎤ ⎡ 0 ⎤
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
=⎢ 0 ⎥=⎢ 0 ⎥
⎢ ry rx − rx ry − ry rx + rx ry ⎥ ⎢⎣ 0 ⎥⎦
⎣ ⎦
may be verified by looking at Eqs. (55) and (57). Equation (115) shows that the
second part of the Bricard mechanism’s angular momentum is zero, because
rotating copies of this zero-‐length vector to represent the other four links still gives
zero.
Transforming the first part of the angular momentum in Eq. (114) to frame f
centered in the red joint 0 gives
R f 5 Jω b5
5
+ R f 0 Jω b0
0
= Rz ( −θ 0 2 ) Ry ( −π 2 ) Jω b5
5
+ Rz (θ 0 2 ) Jω b0
0
⎡ 0 sin (θ 2 ) − cos (θ 2 ) ⎤⎡ − J aθ0 2 ⎤

⎢ 0 0
⎥⎢ ⎥
= ⎢ 0 cos (θ 0 2 ) sin (θ 0 2 ) ⎥ ⎢ J r cos (θ 0 2 )φ0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥
⎢⎣ 1 0 0 ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ J a sin (θ 0 2 )φ0 ⎥⎦
(116)
⎡ cos (θ 2 ) − sin (θ 2 ) 0 ⎤ ⎡ J a sin (θ 0 2 )φ0 ⎤
⎢ 0 0
⎥⎢ ⎥
+ ⎢ sin (θ 0 2 ) cos (θ 0 2 ) 0 ⎥ ⎢ J r cos (θ 0 2 )φ0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥
⎢⎣ 0 0 1 ⎥⎦ ⎢⎣ J a θ0 2 ⎥
⎦
⎡ 0 ⎤
⎢ ⎥
= ⎢ 2 ( J r cos (θ 0 2 ) + J a sin 2 (θ 0 2 ))φ0
2
⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎣ 0 ⎦
(Refer again to Fig. 2 as to why the extra Ry ( −π 2 ) transformation is required in Eq.
(116).) Multiplying Eq. (116) by Ry (φ0 ) to transform the angular momentum to
barycentric frame b coordinates gives the same results. Because the z-‐component
of this momentum vector is zero, it lies in the barycentric frame’s x-‐y plane, so
rotating copies of it by ± 2π 3 radians around the barycentric frame’s z-‐axis to
represent the other four links yields three vectors in the x-‐y plane that add to zero.
With this last result, the Bricard mechanism’s total spatial momentum has been
verified to be zero as claimed in Eq. (6).

Fun With Bricard 2018

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Fun With Bricard 2018

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Fun

With a Symmetric Bricard Mechanism

© 2013 Roger A. Wehage

Why this article?

© 2013 Roger A. Wehage 2 raw915 (at) gmail.com

A nice screen saver?

© 2013 Roger A. Wehage 3 raw915 (at) gmail.com

© 2013 Roger A. Wehage 4 raw915 (at) gmail.com

Dissecting the kinematic constraint equations

Maxima extracted one more equation

(1+ cosθ e )(1+ cosθ o ) = 1 (1)

© 2013 Roger A. Wehage 5 raw915 (at) gmail.com

The barycentric frame

A bit on spatial velocity

© 2013 Roger A. Wehage 6 raw915 (at) gmail.com

represent the spatial velocity of barycentric frame b , and let

represent the spatial velocity of the ith link.

⎜⎝ ∑ M i,bb ⎟⎠ vgb,b + ∑ M i,bb vbi,b

When the spatial momentum is zero

© 2013 Roger A. Wehage 7 raw915 (at) gmail.com

impulsive forces or torques. Or pb,b b

Since the barycentric frame does not move when pb,b b

The constant kinetic energy constraint

© 2013 Roger A. Wehage 8 raw915 (at) gmail.com

Elements of the Bricard mechanism model

© 2013 Roger A. Wehage 9 raw915 (at) gmail.com

© 2013 Roger A. Wehage 10 raw915 (at) gmail.com

Views tangent to the barycentric plane

© 2013 Roger A. Wehage 11 raw915 (at) gmail.com

Two flavors of links

From a cube to a triangle and a new hexagon

© 2013 Roger A. Wehage 12 raw915 (at) gmail.com

Another triangle and hexagon

© 2013 Roger A. Wehage 13 raw915 (at) gmail.com

Comparing the three configurations

© 2013 Roger A. Wehage 14 raw915 (at) gmail.com

Parameterizing the equations, the recipe

© 2013 Roger A. Wehage 15 raw915 (at) gmail.com

Normalized parametric velocity

T (θ ,θ ) = θ 2T (θ ,θ = 1) (8)

from which θ may be solved for as

θ = ± T (θ ,θ ) T (θ ,θ = 1) (9)

Equation (8) holds because each spatial velocity vbi,b b

© 2013 Roger A. Wehage 16 raw915 (at) gmail.com

Building a symmetric Bricard mechanism

© 2013 Roger A. Wehage 17 raw915 (at) gmail.com

Displacement across an even-­‐numbered joint

© 2013 Roger A. Wehage 18 raw915 (at) gmail.com

The expanded displacement matrices

⎢ /2 0 1 0 ⎥⎢ 0 0 1 0 ⎥ ⎢ 0 sin θ o cosθ o 0 ⎥⎢  / 2 0 1 0 ⎥

In a similar manner Eq. (11) gives

© 2013 Roger A. Wehage 19 raw915 (at) gmail.com

The translation matrix t eo

One third of the loop displacement

To save space let ce = cosθ e , se = sin θ e , co = cosθ o , and so = sin θ o . Thus

© 2013 Roger A. Wehage 20 raw915 (at) gmail.com

More on the characteristic equation

( Deo Doe )3 = I (21)

(1+ ce )(1+ co ) = 1 (22)

© 2013 Roger A. Wehage 21 raw915 (at) gmail.com

The parametric equations

© 2013 Roger A. Wehage 22 raw915 (at) gmail.com

Calculating joint mobility numbers

© 2013 Roger A. Wehage 23 raw915 (at) gmail.com

Displacement across an even-‐numbered joint

Examples of one-‐third mechanism segments

We have selected the odd-‐numbered link 5 (magenta/red) and even-‐numbered link

Evaluate subtended angles to adjacent-‐link vectors