KINEMATICS OF A THREE-DOF PLATFORM

WITH THREE EXTENSIBLE LIMBS

LUNG-WEN TSAI
Mechanical Engineering Department
and
Institute for Systems Research
University of Maryland
College Park, MD 20742, U.S.A

Abstract. A three degree-of-freedom manipulator that has a fairly large

translational workspace is presented. The mechanism consists of a fixed
base, a moving platform, and three extensible limbs. Each limb consists of
a prismatic joint and two universal joints connecting the moving platform
to the fixed base. Both the direct and inverse kinematics are investigated.
The inverse kinematics problem yields two equal and opposite limb lengths
for each limb while the direct kinematics problem is reduced to a second-
degree polynomial in one unknown. Further, the workspace and singular
conditions of the manipulator are discussed.

1. Introduction

A parallel manipulator typically consists of a moving platform that is con-

nected to a fixed base by several limbs. Generally, the number of limbs is
equal to the number of degrees of freedom (DOF). Each limb is controlled
by one actuator and all limbs are fully in parallel with each other. Parallel
mechanisms can be found in many applications such as vehicle and air-
plane simulators (Stewart, 1965), adjustable articulated trusses (Reinholtz
and Gokhale, 1987), mining machines (Arai et al., 1991), pointing devices
(Gosselin and Hamel, 1994), fine positioning devices, and off-shore drilling
platform. Recently, it has also been developed as a high precision milling
machine (Giddings and Lewis, 1995).
The design of parallel manipulators can be dated back to 1947 when
Gough and Whitehall (1962) devised a six-linear jack system for use as
a universal tire test machine. Stewart (1965) presented his platform ma-

401

J. LenarCic and V. Parenti-Castelli (eds.), Recent Advances in Robot Kinematics, 401-410.

© 1996 Kluwer Academic Publishers.
402

nipulator for use as an aircraft simulator in 1965. Hunt (1983) made a

systematic study of the parallel manipulator structures. Since then, paral-
lel manipulators have been studied extensively by many other researchers
(Mohamed and Duffy, 1985; Fichter, 1986; Grffis and Duffy, 1989; Inno-
centi and Parenti-Castelli, 1990; Nanua et al., 1990). Most of the six-DOF
manipulators studied to date consist of six extensible limbs connecting a
moving platform to a fixed base by spherical joints. Other variations of the
Stewart platform have also been proposed (Kohli et aI, 1988; Hudgens and
Tesar, 1988; Pierrot et al., 1991; Tsai and Tahmasebi, 1993).
In general, parallel manipulators have the advantages of high stiffness,
low inertia, large payload capacity, and simple inverse kinematics. However,
they do suffer the following shortcomings:

(a) The direct kinematics is rather difficult and sometimes impossible to

solve.
(b) Position and orientation of the moving platform are coupled.
(c) Their workspace is relatively small.
(d) Spherical joints are difficult to manufacture precisely at low cost.

Note that the only six-limbed, six-DOF parallel manipulators for which
closed-form direct kinematic solutions have been reported in the literature
are special forms of the Stewart platform (Nanua et al., 1990; Grffis and
Duffy, 1989; Innocenti and Parenti-Castelli, 1990; Lin et al., 1994; Zhang
and Song, 1994). In these special forms, pairs of concentric spherical joints
may present design and manufacturing problems. As to the general Stew-
art platform, researchers have to resort to numerical techniques for the
solutions. Innocenti and Parenti-Castelli (1993) developed an exhaustive
mono-dimensional search algorithm to find the direct kinematics of the gen-
eral Stewart platform. Raghavan (1993) showed that the general Stewart
platform has 40 direct kinematics solutions by applying the continuation
method.
To overcome the above shortcomings, parallel manipulators with fewer
than six-DOF (F < 6) have been investigated. These F < 6 manipulators
can maintain all the advantages of a parallel manipulator and, if prop-
erly designed, they also have the advantage of having closed-form direct
kinematics solutions. For examples, Sternheim (1987) and Clavel (1988)
designed a four-DOF high-speed robot called the "Delta" robot. Lee and
Shah (1987) analyzed a three-DOF parallel manipulator. Although, these
two robots possess closed-form direct kinematics solutions, the Delta robot
contains twelve (12) spherical joints while Lee and Shah's manipulator con-
tains three (3) spherical joints. In addition, the position and orientation of
Lee and Shah's manipulator are coupled. Recently, Tsai et al. (1996) intro-
duced a novel three-DOF translational platform which is made up of only
 403

revolute joints. It possesses pure translational motion and has a closed-form

solution for the direct kinematics.
In this paper, a new three-DOF parallel manipulator which is made up
of prismatic and universal joints is presented. This manipulator also has
a fairly large translational workspace and a closed-form direct kinematics
solution. In what follows, we first describe the construction of the mech-
anism. The sufficient conditions for achieving a pure translational motion
of the platform are developed. Then, the inverse and direct kinematics are
solved in closed forms. Finally, the workspace and singular conditions of
the manipulator are discussed.

2. Mechanism Description
A schematic of the parallel manipulator is shown in Fig. 1, where the fixed
base is labeled as link 0 and the moving platform is labeled as link 1.
Three identical limbs connect the moving platform to the fixed base by
universal joints at points Bi and A, i = 1,2, and 3, respectively. Each limb
consists of an upper member and a lower member (links 2 and 5 for the
first limb, 3 and 6 for the second limb, and 4 and 7 for the third limb)
that are connected together by a prismatic joint, Pi. The base connected
axes of the universal joints, Ai, i = 1,2, and 3, are co-planar. Similarly, the
moving-platform connected axes of the universal joints, B i , i = 1,2, and 3,
are also co-planar. The axes of the two universal joints that are attached to
the upper and lower members of each limb are parallel to each other and
are perpendicular to the axis of the prismatic joint. The three limbs are
preferably, but not necessarily, separated by 120 degrees at the points of
connection with the moving and base platforms. Ball screws or hydraulic
jacks can be used to vary the lengths of the prismatic joints and, therefore,
to control the position of the moving platform.
Let F denote the degrees of freedom of a mechanism, n the number of
links, j the number of joints, Ii the degrees of freedom associated with the
ith joint, and>' = 6 the motion parameter. Then, the mobility equation
can be written as:
F = >'(n - j -1) + L k (1)

For the manipulator shown in Fig. 1, we have n = 8, j = 9, and Ii = 2 for

the universal joints and 1 for the prismatic joints. Applying Eq. (1) to the
manipulator, yields

F = 6(8 - 9 -1) + 6 x 2 + 3 x 1 = 3. (2)

Hence, the manipulator is a three-DOF mechanism. Since the limbs are
connected to the moving platform and the fixed base by universal joints,
404

Figure 1. A three-DOF parallel Manipulator

no bending moments will transmit to the limbs. That is the force acting on
each limb is directed along the longitudinal axis of the limb and the only
moment acting on each limb is a twisting moment. Hence, these limbs can
be made of hollow cylindrical rods to produce a light weight, high stiffness,
and high speed manipulator.

3. Translational Motion
To facilitate the analysis, two coordinate systems ~ and E are attached to
the fixed base and moving platform, respectively, as shown in Fig. 1. Figure
2 shows the geometry of limb i, where WI denotes the based attached axis
of the lower universal joint, W5 denotes the moving platform attached axis
of the upper universal joint, W2 and W4 denote the axes of the universal
joints that are respectively attached to lower and upper members of the
limb, UI is a unit vector pointing from 0 to Ai, U2 is a unit vector normal
to the plane defined by WI and W2, U4 is a unit vector pointing from Ai to
Bi, U5 is a unit vector normal to the plane defined by W4 and W5, and U6 a
unit vector pointing from Q to Bi. The angles 8li is measured from UI to
U2 about the WI axis, 82i is measured from U2 to U4 about the W2 axis, 8 4i
is measured from U4 to U5 about the W4 axis, and 85i is measured from U5
to U6 about the W6 axis.
Let ~ = (aix, aiy, aiz)T and hi = (b ix , biy , biz)T be the position vectors
of points Ai and Bi in coordinate systems ~ and E, respectively. Also let
 405

Figure 2. Joint angles and link lengths of limb i

p = (Px,py,Pz)T be the position vector of the origin Q of E in ~, and R

be the 3 x 3 orthogonal matrix describing the orientation of E in ~. Then,
for the ith limb of the manipulator, we may write

(p + Rbi -~) . (p + Rbi -~) = d~, (3)

where di is the length of the ith limb.
Using the joint angles defined in Fig. 2, it can be shown that the rotation
matrix becomes an identity matrix, R = I, if the following two conditions
are satisfied:
(4)
and
(5)
Hence, if the universal joints of the limbs are arranged in such a way that
Eqs. (4) and (5) are satisfied, the manipulator will possess a three-DOF
translational motion within its workspace. This unique characteristic is
very useful in many applications such as a non-conventional X - Y - Z
positioning device.
With matrix R = I, Eq. (3) reduces to

(6)
406

4. Inverse Kinematics
For the inverse kinematics problem, the position vector p of E with respect
to E is given and the limb lengths di , i = 1,2, and 3, are to be found.
Solving Eq. (6) for di, yields

(7)
Hence, corresponding to a given position of the moving platform, there
are two solutions for each limb length, provided that di falls within the
range of the corresponding limb length. However, the negative limb length
is physically not feasible.

5. Direct Kinematics
For the direct kinematics problem, the limb lengths di, i = 1,2 and 3, are
given and the position vector of the moving platform, p, is to be found.
Expanding Eq. (6), yields

(8)
Equation (8) written three times for i = 1,2, and 3, yields three equa-
tions in the unknown vector p. Each equation represents a sphere of radius
di centered at a point defined by the vector ei = ai - b i . The intersection
of these three spheres yields the solutions to the direct kinematics problem.
For the general case, there are two solutions, since the intersection of two
of the spheres forms a circle which will generally intersect the third sphere
in two locations. Five cases are possible:
(a) Two solutions. The two solutions are realized at the intersection of
three spheres.
(b) One double root. Two of the spheres may be tangent to each other.
Hence, a double root is possible only if the point of contact lies on the
third sphere.
(c) No real solution. The three spheres do not intersect at a common point.
(d) Singular solution. Two of the spheres are concentric. Hence, an infinite
number of solutions is possible only if these two spheres coincide, i.e.
they are of equal radii.
(e) Singular solution. All three spheres are concentric. Hence, an infinite
number of solutions is possible only if the three spheres coincide.
Algebraically, we may eliminate p2 by subtracting Eq. (8) for i = 1
from Eq. (8) for i = 2, and i = 3, respectively. This results in two linear
 407

equations:
(9)

(10)

where
k2 = (e~ - e~ - d~ + dD /2 and
k3 = (e~ - e~ - d~ + dD /2.
We note that Eq. (9) represents a plane containing the circle of intersection
between the two spheres defined by limbs 1 and 2. Similarly, Eq. (10) rep-
resents another plane containing the circle of intersection between the two
spheres defined by limbs 1 and 3. These two planes intersect in a straight
line which can be found as follows. Solving Eqs. (9) and (10) for Px and Py
in terms of Pz, we obtain
8x
PX="8' (11)

8y
py= 8' (12)

provided 8 =I- 0, where

8x = (e2y - ely) [Pz (e3z - el z ) - k3]- (e3y - ely) [pz(e2z - el z ) - k 2],
8y = (e3x - el x ) [pz(e2z - el z ) - k2]- (e2x - el x ) [pz(e3z - el z ) - k3], and
8 = (e2x - el x )(e3y - ely) - (e3x - el x )(e2y - ely).
Equations (11) and (12) are the parametric representation of a straight
line. In general, this line will intersect either one of the spheres defined by
Eq. (8) in two points. Substituting Eqs. (11) and (12) into Eq. (8) for i = 1,
yields
(13)

where
Co =82 ,
C! = -282elz, and
C2 = 8x 2 + 8i - 288xelx - 288yely + 82(e~ - dj).
Equation (13) yields:
(a) Two real roots, provided c~ - 4CQC2 > 0,
(b) One double root, provided c~ - 4CQC2 = 0, and
(c) No real root, provided c~ - 4CQC2 < 0.
Corresponding to each Pz, Eqs. (11) and (12) yield a unique solution
for Px and PY' respectively. We note that the two manipulator postures
obtained from Eq. (13) are always mirror image of each other about the
plane defined by points AI, A 2 , and A 3 .
408

6. Discussions
From Eq. (7), we note that the workspace is bounded by the maximum
extension of the limbs. Let dim be the maximum length of limb i. Then,

(14)

That is the workspace of the manipulator is bounded by the intersection of

the three spheres defined by the maximal extension of the limbs.
As mentioned in the previous section, the direct kinematics solution
is determined by the intersection of three spheres. In the general case, Eq.
(13) yields two, one, or zero real solution. A singular condition occurs when
8 = O. When 8 = 0, the two planes defined by Eqs. (9) and (10) do not
intersect. This condition occurs when ei = ej = 0 for any i =1= j. Under this
condition, the two spheres generated by limbs i and j are concentric and the
third sphere intersects them in two parallel planes. In general, two parallel
planes do not intersect unless they are linearly dependent, i.e. di = dj .
Hence, if ei = ej = 0 and di = dj for any i =1= j, the three spheres intersect
in a circle, resulting in an infinite number of solutions. Furthermore, if
el = e2 = e3 = 0 and d1 = d2 = d3, then the three spheres coincide with
one another and there are infinite number of solutions lying on the entire
surface of the three spheres.
From the above discussions, it becomes clear that in the design of such
a manipulator, the condition ei = 8.i - hi = 0 should be avoided. This can
be realized by making the size of the moving platform different from that
of the fixed base.

7. Summary

A light weight, high stiffness, and high speed parallel manipulator with
three translational degrees of freedom is introduced. First, the kinematic
structure of the mechanism is described. Second, the sufficient conditions
for the moving platform to possess a pure translational motion are de-
veloped. Third, the inverse and direct kinematics of the manipulator are
investigated. It is shown that the inverse kinematics yields two equal and
opposite limb lengths for each limb, but only one is physically possible. The
direct kinematics problem has been reduced to a second-degree polynomial
in one unknown. Hence, corresponding to each set of limb lengths, there
are generally two possible manipulator postures. Finally, the workspace and
singular conditions of the manipulator are discussed. It is shown that sin-
gular conditions can be avoided by making the size of the moving platform
different from that of the fixed base.
 409

8. References
1. Arai, T., Cleary, K, Homma, K, Adachi, H. and Nakamura, T., 1991,
"Development of Parallel Link Manipulator for Underground Excava-
tion Task," 1991 Int'l Symposium on Advanced Robot Technology, pp.
541-548.
2. Clavel, R., 1988, "A Fast Robot With Parallel Geometry," 18th Int'l
Symposium on Industrial Robots, Sydney, Australia, pp. 91-100.
3. Fichter, E.F., 1986, "A Stewart Platform Based Manipulator: Gen-
eral Theory and Practical Construction," Int'l Journal of Robotics
Research, Vol. 5, pp. 157-182.
4. Giddings and Lewis, 1995, Giddings and Lewis Automation Technol-
ogy, P.O. Box 590, Fond Dulac, WI.
5. Gosselin, C. and Angeles, J., 1989, "The Optimum Kinematic Design
of a Spherical Three-Degree-of-Freedom Parallel Manipulator," AS ME
Journal of Mechanisms, Transmissions, and Automation in Design, Vol.
111, pp. 202-207.
6. Gosselin, C. and Hamel, J., 1994, "The Agile Eye: A High-Performance
Three-Degree-of-Freedom Camera-Orienting Device," IEEE IntI. Con-
ference on Robotics and Automation, pp. 781-786.
7. Gough V.E. and Whitehall, S.G." 1962, "Universal Tyre Test Ma-
chine," Proc. 9th Int'l Tech. Congress, F.I.S.I.T.A., 177 (Institution of
Mechanical Engineers).
8. Grffis, M. and Duffy, J., 1989, "Forward Displacement Analysis of a
Class of Stewart Platforms," Journal of Robotic Systems, Vol. 6, pp.
703-720.
9. Hudgens, J.C. and Tesar, D., 1988, "A Fully-Parallel Six Degree-of-
Freedom Micromanipulator: Kinematic Analysis and Dynamic Model,"
Trends and Developments in Mechanisms, Machines, and Robotics,
Proc. of the 20th ASME Biennial Mechanisms Conf., DE-Vol. 15.3,
pp.29-37.
10. Hunt, KH., 1983, "Structural Kinematics ofln-Parallel-Actuated Robot-
Arms," ASME Journal of Mechanisms, Transmissions, and Automa-
tion in Design, Vol. 105, pp. 705-712.
11. Innocenti, C. and Parenti-Castelli, V., 1990, "Direct Position Analysis
of the Stewart Platform Mechanism," Mechanism and Machine Theory,
Vol. 25, pp. 611-612.
12. Innocenti, C. and Parenti-Castelli, V., 1993, "Forward Kinematics of
the General 6-6 Fully Parallel Mechanism: An Exhaustive Numerical
Approach Via a Mono-Dimensional Search Algorithm," ASME Journal
of Mechanical Design, Vol. 115, pp. 932-937.
410

13. Kohli, D., Lee, S.H., Tsai, KY. and Sandor, G.N., 1988, "Manipula-
tor Configurations Based on Rotary-Linear (R-L) Actuators and Their
Direct and Inverse Kinematics," ASME Journal of Mechanisms, Trans-
missions, and Automation in Design, Vol. 110, pp. 397-404.
14. Lee, K and Shah, D.K, 1987, "Kinematic Analysis of a Three Degrees
of Freedom In-Parallel Actuated Manipulator," Proc. IEEE Int'l Conf.
on Robotics and Automation, Vol. 1, pp. 345-350.
15. Lin, W., Crane, C.D. and Duffy, J., 1994, "Closed Form Forward Dis-
placement Analysis of the 4-5 In Parallel Platforms," ASME Journal
of Mechanical Design, Vol. 116, pp. 47-53.
16. Mohamed, M.G. and Duffy, J., 1985, "A Direct Determination of the
Instantaneous Kinematics of Fully Parallel Robotic Manipulators,"
ASME Journal of Mechanisms, Transmissions, and Automation in De-
sign, Vol. 107, pp.226-229
17. Nanua, P., Waldron, KJ. and Murthy, V., 1990, "Direct Kinematic
Solution of a Stewart Platform," IEEE Trans. on Robotics and Au-
tomation, Vol. 6, pp. 438-444.
18. Pierrot, F., Fournier, A. and Dauchez, P., 1991, "Toward a Fully Par-
allel 6 DOF Robot for High-Speed Applications," Proc. of the 1991
IEEE Int'l Conf. on Robotics and Automation, pp. 1288-1293.
19. Raghavan, M., 1993, "The Stewart Platform of General Geometry Has
40 Configurations," ASME Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 115, pp.
277-282.
20. Reinholz, C. and Gokhale, D., 1987, "Design and Analysis of Variable
Geometry Truss Robot," Proc. 9th Applied Mechanisms Conference,
Oklahoma State University.
21. Sternheim, F., 1987, "Computation of the Direct and Inverse Kine-
matic Model of the Delta 4 Parallel Robot," Robotersysteme 3, pp.
199-203.
22. Stewart, D., 1965, "A Platform with Six Degrees of Freedom," Proc.
Institute of Mechanical Engr., London, England, Vol. 180, pp. 371-386.
23. Tsai, L.W., Walsh, G.C. and Stamper, R, 1996, "Kinematics of a Novel
Three DOF Translational Platform," accepted for presentation at the
IEEE 1996 Int'l Conf. on Robotics and Automation, Minneapolis, MN.
24. Tsai, L.W. and Tahmasebi, F., 1993, "Synthesis and Analysis of a
New Class ofSix-DOF Parallel Mini-manipulators," Journal of Robotic
Systems, Vol. 10, No.5, pp. 561-580.
25. Zhang, C. and Song, S.M., 1994, "Forward Position Analysis of Nearly
General Stewart Platforms," ASME Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol.
116, pp. 54-60.