See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305939744

Comparison of 3-RPS and 3-SPR Parallel

Manipulators Based on Their Maximum Inscribed
Singularity-Free Circle
Chapter January 2017
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-44156-6_13

CITATIONS

READS

18

4 authors:
Abhilash Nayak

Latifah Nurahmi

Ecole Centrale de Nantes

Institut de Recherche en Communications et

1 PUBLICATION 0 CITATIONS

12 PUBLICATIONS 21 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

SEE PROFILE

Philippe Wenger

Stphane Caro

CNRS

CNRS - Institut de Recherche en Communicat

212 PUBLICATIONS 2,648 CITATIONS

172 PUBLICATIONS 838 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Cable-driven parallel robots, parallel robots, design, modeling, singularity analysis View

project
All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate,
letting you access and read them immediately.

Available from: Abhilash Nayak

Retrieved on: 30 October 2016

Comparison of 3-RPS and 3-SPR Parallel

Manipulators based on their Maximum
Inscribed Singularity-free Circle
Abhilash Nayak1 , Latifah Nurahmi2 , Philippe Wenger3 and Stephane Caro3
1 Ecole

Centrale de Nantes, IRCCyN, France, e-mail:

Abhilash.Nayak@irccyn.ec-nantes.fr
2 Mechanical Engineering, Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember, Surabaya,
Indonesia, e-mail: latifah.nurahmi@gmail.com
3 CNRS, IRCCyN, France, e-mail: {Philippe.Wenger,
Stephane.Caro}@irccyn.ec-nantes.fr
Abstract. This paper deals with the comparison of 3-RPS and 3-SPR parallel manipulators based
on their operation modes and singularity-free workspace. The operation modes of the 3-SPR manipulator are identified by using algebraic geometry. Those operation modes amount to the operation modes of the 3-RPS parallel manipulator, which has already been studied in the literature [1].
Then, the parallel singularities of the 3-SPR and 3-RPS parallel manipulators are analyzed in order
to trace their singularity loci throughout their orientation workspace. An index, named Maximum
Inscribed Circle Radius (MICR), is defined to compare the two manipulators under study. It is
based on their maximum singularity-free workspace and the ratio between their circum-radius of
the moving-platform to that of the base.
Key words: 3-RPS parallel manipulator, 3-SPR parallel manipulator, operation modes, singularity
analysis, maximum inscribed circle radius

1 Introduction
Zero torsion parallel mechanisms have proved to be interesting and versatile. In
this regard, the three-degree-of-freedom lower mobility 3-RPS parallel manipulator (PM) has many practical applications and has been analyzed by many researchers
[1, 2]. Interchanging the free moving platform and the fixed base in 3-RPS manipulator results in the 3-SPR manipulator as shown in Figure 1, retaining three-degreeof-freedom.
An optimization algorithm was used in [3] to compute the forward and inverse
kinematics of 3-SPR manipulator. After the workspace generation it proved that the
3-SPR has a bigger working space volume compared to the 3-RPS manipulator. The
orthogonality of rotation matrices is exploited in [4] to perform the forward and
inverse kinematics along with the simulations of 3-SPR mechanism. Control of a
hydraulic actuated 3-SPR PM is demonstrated in [5] with an interesting application
on adaptive shell structure.
This paper focuses on the comparison of the 3-RPS and 3-SPR parallel manipulators based on its kinematic performance and singularity loci and is organized as
1

A. Nayak, L. Nurahmi, P. Wenger and S. Caro

follows: First, the design of 3-SPR PM is detailed and the design of the 3-RPS PM is
recalled. The second section provides the constraint equations of the 3-SPR manipulator based on the algebraic geometry approach [1, 6]. A primary decomposition is
computed over these constraint equations and it shows that the 3-SPR has identical
operation modes as the 3-RPS PM. Moreover, the actuation and constraint singularities are described with singularity loci plots in the orientation workspace. Finally,
an index called the singularity-free maximum inscribed circle radius is introduced to
compare the maximum singularity free regions of 3-RPS and 3-SPR manipulators.
In [7], maximum tilt angles for any azimuth for 3-RPS PM are plotted for different ratios of platform to base circumradii. However, these plots correspond to only
one operation mode. This paper offers a complete singularity analysis in terms of
MICR for both the manipulators. These plots are useful in the design choice of a
manipulator based on their platform to base circumradii ratios and their operation
modes.

2 Manipulator architectures
B3

s1

B1
x1

y1

s3

z1

h2

z1

B3

y1

1 x1

O1 1

h2
B1

B2

s2

B2

r1
r3

r1

r3

r2

r2

A3
z0

z0
y0

A3

O0

x0

h1

A1

y0
x0

h1
A1

A2

A2

Fig. 1 The 3-SPR parallel manipulator

Fig. 2 The 3-RPS parallel manipulator

Figure 1 shows a general pose of the 3-SPR parallel manipulator with three
identical legs each one comprising of a spherical, a prismatic and a revolute joint
mounted in series. The triangular base and the platform of the manipulator are equilateral.
0 is the fixed co-ordinate frame attached to the base with the origin O0 coinciding with the circum-centre of the triangular base. The centres of the spherical
joints, namely A1 , A2 and A3 bound the triangular base. x0 -axis of 0 is considered
along O0 A1 which makes the y0 -axis parallel to A2 A3 and the z0 -axis normal to the
triangular base plane. h1 is the circum-radius of the triangular base.

Comparison of 3-RPS and 3-SPR mechanisms

The moving platform is bounded by three points B1 , B2 and B3 that lie on the revolute joint axes s1 , s2 and s3 . Moving co-ordinate frame 1 is attached to the moving
platform whose x1 -axis points from the origin O1 to B1 , y1 -axis being parallel to the
line segment B2 B3 and the z1 -axis normal to the triangular platform. Circum-radius
of this triangle with Bi (i = 1, 2, 3) as vertices is defined as h2 .
The prismatic joint of the i-th (i = 1, 2, 3) leg is always perpendicular to the respective revolute joint axis in each leg. Hence the prevailing orthogonality of Ai Bi to
si (i = 1, 2, 3) no matter the motion of the platform is a constraint of the manipulator.
The distance between the points Ai and Bi (i = 1, 2, 3) is defined by the prismatic
joint variables ri .
The architecture of the 3-SPR PM is similar to that of the 3-RPS PM except that
the order of the joints in each leg is reversed. The architecture of 3-RPS is recalled
in Figure 2 where the revolute joints are attached to the fixed triangular base with
circum-radius h1 while the spherical joints are attached to the moving platform with
circum-radius h2 .

3 Constraint equations of the 3-SPR parallel manipulator

The homogeneous coordinates of point Ai in 0 , point Bi in 1 and vector si in 1
are expressed as follows:

3
1
3
1
T
0
0
T
0
h1 , 0] , rA3 = [1, h1 ,
h1 , 0]T
rA1 = [1, h1 , 0, 0] , rA2 = [1, h1 ,
2
2
2
2

3
3
1
1
1
T
1
T
1
rB1 = [1, h2 , 0, 0] , rB2 = [1, h2 ,
h2 , 0] , rB3 = [1, h2 ,
h2 , 0]T
2
2
2
2

3 1 T
3 1 T
, , 0] , s13 = [0,
, , 0]
s11 = [0, 0, 1, 0]T , s12 = [0,
2 2
2 2
(1)
To express the coordinates of point Bi and vector si in the frame 0 , a coordinate
transformation matrix must be used. In this context, the Study parametrization of a
spatial Euclidean transformation matrix M SE(3) is utilized and is represented as:

2 x0 y1 + 2 x1 y0 2 x2 y3 + 2 x3 y2
 2


x + x1 2 + x2 2 + x3 2 0T31
,
2
x
y
+
2
x
y
+
2
x
y

2
x
y
M= 0
, MT =
0
2
1
3
2
0
3
1

MT
MR
2 x0 y3 2 x1 y2 + 2 x2 y1 + 2 x3 y0

MR =

x0 2 + x1 2 x2 2 x3 2

2 x0 x3 + 2 x1 x2

2 x0 x2 + 2 x1 x3

2 x0 x3 + 2 x1 x2

x0 2 x1 2 + x2 2 x3 2

2 x0 x1 + 2 x3 x2

2 x0 x1 + 2 x3 x2

x0 2 x1 2 x2 2 + x3 2

2 x0 x2 + 2 x1 x3

(2)

A. Nayak, L. Nurahmi, P. Wenger and S. Caro

where MT and MR represent the translational and rotational parts of the transformation matrix M, respectively. The parameters xi , yi , i {0, ..., 3} are called the
Study parameters. Matrix M maps every displacement SE(3) to a point in a 7dimensional projective space P7 and this mapping is known as Studys kinematic
mapping [1].
In the fixed coordinate frame 0 , Bi and si can be expressed using the transformation matrix M :
r0Bi = M r1Bi

s0i = M s1i

i = 1, 2, 3

(3)

The unit vector of Ai Bi , namely r0Bi r0Ai , is orthogonal to the axis si of the i-th
revolute joint which after simplification yields the following three equations:

g1 := x0 x3 = 0
(r0Bi r0Ai )T si = 0 = g2 := h1 x1 2 h1 x2 2 2 x0 y1 + 2 x1 y0 + 2 x2 2 x3 y2 = 0

g3 := 2 h1 x0 x3 + h1 x1 x2 + x0 y2 + x1 y3 x2 y0 x3 y1 = 0
(4)
The Euclidean distance between Ai and Bi must be equal to ri for the i-th leg
of the manipulator. As a result, kAi Bi k2 = ri2 leads to three additional equations
g4 = g5 = g6 = 0, which are quite lengthy and are not displayed in this paper due to
space limitation.
Two other equations are considered such that the solution represents a transformation in SE(3). The study-equation g7 = 0 constrains the solutions to lie on the Study
quadric. g8 = 0 is the normalization equation avoiding the exceptional generator
x0 = x1 = x2 = x3 = 0.
g7 := x0 y0 + x1 y1 + x2 y2 + x3 y3 = 0 ; g8 := x0 2 + x1 2 + x2 2 + x3 2 1 = 0 (5)
Solving these eight constraint equations provides the direct kinematic solutions for
the 3-SPR parallel manipulator.

4 Operation modes
Algebraic geometry offers an organized and an effective methodology to deal with
the eight constraint equations. A polynomial ideal consisting of equations gi (i =
1, ..., 8) is defined with variables {x0 , x1 , x2 , x3 , y0 , y1 , y2 , y3 } over the coefficient ring
C[h1 , h2 , r1 , r2 , r3 ] as follows:
I =< g1 , g2 , g3 , g4 , g5 , g6 , g7 , g8 >

(6)

As detailed in [1], the primary decomposition of the sub-ideal J =< g1 , g2 , g3 , g7 >

independent of ri yields two operation modes represented by x0 = 0 and x3 = 0. In
fact, g1 = 0 in Equation (4) shows the presence of these two operation modes. It is

Comparison of 3-RPS and 3-SPR mechanisms

noteworthy that the 3-RPS PM has two operation modes as described in [2].
For operation mode 1 (x0 = 0), the moving platform is always found to be displaced by 180 degrees from the identity position (where 0 and 1 coincide) [8].
For operation mode 2 (x3 = 0), the moving platform is displaced from the identity position by a rotation angle calculated from cos( 2 ) = x0 . It is interesting to
note that in this case, the screw axis about which the platform is displaced is always
parallel to the xy-plane [8].

5 Singularity analysis
The Jacobian of the 3-SPR manipulator in this context is defined as Ji and the manipulator reaches a singular pose when its determinant vanishes.


gj gj
,
where i = 1, 2 ; j = 1, ..., 8 ; k = 0, ..., 3
(7)
Ji =
xk yk
Computing the determinant Si : det(Ji ) results in a hyper-variety of degree 8 in both
the operation modes:
S1 : x3 p7 (x1 , x2 , x3 , y0 , y1 , y2 , y3 ) = 0

S2 : x0 p7 (x0 , x1 , x2 , y0 , y1 , y2 , y3 ) = 0
(8)
The 7 degree polynomials describe the actuation and/or compound singularities
within each operation mode whereas x0 = x3 = 0 describes the constraint singularity that exhibits the transition between those operation modes.
and

5.1 Singularity Loci

The singularities can be expressed in the orientation workspace by parametrizing
the orientation of the platform in terms of Tilt-and-Torsion (T&T) angles [10]. The
Study parameters can be expressed in terms of the T&T angles azimuth ( ), tilt ( )
and torsion ( ) [9]:

x0 = cos( )cos( ) x1 = sin( )cos( )

2
2
2
2

x2 = sin( )sin( ) x3 = cos( )sin( )

2
2
2
2

(9)

Substituting x0 = 0 in Equation (9) and solving for torsion angle results in =

for operation mode 1 while x3 = 0 gives = 0 for operation mode 2. Accordingly,
the xi parameters can be written in terms of tilt( ) and azimuth( ) only.
The method described in [6] is used to calculate the determinant of Ji in terms of ,

A. Nayak, L. Nurahmi, P. Wenger and S. Caro

900
1200

900
1200

600

1500

600

1500

300

300

MICR : 30.380

MICR : 25.220

1800 1500 1200 900 600 300 00

00

-1800

-1500

-300

-1200

-600
0

-90

(a)

1800 1500 1200 900 600 300 00

00

-1800

-1500

-300

-1200

-600
-90

(b)

Fig. 3 3-SPR singularity loci and the maximum inscribed singularity-free circle, h1 = 1, h2 = 2
and Z = 1 (a) Operation mode 1 (b) Operation mode 2

and Z, the altitude of the moving platform from the fixed base. The implicit plot of
the determinant of the Jacobian in cylindrical coordinates for [180 , 180 ] and
[0 , 180 ] depicts the singularity loci for a given value of Z. The green curves in
Figures 3(a) and 3(b) show the singularity loci for operation mode 1 and operation
mode 2 respectively with h1 = 1, h2 = 2 and Z = 1.

6 Maximum Inscribed Circle Radius for 3-RPS and 3-SPR PMs

From the home position of the manipulator ( = = 0), a circle is drawn that
has the maximum tilt value for any azimuth within the singularity-free region [7].
The radius of this circle is called the Maximum Inscribed Circle Radius (MICR).
In Figure 3, the red circle denotes the maximum inscribed circle where the value
of MICR is expressed in degrees. A similar procedure is used to find the MICR for
3-RPS PM.
The MICR is used as a basis to compare the 3-SPR and the 3-RPS parallel manipulators as they are analogous to each other in aspects like number of operation
Z
modes and direct kinematics.
vs MICR is plotted for different ratios of h2 : h1
h1
Z
h2
in Figures 4 and 5. The ratios
and
are used since they ensure that the MICR
h1
h1
plots can be used for any dimension of the platform and base. The maximum value
Z
of MICR is limited to 160 degrees for all the figures and
varies from 0 to 4 while
h1
eight ratios of h2 : h1 are considered.

Comparison of 3-RPS and 3-SPR mechanisms

M ICR as a f unction of Z/h1 : 3 RP S operation mode 1

160
140

M ICR [deg]

120
100
80

h2 /h1
h2 /h1
h2 /h1
h2 /h1
h2 /h1
h2 /h1
h2 /h1
h2 /h1

= 1/4
= 1/3
= 1/2
=1
= 3/2
=2
= 5/2
=3

60
40
20
0
0

0.5

1.5

2
Z/h1

2.5

3.5

3.5

M ICR as a f unction of Z/h1 : 3 RP S operation mode 2

160
140

M ICR [deg]

120
100
80

h2 /h1
h2 /h1
h2 /h1
h2 /h1
h2 /h1
h2 /h1
h2 /h1
h2 /h1

= 1/4
= 1/3
= 1/2
=1
= 3/2
=2
= 5/2
=3

60
40
20
0
0

0.5

Fig. 4 MICR vs.

1.5

2
Z/h1

2.5

Z
for the 3-RPS manipulator (a) Operation mode 1 (b) Operation mode 2
h1

The data cursor in Figures 5(a) and 5(b) correspond to the red circles with
MICR=25.22 and 30.38 degrees in Figures 3(a) and 3(b), respectively. The MICR
plots give useful information on the design choice of 3-RPS or 3-SPR parallel manipulators. The 3-SPR PM has higher MICR values and hence larger singularity
free regions compared to that of the 3-RPS PM in compliance with [3, 4]. For 3RPS parallel manipulator, there exists rarely any difference in the MICR values for
different operation modes whereas in 3-SPR PM, the second operation mode has
higher values of MICR compared to operation mode 1. For both the manipulators,
lower the ratios of h2 : h1 , higher the MICR values. But the ratio h2 : h1 has a larger
impact on the MICR values in 3-SPR PM than in 3-RPS PM.
In Figure 5, for 3-SPR PM, there is a discontinuity in the MICR curves at = 90
which happens when Z = h2 . This is due to the fact that the 3-SPR PM can never
attain a tilt of 90 because, in this case the platform and hence the revolute joints
will lie in the vertical plane while the base in the horizontal plane. Therefore, it is
impossible to have a P-joint with finite length connecting the R and S joints being
normal to the R-joint axis. This implies that at least one of the three orthogonality
constraints in Equation (4) will cease to exist. There is no such void in the orien-

A. Nayak, L. Nurahmi, P. Wenger and S. Caro

tation workspace of 3-RPS PM as long as Z is finite, which is evident from the

continuous MICR curves in Fig. 4.
M ICR as a f unction of Z/h1 : 3 SP R operation mode 1
160
140

M ICR [deg]

120
100

h2 /h1
h2 /h1
h2 /h1
h2 /h1
h2 /h1
h2 /h1
h2 /h1
h2 /h1

80
60

M ICR = 25.22deg

40
20
0
0

0.5

1.5

2
Z/h1

2.5

= 1/4
= 1/3
= 1/2
=1
= 3/2
=2
= 5/2
=3

3.5

M ICR as a f unction of Z/h1 : 3 SP R operation mode 2

160
140

M ICR [deg]

120
100

h2 /h1
h2 /h1
h2 /h1
h2 /h1
h2 /h1
h2 /h1
h2 /h1
h2 /h1

80
60

M ICR = 30.38deg

40
20
0
0

0.5

Fig. 5 MICR vs.

1.5

2
Z/h1

2.5

3.5

= 1/4
= 1/3
= 1/2
=1
= 3/2
=2
= 5/2
=3
4

Z
for the 3-SPR manipulator (a) Operation mode 1 (b) Operation mode 2
h1

7 Conclusions
In this paper, 3-RPS and 3-SPR parallel manipulators were compared based on their
operation modes and singularity-free workspace. Initially, the operation modes of
the 3-SPR PM were enumerated. The 3-SPR PM analyzed in this article has similar
behavior and operation modes as the 3-RPS PM analyzed in [1]. The difference is
that the base and platform are interchanged, so if the discrete euclidean transformations from base to platform are rotations with an angle of 180 degrees as in the first
operation mode, then the inverse transformation from platform to base will be of the
same type. The same is true for the second operation mode. The parallel singularities were computed for both the manipulators and the singularity loci were plotted in

Comparison of 3-RPS and 3-SPR mechanisms

their orientation workspace. Furthermore, an index called the singularity-free maximum inscribed circle radius was defined. MICR was plotted as a function of the Z
coordinate of the moving-platform for different ratios of the platform circum-radius
to the base circum-radius. It shows that, compared to the 3-RPS PM, the 3-SPR PM
has higher MICR values and hence a larger singularity free workspace for a given
altitude. The discontinuities in the MICR curves for 3-SPR PM are attributed to
the void at = 90 in its orientation workspace. In fact, the singularity-free MICR
curves open up many design possibilities for both mechanisms suited for a particular application. Future work will deal with the MICR curves for other actuation
modes like 3-RPS and 3-SPR manipulators and to consider the parasitic motions of
the moving-platform within the maximum inscribed circles.
Acknowledgements This work was conducted with the support of both the French National Re
search Agency (Project ANR-KAPAMAT) and the Ecole
Centrale de Nantes.

References
1. Schadlbauer, J., Walter, D.R., and Husty, M.: A Complete Kinematic Analysis of the 3-RPS
Parallel Manipulator, 15th National Conference on Machines and Mechanisms (2011).
2. Schadlbauer, J., Walter, D.R., and Husty, M.: The 3-RPS Parallel Manipulator from an Algebraic Viewpoint, Mechanism and Machine Theory, 75, pp. 161-176 (2014).
3. Lukanin, V., Inverse Kinematics, Forward Kinematics and Working Space Determination
of 3-DOF Parallel Manipulator with S-P-R Joint Structure, Periodica Polytechnica Ser.
Mech.Eng. Vol.49, No.1, pp.39-61 (2005).
4. Lu, Y. and Zhao, Y., Position and Workspace Analysis of 3-SPR and 3-RPS Parallel Manipulators, Proceedings of IDETC/CIE, September (2005).
5. Mark, W., Martin, W., Stefan, N., Christoph, G., Werner, S. and Oliver, S.:Kinematic Modeling of a Hydraulically Actuated 3-SPR-Parallel Manipulator for an Adaptive Shell Structure,
ASME (AIM), Wollongong, Australia, July 9-12 (2013).
6. Nurahmi, L., Caro, S. , Wenger, P., : Operation modes and singularities of 3-PRS parallel manipulators with different arrangements of P-joints, IDETC/CIE, Massachusetts, USA (2015).
7. Briot, S. and Bonev, I.A.: Singularity Analysis of Zero-Torsion Parallel Mechanisms,International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Nice, France, Sept 22-26
(2008).
8. Kong, X.: Reconfiguration analysis of a 3-DOF parallel mechanism using Euler parameter
quaternions and algebraic geometry method, Mechanism and Machine Theory, 75, pp. 188201 (2014).
9. NASA Mission Planning and Analysis Division, Euler Angles, Quaternions, and Transformation Matrices, London B Johnson Space Center Houston Texas (1977).
10. Bonev, I.A., Zlatanov, D., and Gosselin, C.M., Advantages of the modified Euler angles
in the design and control of PKMs, Parallel Kinematic Machines International Conference,
Chemnitz, Germany, pp. 171-188, (2002).