Original Article

Proc IMechE Part K:

J Multi-body Dynamics
Kinematic analysis of the double roller 2020, Vol. 234(1) 147–160
! IMechE 2019

tripod joint Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1464419319881251
journals.sagepub.com/home/pik

Yinyuan Qiu1 , Wen-Bin Shangguan1 and Yong Luo2

Abstract
To solve the shortcomings and structural defects of the tripod joint, a novel structure named ‘double roller tripod joint’
is designed in this paper with the following features: (1) gothic arc-shaped tracks, (2) outer rollers with semi-toroid outer
surfaces, (3) cylindrical inner rollers and (4) spherical trunnions. Based on spatial Cartesian kinematics and vector
method, a novel method for kinematic analysis of the double roller tripod joint is proposed. The proposed method is
validated by bench tests. By comparing the kinematics between the double roller tripod joint and tripod joint, it can be
concluded that the double roller tripod joint has prominent advantages such as 0 relative pitch angles between the
rollers and tracks and better constant velocity property. In addition, compared with other tripod-type joints, the
proposed double roller tripod joint also has advantages in performances, manufacturability and assembling ability.

Keywords
Tripod joint, novel structure, double roller, kinematics, relative motion

Date received: 23 March 2019; accepted: 16 September 2019

Introduction
The tripod joint (TJ) is a kind of plunging joint widely
used in the industry for its simple structure, large
transmission torque, high efficiency and good reliabil-
ity.1,2 Massive researches have been done regarding
the kinematics and dynamics of the TJ. Durum3 pro-
jected the bottom of the housing’s inner cavity to the
tripod plane with a scale of 1:1 and investigated the
kinematics of the TJ by planar analytical geometry
method. He discussed the eccentricity of the tripod’s
centre on the tripod plane under strict constant vel-
ocity condition. Akbil and Lee4,5 treated the TJ as a
spatial mechanism and proved that when the output
end of the spider shaft was fixed, there was a slight
deviation between the input and output angular dis-
placement of the TJ and the TJ is a quasi-constant
velocity joint in this perspective. Urbinati and
Pennestrı̀6 analysed the kinematics and dynamics of
the TJ under a specific working condition through the
computer-aided multi-body dynamic method. Mariot
and co-workers7–11 analysed the kinematics and
dynamics of the TJ based on kinematic closure equa-
tions and D’Alembert’s principle. Recently, based on
the kinematic analysis of TJ, Jo et al.12 established the
rolling–sliding friction model and performed the the-
oretical analysis and test validation towards the TJ’s
dynamics. Zheng et al.13 analysed the kinematics and
dynamics of the TJ through the analytical method and
computer simulation. Chang and co-workers2,14–16
analysed the kinematics and dynamics of the tripod
sliding universal joint using coordinate transmission
method. However, researches show that in the TJ,
since the axes of rollers and trunnions must coincide,
during the TJ’s working process, the rollers are pitch-
ing periodically in the tracks making the rollers inev-
itably slide in the tracks. The relative sliding motions
between the rollers and tracks will generate quite large
friction forces and cause noise and vibration problems
in mechanical systems including TJ.10,11,13,17
Regarding the aforementioned problems,
Watanabe et al.18 proposed a novel structure called
‘a tripod constant velocity joint of the spherical end
spider’. Its features are as follows: (1) the shapes of
the trunnions are spherical, (2) the shapes of both
inner and outer rings are cylindrical and between
them are filled with several needle rollers and (3) the
cross-sectional shapes of the tracks in the housing are
U-shaped. Through the contact constraints between
the rollers and tracks, the relative pitch angles
1
School of Mechanical and Automotive Engineering, South China
University of Technology, Guangzhou, China
2
Zhejiang Xianglong Machinery Co., Ltd, Ningbo, China
Corresponding author:
Wen-Bin Shangguan, School of Mechanical and Automotive Engineering,
South China University of Technology, Automobile Tech Building, No.
385, Wushan Road, Tianhe District, Guangzhou 510641, China.
Email: sgwb@scut.edu.cn
148
between the roller and tracks can be kept at 0 . By
treating the proposed structure as a spatial mechan-
ism instead of a mere shaft coupling, its kinematics
and statics were investigated. However, for such struc-
ture, the bottoms of the rollers will inevitably collide
with the U-shaped tracks generating severe impact
loads, especially at high rotational speeds. Lim
et al.17 proposed another novel structure named
‘very low axial force tripod joint’ by adding three
outer rings directly outside TJ’s three spherical rollers.
The radii of the outer rings’ spherical inner surfaces
are slightly larger than those of the inner rings’ spher-
ical outer surfaces. The outer rings’ cylindrical outer
surfaces are constrained in the tracks’ plane surfaces
by line contact. Thereby, the relative pitching motions
between the rollers and tracks are eliminated.
Through the computer simulation method, the kine-
matics and dynamics of the proposed structure and
those of the TJ are analysed and compared. Although
such structure also keeps the relative pitch angles
between the rollers and tracks 0 during the working
process, due to the large resistant torques induced by
the line contacts between the inner and outer rings,
the rollers may slide in the tracks in actual situations.
Sams et al.,19 Weckerling and Beigang20 and Simons
et al.21 attempted to eliminate the relative pitching
motions between the rollers and tracks by proposing
three novel structures whose details are as follows: (1)
the shapes of their outer rings’ outer surfaces are
spherical, (2) their cylindrical tracks have the same
radii as those of their spherical outer rings, (3)
needle rollers are filled between the outer and inner
rings and (4) their trunnions are spherical. The only
difference between these structures is that the shapes
of their inner rings’ inner surfaces are wavy, polygon
prism and multi-curved, respectively. Although these
structures can eliminate the relative pitching motions
between the rollers and tracks while keeping the con-
tacts between them in a condition better than the
structure proposed in Lim et al.,17 the contacts
between the rollers and tracks are still line contacts
under which edge contacts will occur at high rota-
tional speeds or under severe impacts, deteriorating
the contact status. Meanwhile, the shapes of the
inner surfaces of all three kinds of inner rings are
too complicated to be manufactured and assembled.
In summary, research works about the tripod-type
joints mainly focused on proposing various methods
for analysing the kinematics and dynamics of the TJ.
Few studies involve the improvements in TJ’s struc-
ture and the analyses of the improved structures.
Furthermore, the existing improved structures of the
TJ also cannot effectively eliminate the relative sliding
motions between the rollers and tracks.
This paper attempts to propose a novel structure
named ‘double roller tripod joint’ (DRTJ), establish
its kinematic model and carry out bench test to val-
idate the established model. In this way, it can be
verified whether the DRTJ completely solves the
Proc IMechE Part K: J Multi-body Dynamics 234(1)
structural defects of the TJ under the premises
that (1) the rollers are constrained in the tracks by
two-point contacts to avoid bad contact statuses
and (2) the DRTJ is easy to be manufactured
and assembled. In addition, the kinematics of the
DRTJ is not only the basis for the analysis of
its dynamics but also directly affects its service life.
Therefore, analysis of the DRTJ’s kinematics is of
great significance to analyse its dynamics and prolong
its service life.
It should be noted that (1) although the proposed
method for analysing DRTJ’s kinematics partly
resembles the method proposed in Mariot and
K’Nevez7 and K’Nevez et al.8 owing to the spherical
trunnion, the rollers’ centres no longer lie on the trun-
nions’ axes (as what they are doing in the TJ), making
the kinematic models of the DRTJ and TJ different;
and (2) although the method proposed in Watanabe
et al.18 is also effective for analysing the kinematics of
the DRTJ, the calculation is tedious and the equations
of the joint’s motions cannot be directly derived, while
in this paper, the equations of the joint’s motions are
directly presented. The other point is that almost all
published literature regarding the kinematic analyses
of the tripod-type joints lacks test verifications. In this
paper, bench tests are conducted for the validation of
theoretical results.
Methodology
The method for the structural design of the DRTJ: the
novel DRTJ is designed by improving the trunnions’
shapes, roller assemblies’ configurations and shapes of
the outer rollers’ outer surfaces. Thus, the constraints
between the rollers and trunnions as well as the rollers
and tracks are changed. In this way, the relative pitch
angles between the rollers and tracks will remain 0
under all working conditions.
The method for the kinematic analysis of the
DRTJ: the kinematic model of the DRTJ is estab-
lished based on spatial Cartesian coordinate kine-
matics.22 With this model, the equations of motions
of the DRTJ are derived using vector methods.23
The method for the bench test of the DRTJ’s kine-
matics: through durability tests and observing
the wear scars on the rollers and tracks, the laws of
the relative translational and rotational motions
between them are obtained. Thereby, the established
kinematic model can be verified. The test principle of
durability test is shown in Figure 1. The test equip-
ment is the durability testing machine (type:
AU14004) produced by aixACCT GmbH in
Germany, shown in Figure 2. The number of test sam-
ples is 4.
In the tests, the input rotational speeds are
50–1800 r/min. The load torques are 150–1200 N m.
The bending angles are 5 –15 . The specific test con-
ditions are shown in the ‘Test results and model val-
idation’ section.
Qiu et al.
Figure 1. Test principle of durability test for the universal
joint.
Sample 1 Sample 4
Sample 2
Sample 3
Figure 2. Test equipment for the universal joint’s durability
test.
Structural design and kinematics of the
DRTJ
Structural design of the DRTJ
The design of the DRTJ is shown in Figure 3. It
mainly consists of a housing, a tripod, an intermediate
shaft, three inner and outer rollers, and several nee-
dles. The internal splines in the tripod (2) are fitted
with the external splines on the propeller shaft (9).
Three spherical trunnions (3) at 120 from each
other are integrated with the tripod (2). The cylin-
drical inner rollers (5) are installed on the trunnions
(3). The needles (6) are filled between the inner (5) and
outer rollers (7). The outer rollers’ (7) outer surfaces
are of semi-toroid shapes, and they are constrained
inside the three uniformly distributed Gothic arch
shape tracks11 in the housing (1) by the two-point
contacts. The needles are maintained in the gaps
between the inner rollers (5) and outer rollers (7) by
two retaining rings (8).
As shown in Figure 3(c), the contacts between the
outer rollers and tracks are two-point contacts, which
can be simplified as the inscribed tangencies between
one arc and another two arcs whose radii are longer
than that of the former one. Thus, the roller assem-
blies will not collide with the tracks’ edges, and edge
contacts will not occur even at high rotational speeds
or under severe impact loads, keeping the contact sta-
tuses favourable. Meanwhile, since the centres of the
sectional arcs of the outer rollers’ outer surfaces do
not coincide with the outer rollers’ centre, the relative
149
pitching motions between the roller assemblies (4) and
tracks are supposed to be eliminated.
As for the contacts between the inner rollers and
trunnions, since the spherical trunnions and inner
rollers’ cylindrical inner surfaces are of the same
radii, the contacts between them are line contacts.
Therefore, the roller assemblies (4) are rotatable
around and movable along the trunnions. In this
way, the DRTJ is able to transmit rotary motions
and torques between two shafts whose axes are
inclined to each other.
The DRTJ is a new-type plunging joint whose novel-
ties are as follows: (1) the outer surfaces of the DRTJ’s
rollers are of semi-toroid shapes rather than cylindrical
or spherical shapes, which eliminate the relative pitch-
ing motions between the roller assemblies and tracks
while keeping the two-point contacts between the
outer rollers and tracks; (2) the DRTJ is preferably
designed with three cylindrical inner rollers which has
good manufacturability and is easy to assemble and (3)
the needles are preferably installed between the inner
and outer rollers reducing the resistant torques between
them and effectively eliminating the relative sliding
motions between the outer rollers and tracks.
Kinematic analysis of the DRTJ
The following assumptions are made for the kine-
matic analysis of the DRTJ: the geometry, shape
and size of each component are ideal, and the fit clear-
ance between each component is zero.
Kinematic model of the DRTJ. The kinematic model of
the DRTJ is shown in Figure 4. According to the
shapes of the tracks, outer rollers, inner rollers and
trunnions, the relative positions between the rollers
and tracks as well as the rollers and trunnions can
be inferred as (1) the rollers’ centres always lie on
the housing’s axis in the DRTJ and (2) the trunnions’
centres always lie on the rollers’ axes. The output end
of the intermediate shaft is usually connected to the
inner race of the ball joint, so the intermediate shaft is
connected to the ground by the spherical joint in the
model. The definitions of the points in the DRTJ’s
kinematic model are shown in Table 1.
The coordinate systems in the DRTJ’s kinematic
model are shown in Figure 5, and their definitions
are shown in Table 2.
Since the y0-axis, z0-axis and line DJ are all vertical
to the x0-axis, and the y0-axis, z0-axis and line DJ
intersect at the point D, the y0-axis, z0-axis and line
DJ are coplanar. Therefore, the point J is on the plane
y0O0z0.
The distances in the DRTJ’s kinematic model are
shown in Figure 6, and their definitions are shown in
Table 3.
The angles in the DRTJ’s kinematic model are
shown in Figure 7, and their definitions are shown
in Table 4.
150 Proc IMechE Part K: J Multi-body Dynamics 234(1)

Equations of motions. In Figure 8, the vector from point where B is the upper left two-by-two block of A13.
D to Si is ai, the vector from point D to I is b and the Thus, the first two rows of the vector equation
vector from I to point Si is ci. shown in equation (1) can be expressed as
In coordinate system O1-x1y1z1, the relationship
     
between the aforementioned three vectors is 0 x1I 0
¼ R1
ui þ R1
ui BRui ð5Þ
hi þ r y1I r
ai1 ¼ b1 þ A13 ci3 ð1Þ

where A13 is the transformation matrix from coordin- C'1

ate system D-x1y1z1 to I-x3y3z3, ai1 and b1 are the
expressions of vector ai and b in coordinate system S'1
C1
D-x1y1z1 and ci3 is the expression of ci in coordinate
system I-x3y3z3, which are shown as follows S1 D
 T  T E
ai1 ¼ Ri 0 r þ hi li , b1 ¼ x1I y1I z1I , I S'3
 T S'2
ci3 ¼ Ri 0 r 0 ð2Þ S3
S2

where Ri is the rotational matrix of a vector rotating

around the z-axis of a coordinate system by the angle J
(i1)120 , and x1I, y1I, z1I are the x, y, z coordinate
values of the tripod’s centre I in coordinate system
D-x1y1z1. Figure 4. DRTJ’s kinematic model.
Using the Euler angles,7,11,24 A13 can be
expressed as
2 3 Table 1. Definitions of the points in the DRTJ’s kinematic
cos  sin 0
6 7 model.
A13 ¼ 4 sin cos 05
Symbol Definition Remarks
0 0 1
2 32 3
1 0 0 cos   sin  0 Ci Centre of roller i i ¼ 1, 2, 3
6 76 7 Ci Projection of the centre i ¼ 1, 2, 3
 4 0 cos   sin  54 sin  cos  0 5
of roller i on the bottom
0 sin  cos  0 0 1 of the housing’s inner cavity
ð3Þ Si Centre of trunnion i i ¼ 1, 2, 3
S0 i Projection of the centre i ¼ 1, 2, 3
where w is the first Euler angle describing transform- of trunnion i on the bottom
ation matrix A13. of the housing’s inner cavity
Let E Intersection point of the
2 3 2 3 housing’s axis and tripod plane
a1 a2 a3 a3
6 7 4 B I Tripod’s centre
A13 ¼ 4 b1 b2 b3 5¼ b3 5 ð4Þ
J Centre of the fixed joint
c1 c2 c3 c1 c2 c3
DRTJ: double roller tripod joint.

Figure 3. Structure of the DRTJ. (a) The entire structure of the joint, (b) the roller’s structure and (c) cross-section. 1 – Housing, 2 –
tripod, 3 – trunnion, 4 – roller assembly, 5 – inner roller, 6 – needle, 7 – outer roller, 8 – retaining ring and 9 – intermediate shaft.
Qiu et al. 151

where Rui is the upper left two-by-two block of Ri. Inferred from the first line of equation (8), the fol-
Substituting i ¼ 1, 2, 3 into equation (5) and adding lowing equation can be obtained
up the obtained three equations gives
ð1 þ cos Þ sinð þ Þ ¼ 0 ð6Þ
2 3 !
0 X
3 
x1I
4P
3 5¼ R1
ui
Then the expression for w can be derived as
ðhi þ rÞ y1I
i¼1
i¼1 ð6Þ
!  ¼  ð10Þ
X
3
0
þ R1
ui BRui
i¼1 r Thus, the expression for matrix A13 is
2 3
Since cos  sin  0
6 7
A13 ¼ 4  sin  cos  0 5
2 3
P
3 P
3 0 0 1
X
3 6 cosði  1Þ 2
3 sinði  1Þ 2
3 7 2 32 3
6 i¼1 i¼1 7 1 0 0 cos   sin  0
R1 ¼ 6 7¼0
ui
4 P
3 P
3 5 6 76 7
i¼1
 sinði  1Þ 2 2
cosði  1Þ 3  4 0 cos   sin  54 sin  cos  05
3
i¼1 i¼1 0 sin  cos  0 0 1
ð7Þ ð11Þ

Equation (6) can be simplified to Therefore, the relationships between the coordinate
systems in a DRTJ’s kinematic model (see Figure 5)
2 3 !  can be obtained, which is shown in Table 5.
0 X
3
0
4P
3 5¼ R1
ui BRui ð8Þ
ðr þ hi Þ r Equations of motions of the rollers.
i¼1
i¼1 (1) Displacements of the rollers relative to the tracks

y0
(a) y1 (b) yki y0
C1' yti
S1' C1'
y3 C1 C'i
y2 D zki S1 '
S1 xki
I
x0 xti C1
E Si
zti S1
x2 D
z2 Ci x0
I
y0J zri
J
xri yri S3 '
z3 S3

y0J
Figure 5. Coordinate systems in the DRTJ’s kinematic model. J
(a) Coordinate systems connected to the frame, housing,
tripod plane and tripod and (b) coordinate systems connected
to the tracks, trunnions and rollers. Figure 6. Distances in the DRTJ’s kinematic model.

Table 2. Definitions of the coordinate systems in the DRTJ’s kinematic model.

Coordinate system Connect body x-axis y-axis z-axis

D-x0y0z0 The frame Vertical to DE and DJ DE

D-x1y1z1 The housing DC0 1 DE
E-x2y2z2 The tripod plane Vertical to DE and IJ Parallel to IJ
I-x3y3z3 The tripod IC1 IJ
C0 i-xkiykizki Track i Parallel to DC0 i Parallel to DE
Si-xtiytizti Trunnion i Parallel to ISi Parallel to IJ
Ci-xriyrizri Roller i Axis of the roller i Any vector vertical to yri
DRTJ: double roller tripod joint.
152 Proc IMechE Part K: J Multi-body Dynamics 234(1)

Table 3. Definitions of the distances in the DRTJ’s kinematic model.

Symbol Unit Definition Remark

y0J, z0J mm y, z coordinate values of point J in coordinate system D-x0y0z0 Constant

l mm Centre distance of the joint-shaft assembly (length of IJ) Constant
r mm Track’s pitch circle radius (length of C0 iD or ISi) Constant
li mm Distance from point Ci to the bottom of the housing’s inner cavity Unknown
hi mm Relative displacement between point Ci and Si Unknown
DRTJ: double roller tripod joint.

(a) C1' (b) yki C1'

S1 ' βti S1'
C1 ϕ γti αti C1
S1 D zki C'i xki
S1 D
I
S3' Si
S2' S3 γri αri I
θ S2
S2 ' S3'
yti S2 S3
δ zti xti βri
J

J
Figure 7. Angles in the DRTJ’s kinematic model. (a)
Definitions of the input angular displacement, output angular
Figure 8. Vector ai, b and ci in the DRTJ’s kinematic model.
displacement and bending angle and (b) definitions of the
rotational angles of the roller relative to the track and trunnion.
Let

r
e ¼ ð1  cos Þ ð13Þ
2
Table 4. Definitions of the angles in the DRTJ’s kinematic
model. Then the elements in matrix B can be expressed as
Symbol Unit Definition Remark e
a1 ¼ 1  ð1  cos 2Þ
u 
Joint’s input angular Given value r
displacement e
a2 ¼ b1 ¼  sin 2 ð14Þ
 
Joint’s output angular Unknown r
e
displacement b2 ¼ 1  ð1 þ cos 2Þ
 r
d Joint’s bending angle Unknown
ati, b ti,  ti 
Pitch, yaw and roll Unknown When e and  are deemed as known numbers, the
angles of roller expressions for hi, x1I and y1I can be derived from the
i relative to track i set of equations which is obtained by substituting

ari, bri,  ri Pitch, yaw and roll Unknown equation (14) as well as i ¼ 1, 2, 3 into equation (5) as
angles of roller
  
i relative to trunnion i 2
hi ¼ e 1 þ 2 cos 2  þ ði  1Þ ð15Þ
DRTJ: double roller tripod joint. 3

x1I ¼ e sin 2, y1I ¼ e cos 2 ð16Þ

The relative displacements between the rollers and
tracks are described by the distance between the Equation (16) will be invoked in the derivation for
centre of roller i and the bottom of the housing’s the equations of motion of the tripod’s centre.
inner cavity li whose expression can be derived from
the third row of the vector equation shown in equa- (3) Rotational angles of the rollers relative to the
tion (1) tracks
 
2 In DRTJ, since the outer rollers’ outer surfaces are
li ¼ z1I þ r sin  cos  þ ði  1Þ ð12Þ
3 of semi-toroid shapes, the centres of the sectional arcs
of outer rollers’ outer surfaces do not coincide with the
(2) Displacements of the rollers relative to trunnions roller assemblies’ centres. Therefore, the two-point
Qiu et al. 153

Table 5. Relationships between the coordinate systems in the DRTJ’s kinematic model.

Original coordinate Obtained coordinate

system system Transformations

D-x0y0z0 D-x1y1z1 Rotate counter clockwise around the z0 by the angle u

D-x0y0z0 E-x2y2z2 (1) Move to point E, (2) rotate counter clockwise around
the z-axis by the angle u   and (3) rotate counter clockwise
around the x-axis by the angle d
E-x2y2z2 I-x3y3z3 Move to point I and then rotate counter clockwise around
the z-axis by the angle 
DRTJ: double roller tripod joint.

contacts between the outer rollers’ outer surfaces and expression of the vector vertical to both vectors yti
Gothic arc shape tracks should ensure the rollers’ and and yri in coordinate system I-x3y3z3, which are
tracks’ axes remain perpendicular under any working shown as follows
condition, otherwise the condition for the contact
transmission (the normal vectors of the two surfaces  T
at the contact point should remain coincident) may not xti3 ¼ Ri 1 0 0 ,
 T ð21Þ
be satisfied. Hence, neglecting the rollers’ auto rota- zti3 ¼ Ri 0 0 1 , ni3 ¼ yti3  yri3
tions for the reason that they do not affect the kine-
matics of the other constraints in the joint,12,19 the
vector yri and zri should always be parallel to vector Moreover, neglecting the rollers’ auto rotations,
yki and zki, respectively. In this way, the expressions for the angle i between vector xti and xri is
the pitch angle ati, yaw angle bti and roll angle  ti of 
roller i relative to track i can be assumed as i ¼ arccos xTti3 xri3 ð22Þ

ti ¼ ti ¼ ti ¼ 0 ð17Þ where xri3 is the expression of vector xri in coordinate
system I-x3y3z3, which is shown as follows
Furthermore, it should be noted that the assump-
 T
tions shown in equation (17) are also made based on xri3 ¼ A1
13 Ri 1 0 0 ð23Þ
the test results in the ‘Measurement of relative pitch
angle between the roller and track’ section. Then, the expressions of the yaw angle bri of roller i
relative to trunnion i can be derived as follows
(4) Rotational angles of the rollers relative to the
trunnions yTti3 n i3
ri ¼ i ð24Þ
jn i3 j
Neglecting the rollers’ auto rotations, the angle i
between vector yti and yri is where n i3 is the expression of the vector vertical to
 both vectors xti and xri in coordinate system I-x3y3z3,
i ¼ arccos yTti3 yri3 ð18Þ which is shown as follows
n i3 ¼ xti3  xri3 ð25Þ
where yti3 and yri3 are the expressions of vectors yti
and yri in coordinate system I-x3y3z3, which are shown
as follows Equation of motion of the tripod’s centre. The
motion of the tripod’s centre I is described by its
 T  T
yti3 ¼ Ri 0 1 0 , yri3 ¼ A1 moving trajectory on the tripod plane (plane x2Ey2).
13 Ri 0 1 0
In Figure 9, the vector from point D to I is b, the
ð19Þ
vector from D to point E is d and the vector from
point E to I is e.
Then, the expressions of the pitch angle ari and roll In coordinate system E-x2y2z2, the relationship
angle  ri of roller i relative to trunnion i can be between the aforementioned three vectors is
derived as follows
e2 ¼ A21 ðb1  d1 Þ ð26Þ
xT ni3 zT ni3
ri ¼

ti3

i , ri ¼

ti3

i ð20Þ where A21 is the transformation matrix from coordin-

ni3 ni3
ate system E-x2y2z2 to D-x1y1z1, e2 is the expression
where xti3 and zti3 are the expressions of vector xti and of vector e in coordinate system E-x2y2z2,
zti in coordinate system I-x3y3z3, and ni3 is the and b1 and d1 are the expressions of vectors b
154 Proc IMechE Part K: J Multi-body Dynamics 234(1)

C'1 C1'
S'1 S1'
C1 C1
S1 D S1 D
E
e I I
S'3
S'2 S3 S2' S3 S3'
S2 S2

J J

Figure 9. Vectors b, d and e in the DRTJ’s kinematic model. Figure 10. Vectors c, d and e in the DRTJ’s kinematic model.

and d in coordinate system D-x1y1z1, which are shown the motion is 3 times of the joint’s output angular
as follows velocity.
 T  
e2 ¼ x2I y2I 0 , b1 ¼ x1I y1I z1I , Equations of the input/output angular displacement
 T ð27Þ error and bending angle. In Figure 10, the vector
d1 ¼ 0 0 z1E from D to point I is b, the vector from point D to J
is f and the vector from point I to J is g.
where x2I and y2I are the x and y coordinate values of In coordinate system D-x0y0z0, the relationship
point I in coordinate system E-x2y2z2, and z1E is the z between the aforementioned three vectors is
coordinate value of point E in coordinate system
D-x1y1z1. b0 ¼ f0  A03 g3 ð32Þ
Then, using the Euler angles, A21 can be expressed as
2 3 where A03 is the transformation matrix from coordin-
cos 0  sin 0 0 ate system D-x0y0z0 to I-x3y3z3, b0 and f0 are the
6 7
A21 ¼ 4 sin 0 cos 0 0 5 expressions of vector b and f in coordinate system
0 0 1 D-x0y0z0, and g3 is the expression of vector g in coord-
2 32 3 inate system I-x3y3z3, which are shown as follows
1 0 0 cos   sin  0
6 76 7  T  T
 4 0 cos  sin  54 sin  cos  0 5
b0 ¼ Fb1 , f0 ¼ 0 y0J z0J , g3 ¼ 0 0 l
0  sin  cos  0 0 1
ð33Þ
ð28Þ

The relationship between z1I and z1E can be derived where F is the rotational matrix of a vector rotating
from the third row of the vector equation shown in around the z-axis of a coordinate system by angle u.
equation (26) as Then, using the Euler angles, A03 can be expressed
as
z1I  z1E ¼ e sin  cos 3 ð29Þ 2 3
cos 0  sin 0 0
Thus, the first and second rows of the vector equa- 6 7
A03 ¼ 4 sin 0 cos 0 05
tion shown in equation (26) can be expressed as
0 0 1
2 32 3
e sin 2 ¼ x2I cos  þ y2I cos  sin  1 0 0 cos   sin  0
ð30Þ 6 76 7
 e cos 2 ¼ x2I sin  þ y2I cos  cos   40 cos   sin  54 sin  cos  05
0 sin  cos  0 0 1
Then the manipulation of equation (30) gives
ð34Þ
e
x2I ¼ e sin 3, y2I ¼  cos 3 ð31Þ
cos  Thus, the first and second rows of the vector equa-
tion shown in equation (32) can be expressed as
It can be inferred from the above equation that the
trajectory of the motion of the tripod’s centre is an e½sin 3 cosð’  Þ þ cos 3 sinð’  Þ
ellipse on the tripod plane (plane x2O2y2). The centre ¼ l sin  sinð’  Þ
of the ellipse is point E, and its long axis whose length ð35Þ
e½sin 3 sinð’  Þ  cos 3 cosð’  Þ
is e/cos d is on the y3-axis while its short axis whose
length is e is on the x3-axis. The angular velocity of ¼ y0J þ l sin  cosð’  Þ
Qiu et al. 155

Then, the manipulation of equation (35) gives the Table 6. Values of the constants in the example.
expressions of the input/output angular displacement
l (mm) r (mm) g (mm) y0J (mm) z0J (mm)
error u and bending angle d of the DRTJ as
384.5 28 80 66.98 421.09
e sin 3 ¼ y0J sinð’  Þ ð36Þ

e cos 3 ¼ l sin  þ y0J cosð’  Þ ð37Þ

C'1 C1
Besides, it can be inferred from the third row of the S'1 S1 δ min

r/2
vector equation shown in equation (32) that the z D I
coordinate values point I in coordinate system

r
C'2 C'3 C2 (C3)

y0J
D-x0y0z0 and D-x1y1z1, z0I and z1I, are δ min
J

z0I ¼ z1I ¼ z0J  l cos  ð38Þ

In summary, for the DRTJ, given the values of the
constants in Table 3 as well as the input angular dis-
placement u, the methods for deriving the values of
the remaining unknowns in Tables 3 and 4 are as
follows:
Figure 11. Position where the DRTJ’s bending angle is
minimum.
Table 7. Test conditions of measuring the relative displace-
ment between the roller and track.

1. Manipulation of equations (13), (36) and (37)
using the Newton–Raphson method gives the
values of joint’s input angular displacement ,
bending angle d and parameter e which is defined
to facilitate the calculation of the kinematic par-
ameters of the DRTJ.
2. Substituting the values of , d and e into equations
(15), (31) and (38), the value of the relative dis-
placement between the centres of roller q and
tripod q (point Ci and Si) hi, the x and y coordin-
ate values of the tripod’s centre (point I) in coord-
inate system E-x2y2z2, x2I and y2I, as well as the z
coordinate value of the tripod’s centre in coordin-
ate system D-x1y1z1, z1I are obtained.
3. Substituting the values of , d and z1I into equa-
tion (12), the value of the distance between roller q
(point Ci) and the bottom of the housing’s inner
cavity li is obtained. At this point, the values of all
unknowns in Tables 3 and 4 are calculated.
Test results and model validation
The values of the constants (see Table 3) of the DRTJ
in the example are shown in Table 6. According to the
geometric relationship (see equation (39)) shown in
Figure 11, it can be determined that the joint’s min-
imum bending angle dmin in the example is 10
r a specific bending angle, the measured and calculated
y0J ¼ l sin min  ð1  cos min Þ ð39Þ
2 results agree well, which validates the established
Load Rotational
torque (N m) speed (r/min) Bending angle ( )
100 50 5, 7.5, 10, 12.5, 15
value of the relative displacement between the roller
and track can be obtained by measuring the length of
the wear scar on the pigment. The method for mea-
suring the length of the wear scar is by measuring the
distance differences from two ends of the wear scar to
the housing’s end face.
When the bending angle equals 10 , the mean value
and standard deviation of the test results of the four
samples are 10.43 and 0.40 mm, respectively. So the
actual fluctuating amplitude of the relative displace-
ment between the roller and track is 5.215 mm.
In terms of theoretical results, taking roller 1 as an
example, its displacement relative to track 1 is
described by the distance between its centre and the
bottom of the housing’s inner cavity l1, which is
shown in Figure 12. It can be inferred from the
figure that in the DRTJ, the rollers reciprocate in
the tracks at the frequency equalling to the input rota-
tional frequency. Under a 10 bending angle, the cal-
culated amplitude of the reciprocating motion is
4.878 mm, which is close to the test result.
Figure 13 compares the measured and calculated
relative displacements between the roller and track
versus various bending angles. It is seen that under
kinematic model of the DRTJ.

Measurement of relative pitch angle between the roller and

Measurement of relative displacement between the roller and track. The fluctuating amplitudes of the pitch and roll
track. After applying the pigment on the track’s inner angles of the roller relative to the track can be
surface and performing the bench test according to approximately measured according to the shapes of
the test conditions shown in Table 7, the peak-peak the wear scars on the surfaces of the roller and track
156 Proc IMechE Part K: J Multi-body Dynamics 234(1)

after the durability test. The durability test for the Figures 14 and 15 show the test results of the rela-
DRTJ runs 400 cycles. The test conditions of each tive rotation motions between the rollers and tracks.
cycle are shown in Table 8. The value of T in the It can be inferred from the two horizontal wear scars
table is 545 N m. on both the roller’s outer surface and track’s inner
surface that the actual pitch and roll angles of the
roller relative to the track are both close to 0 . Due
to the length limitation, the photos of the durability
test results of only one sample are listed in this paper.
48
According to the assumption made in equation
(17), the pitch angle ati and roll angle  t of roller i
relative to track i are both 0 and basically consistent
45
with the test results, which further validates the estab-
lished kinematic model of the DRTJ. Hence, for the
l1(mm)

42

39
Roller's
outer surface
36
0 60 120 180 240 300 360 Wear Scar 2
ϕ (°)

Figure 12. Calculated results of l1 versus u under 10 bend-

ing angle.
Wear Scar 1

20 Figure 14. Wear scars on the roller’s outer surface.

Displacements (mm)

15

10 Wear Scar 1

Measured Track's
5
Calculated inner
surface
0
5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0
Bending angle (°)
Wear Scar 2

Figure 13. Comparison between the measured and calcu-

lated relative displacements between the roller and track. Figure 15. Wear scars on the track’s inner surface.

Table 8. Test conditions of each cycle of the durability test.

Step Load torque (N m) Rotational speed (r/min) Number of cycles under a specific bending angle

1 1.2  T 450 1998 cycles for 8 ; 401 cycles for 9

2 0.3  T 900 396 cycles for 6
3 0.7  T 1800 792 cycles for 3
4 0.3  T 900 396 cycles for 6
5 1.2  T 700 7203 cycles for 6
6 0.3  T 900 396 cycles for 6
7 0.7  T 750 6000 cycles for 8 ; 803 cycles for 9 ; 4200 cycles for 10
8 0.3  T 900 396 cycles for 6
9 1.2  T 1000 400 cycles for 3 ; 2000 cycles for 4
10 0.3  T 900 396 cycles for 6
11 0.7  T 900 13,293 cycles for 8
12 0.3  T 900 396 cycles for 6
13 2.2  T 300 201 cycles for 8
14 0.3  T 900 396 cycles for 6
Qiu et al. 157

DRTJ, the axes of the rollers and tracks always

2
remain perpendicular regardless of the value of the
joint’s bending angle.

Kinematic comparison between the 3

DRTJ and TJ 4 6
Since the performances of the tripod-type plunging 5 7
joint are mainly influenced by the input/output angu- 1
lar displacement error, relative displacements between
the rollers and tracks, and the relative pitch angles
Figure 16. Structure of the TJ. 1 – Housing, 2 – tripod, 3 –
between the rollers and tracks,5,15 by comparing the
trunnion, 4 – roller, 5 – needle, 6 – clip and 7 – retaining ring.
above three kinematic characteristics, advantages of
the DRTJ over the widely used TJ (see Figure 16) can
be demonstrated. The values of the constants (see
Table 3) of both the DRTJ and TJ in the example
48
are also shown in Table 6.
TJ
45 DRTJ
Relative displacements between the rollers and

l1(mm)
tracks 42
Figure 17 compares the relative displacements
between roller 1 and track 1 of the DRTJ and TJ. 39
It can be inferred from Figure 17 that the fluctuat-
ing frequencies of the relative displacements between 36
the rollers and tracks of both the DRTJ and TJ are 0 60 120 180 240 300 360
equal to the input rotational frequency. But the fluc- ϕ (°)
tuating amplitudes of the relative displacements
between the DRTJ’s rollers and tracks are slightly Figure 17. Comparison of the relative displacements
smaller than those of the relative displacements between roller 1 and track 1 of the DRTJ and TJ. DRTJ: double
between the TJ’s rollers and tracks, which are roller tripod joint; TJ: tripod joint.
4.878 mm versus 4.953 mm, respectively. This differ-
ence can be ignored compared to the amplitude.
Thus, the expression of the fluctuating amplitude of
12
the relative displacement between roller i and track i
of both the DRTJ and TJ, Dli, can be approximated as TJ
6 DRTJ

li ¼ r sin min ð40Þ
αt1 (°)

Therefore, for both the DRTJ and TJ, the rollers
are reciprocating over quite long distances in the
tracks during the joints’ working processes, which
inevitably generates friction forces at the contact
points between the outer surfaces of the (outer) rollers
and the tracks. Such friction forces may degrade the
performances of both joints and mechanical systems.
Relative pitch angles between the rollers and tracks
Figure 18 compares the relative pitch angles between
roller 1 and track 1 of the DRTJ and TJ.
For the TJ, the rollers are pitching periodically
relative to the track. The frequencies of such pitching
motions are equal to the joint’s input rotational fre-
quency, and the amplitudes of such pitching motions
approximate to the joint’s minimum bending angle.
Therefore, during the working processes of the TJ,
the rollers inevitably perform the rolling and sliding
motions simultaneously in the tracks. The friction
0
-6
-12
0 60 120 180 240 300 360
ϕ (°)
Figure 18. Comparison of the relative translational motions
between roller 1 and track 1 of the DRTJ.
forces generating at the contact points between the
rollers’ outer surfaces and the tracks are thereby
quite large. However for the DRTJ, the pitch angles
of the rollers relative to the tracks remain 0 . During
the working processes of the DRTJ, the rollers are
supposed to perform only pure rolling motions in
the tracks. In this way, the friction forces generated
between the outer rollers and the tracks can be very
small. Since the eliminations of the relative sliding
motions between the rollers and tracks remarkably
158
(a) 0.2
0.1
θ – ϕ (°)
0.0
-0.1
-0.2
0 60 120 180
ϕ (°)
Figure 19. Comparison of the input/output displacement errors of the DRTJ and TJ. (a) General trend and (b) detailed feature of the
first upper tip.
reduce the values of friction forces generated between
them significantly mitigating relevant problems such
as noise, vibration, etc.,10,11,13,17 the DRTJ has great
advantages over the TJ.
Besides, although the assumption that under all
working conditions, the relative pitch and roll angles
between the rollers and tracks of the DRTJ remain
0 (see equation (17)) have been verified by the bench
test, it has not been theoretically proved in this paper.
Further researches of this aspect are needed to get
more insight investigations of the DRTJ’s kinematics.
Input/output angular displacement error
Figure 19 compares the input/output angular dis-
placement errors of the DRTJ and TJ.
The input/output angular displacement errors of
both the DRTJ and TJ are fluctuating. Their fluctuating
frequencies are all equal to 3 times of the joint’s input
rotational frequency. But the fluctuating amplitude of
the input/output angular displacement error of the
DRTJ is smaller than that of the TJ, which is 0.183 /
0.186 in the example of this paper. Thus, the relation-
ship between the fluctuating amplitude of the DRTJ’s
and TJ’s input/output angular displacement errors, D(u
)DRTJ and D(u )TJ, can be approximated as

ð’  ÞDRTJ ¼ cos min
ð’  ÞTJ
Although the difference between them is very small
compared to the fluctuating amplitude, the difference
between the input/output angular velocity errors of the
DRTJ and TJ will be very large at high input angular
velocity. Hence, the DRTJ has better constant velocity
property than the TJ significantly reducing the vibra-
tion excitation which the joint exerts on the mechanical
system, especially under the working conditions of
large bending angle, high rotational velocity, etc.
Conclusion
In order to solve the shortcomings and structural
defects of the TJ, a novel structure named ‘double
Proc IMechE Part K: J Multi-body Dynamics 234(1)
(b)
0.19 TJ
DRTJ
0.18
θ – ϕ (°)
TJ
DRTJ 0.17
0.16
0.15
240 300 360 70 80 90 100 110
ϕ (°)
roller tripod joint’ (DRTJ) is designed. First, based
on spatial Cartesian kinematics and vector method,
the kinematics of the DRTJ is analysed; then, accord-
ing to the test results, the method for the kinematic
analysis of the DRTJ is verified, and the derived data
are accurate; finally, by comparing the kinematics of
the DRTJ with that of the TJ, the advantages of the
proposed DRTJ are clearly demonstrated. The spe-
cific conclusions are as follows:
1. The rollers are reciprocating in the tracks during
the working process of the DRTJ. The fluctuating
frequencies of the relative displacements between
the rollers and tracks are equal to the joint’s input
rotational frequency. Their fluctuating amplitudes
are approximately equal to the multiplication of
the joint’s pitch circle radius and sine of the joint’s
minimum bending angle.
2. The DRTJ eliminates the relative pitching motion
between the rollers and tracks under the premise
that the constraints between them are still two-
point contact. Thereby, the relative sliding
motions between the rollers and tracks are elimi-
nated, and the friction forces generated between
the two components are significantly reduced.
3. The DRTJ has favourable constant-velocity per-
formance. Under the same working conditions,
ð41Þ the ratio of the fluctuating amplitude of the
DRTJ’s input/output angular displacement error
to that of the TJ’s input/output angular displace-
ment error is only equal to the cosine of the joint’s
minimum bending angle. Therefore, under the
working conditions of large bending angle, high
rotational velocity, etc., the vibration excitation
which the joint exerts on the mechanical system
is significantly reduced.
4. Compared with the structure of Lim et al.,17 the
DRTJ is designed with the needle rollers filled
between the inner and outer rollers. Thereby, the
resistance torques between the inner and outer
rollers are significantly reduced, completely elim-
inating the relative sliding motion between the
rollers and tracks.
Qiu et al.
5. Compared with the structures of Lim et al.17 and
Watanabe et al.,18 the rollers and tracks of the
DRTJ are constrained by two-point contacts,
greatly improving the contact statuses between
them.
6. Compared with the structures of Sams et al.,19
Weckerling and Beigang20 and Simons et al.,21
the DRTJ is designed with the cylindrical inner
rollers which have good manufacturability and
are easy to be assembled.
7. In summary, the novel DRTJ has an advanced
and reasonable structure and has broad applica-
tion prospect.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial
support for the research, authorship, and/or publication
of this article: The authors acknowledge the financial sup-
port from the Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong
Province (2019A03031274) and National Natural Science
Foundation of China (No. 11472107).
ORCID iD
Yinyuan Qiu https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1440-7026
References
1. Lee CH and Polycarpou AA. A phenomenological fric-
tion model of tripod constant velocity (CV) joints.
Tribol Int 2010; 43: 844–858.
2. Chang D and Li S. Kinematic analysis of the
trigeminal sliding universal joint mechanism installed
twin radial bearings. J Mech Eng 2015; 51: 218–226.
(in Chinese).
3. Durum MM. Kinematic properties of tripode (tri-pot)
joints. ASME J Eng Ind 1975; 97: 708–713.
4. Akbil E and Lee TW. On the motion characteristics of
tripode joints. Part 1: general case. ASME J Mech
Transm Autom Des 1984; 106: 228–234.
5. Lee TW and Akbil E. On the motion characteristics of
tripode joints. Part 2: applications. ASME J Mech
Transm Autom Des 1984; 106: 235–241.
6. Urbinati F and Pennestrı̀ E. Kinematic and dynamic
analyses of the tripode joint. Multibody Syst Dyn
1998; 2: 355–367.
7. Mariot JP and K’Nevez JY. Kinematics of tripode
transmissions. A new approach. Multibody Syst Dyn
1999; 3: 85–105.
8. K’Nevez JY, Mariot JP, Moreau L, et al. Kinematics of
transmissions consisting of an outboard ball joint and
an inboard generalized tripod joint. Proc IMechE, Part
K: J Multi-body Dynamics 2001; 215: 119–132.
9. Mariot JP and K’Nevez JY. Dynamics of an automo-
tive transmission consisting of a tripod joint and a ball
joint. A symbolic approach. Proc IMechE, Part K: J
Multi-body Dynamics 2002; 216: 203–211.
159
10. Mariot JP, K’Nevez JY and Barbedette B. Tripod and
ball joint automotive transmission kinetostatic model
including friction. Multibody Syst Dyn 2004; 11:
127–145.
11. Serveto S, Mariot JP and Diaby M. Modelling and
measuring the axial force generated by tripod joint of
automotive drive-shaft. Multibody Syst Dyn 2008; 19:
209–226.
12. Jo GH, Kim SH, Dong WK, et al. Estimation of gen-
erated axial force considering rolling-sliding friction in
tripod type constant velocity joint. Tribol Trans 2018;
61: 888–899.
13. Zheng J, Guo C, Yong Y, et al. The force and simula-
tion analysis of tripod constant velocity universal joint.
J Mech Strength 2015; 37: 114–121. (in Chinese).
14. Wang X, Chang D and Wang J. Kinematic model of
tripod sliding universal joints. Trans Chin Soc Agric
Mach 2009; 40: 7–11. (in Chinese).
15. Wang XF, Chang DG and Wang JZ. Kinematic inves-
tigation of tripod sliding universal joints based on
coordinate transformation. Multibody Syst Dyn 2009;
22: 97–113.
16. Wang X, Hu R, Wang M, et al. Numerical analysis on
dynamic properties of tripod sliding universal joints.
Proc IMechE, Part K: J Multi-body Dynamics 2013;
227: 172–184.
17. Lim YH, Song ME, Lee WH, et al. Multibody dynam-
ics analysis of the driveshaft coupling of the ball and
tripod types of constant velocity joints. Multibody Syst
Dyn 2009; 22: 145–162.
18. Watanabe K, Kawakatsu T and Nakao S. Kinematic
and static analyses of tripod constant velocity joints of
spherical end spider type. ASME J Mech Des 2005; 127:
229–230.
19. Sams R, Hopson MW, Schmitt H, et al. Anti-
shudder tripod type CV universal joint. Patent
6,699,134, USA, 2004.
20. Weckerling T and Beigang WM. Tripod joint and roller
body for a tripod joint. Patent 8,357,052, USA, 2013.
21. Simons KH, Eling M and Boos A. Tripod joint
having low vibration inducing forces. Patent 9,631,676,
USA, 2017.
22. Haug EJ. Computer aided kinematics and dynam-
ics of mechanical systems. Boston, MA: Allyn and
Bacon, 1989.
23. You C. Analytical geometry. Beijing: Beijing University
Press, 2004 (in Chinese).
24. Liu XA, Zhu X, Shangguan WL, et al. A study on
design methods for condenser radiator fan module
mounting system. Int J Heavy Vehicle Syst 2019; 26:
119–135.
Appendix
Notation
ai vector from D to point Ci
Ajk transformation matrix from coordinate
system D(or E, I)-xjyjz to D(or E, I)-
xkykzk, j, k ¼ 0, 1, 2, 3
b vector from point D to I
B upper left two-by-two block of A13
ci vector from point I to Ci
160
Ci centre of roller i, i ¼ 1, 2, 3
C0 i projection of the centre of roller q on
the housing’s inner cavity, i ¼ 1, 2, 3
C0 i-xkiykizki, moving coordinate system fixed to
Ci-xriyrizri, track i, roller i and trunnion i,
Si-xtiytizti respectively
d vector from point D to E
D centre of the housing’s inner cavity
D-x0y0z0 fixed coordinate system
D-x1y1z1, three moving coordinate system
E-x2y2z2,
I-x3y3z3
e a parameter defined to facilitate calcu-
lation (mm)
e vector from point E to I
E intersection of the housing’s axis and
tripod plan
f vector from point D to J
F rotational matrix of a vector rotating
around the z-axis of a coordinate
system by the angle u
g vector from point I to J
hi relative displacement between point Ci
and Si, i ¼ 1, 2, 3 (mm)
I tripod’s centre
J centre of the fixed joint
l centre distance of the joint-shaft
assembly (length of IJ) (mm)
li distance from point Ci to the bottom of
the housing’s inner cavity, i ¼ 1, 2, 3
(mm)
ni3 normal vector of the plane formed by
vectors yti and yri in coordinate system
I-x3y3z3, i ¼ 1, 2, 3
n i3 normal vector of the plane formed by
vectors xti and xri in coordinate system
I-x3y3z3, i ¼ 1, 2, 3
Proc IMechE Part K: J Multi-body Dynamics 234(1)
r pitch circle radius (length of DC0 i or ISi)
(mm)
Ri rotational matrix of a vector rotation
around the z-axis of a coordinate
system by the angle (i1)120 , i ¼ 1, 2, 3
Rui upper left two-by-two block of Ri, i ¼ 1,
2, 3
Si centre of trunnion i, i ¼ 1, 2, 3
S0 i projection of the centre of trunnion
i on the housing’s inner cavity,
i ¼ 1, 2, 3
xjI, yjI, zjI x, y, z coordinate values of point I in
coordinate system D(or E, I)-xjyjzj,
j ¼ 0, 1, 2, 3
y0J, z0J y, z coordinate values of point J in
coordinate system D-x0y0z0
z1E z coordinate values of point E in
coordinate system D-x1y1z1
ati, bti,  ti relative pitch, yaw and roll angles
between roller i and track i, i ¼ 1, 2, 3
( )
ari, bri,  ri relative pitch, yaw and roll angles
between roller i and trunnion
i, i ¼ 1, 2, 3 ( )
d joint’s bending angle ( )
 output angular displacement ( )
i angle between vector xti and xri,
i ¼ 1, 2, 3 ( )
u input angular displacement ( )
i angle between vector yti and yri,
i ¼ 1, 2, 3 ( )
w the first Euler angle describing the
transformation matrix A13 ( )