ASME Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 125, No.2, June 2003, pp. 302-307.

©2003 ASME

A FAMILY OF 3-DOF TRANSLATIONAL PARALLEL MANIPULATORS1

Marco Carricato and Vincenzo Parenti-Castelli

DIEM – Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Bologna
Viale Risorgimento 2, 40136 Bologna, Italy
E-mail: marco.carricato@mail.ing.unibo.it and vincenzo.parenticastelli@mail.ing.unibo.it

ABSTRACT
This article addresses parallel manipulators with fewer than six degrees of freedom, whose use may prove valuable
in those applications in which a higher mobility is uncalled for. In particular, a family of 3-dof manipulators containing
only revolute joints or at the most revolute and prismatic ones is studied. Design and assembly conditions sufficient to
provide the travelling platform with a pure translational motion are determined and two sub-families that fulfill the im-
posed constraint are found: one is already known in the literature, while the other is original. The new architecture does
not exhibit rotation singularities, i.e. configurations in which the platform gains rotational degrees of freedom. A geo-
metric interpretation of the translation singularities is provided.

INTRODUCTION
Parallel manipulators typically consist of a moving platform connected to a fixed base by means of several kine-
matic chains (limbs), whose number is usually equal to the number of degrees of freedom (dofs) of the output member.
This makes it possible for the actuated joints to be uniformly distributed between the limbs and mounted near the base.
Such mechanisms show desirable characteristics like low inertia, large payload to robot weight ratio, considerable stiff-
ness and high dynamic performances.
Since their first designs [1,2], 6-dof manipulators have been extensively studied. Recently, however, parallel robots
with fewer dofs have captured researchers’ attention. As they are potentially architecturally simpler and cheaper than
their 6-dof counterparts (they require less parts and actuators), their use is advantageous in all those applications in
which a higher mobility is uncalled for.
Different architectures of 3-dof manipulators have been presented in the literature. In many of them all the limbs
comprised in a given architecture exhibit the same topological structure. In this case, the mechanism type can be ad-
dressed by specifying the number of limbs and the sequence of joints distributed along any of them, from the base to the
platform. Some 3-dof manipulators enable the travelling plate to rotate about a fixed point and are used as orienting and
pointing devices, including manipulator wrists [3-7]. Some others allow the platform to rotate and translate and are used
as motion simulators, wrists of hybrid serial-parallel robots and mixed orienting/positioning appliances [8-10]. Finally,
translational parallel mechanisms (TPMs), on which this paper is focused on, provide the output link with a pure trans-
lational motion and may be valuable in the fields of automated assembly and machine tools as alternatives to serial posi-
tioning systems.
The first TPM, called Delta Robot, was presented in the late Eighties [11] and, due to its outstanding dynamic per-
formances, it was attributed a widespread success. It comprises three 5-dof limbs, each including an R-pair and a spatial
parallelogram containing S- or U-joints (R, S and U respectively stand for revolute, spherical and universal pair). Hervé
and Sparacino [12] introduced a whole new class of overconstrained mechanisms exhibiting 4-dof limbs, to which sev-
eral TPMs proposed in the literature by both Hervé [13-15] and other researchers [16-18] belong. Tsai [19] presented
the 3-UPU mechanism (P stands for prismatic pair), which has three 5-dof limbs and is topologically similar to a Delta
Robot embodiment patented by Clavel [20] exhibiting a 3-PUU architecture. These manipulators were later recognized
as particular cases of a more general 3-RRPRR mechanism family [21, 22].
This paper exhaustively studies the entire family of TPMs whose limbs can be modelled as 5-dof serial chains.
The first section analytically determines design and assembly conditions sufficient to guarantee the travelling plate
a pure translational motion and demonstrates that only two sub-families satisfy the imposed constraint. One is already
known in the literature, as it corresponds to the already mentioned 3-RRPRR class. However, new and more rigorous
proof of the purely translational motion of the platform is provided here. In fact, in both [21] and [22], requirements on
the motion variables are imposed as translation conditions, but how these requisites, set during the assembly of the ma-
nipulator, continue to hold throughout the movement is not explicitly specified, whilst this is rendered clear by the proof

1
The first version of this paper was presented at the ASME 27th Design Automation Conference, September 9-12, 2001, Pittsburgh, PA (Paper
No. DAC-21035).

1
ASME Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 125, No.2, June 2003, pp. 302-307. ©2003 ASME

presented in this paper. The other sub-family is instead a novel one.2

The second section focuses on the analysis of singularities. For TPMs it is possible to distinguish between rotation
and translation singularities, depending on the occurrence of configurations in which the platform respectively gains
additional dofs of rotation or translation. The study of such configurations is particularly important, because they render
the platform uncontrollable. Whilst the mechanisms of the first sub-family (the generalized 3-UPU) are affected by both
kinds of singularities [24], those belonging to the new one do not exhibit the rotation ones, i.e., the platform’s pure
translational motion is guaranteed throughout the workspace. A geometric interpretation of the translation singularities
of the new architecture is finally provided for a particular case of actuation.

1 DESIGN AND ASSEMBLY CONDITIONS FOR THE PURE TRANSLATION OF THE PLATFORM

1.1 Kinematic Model of the Family of Mechanisms

A family of TPMs with three topologically equal limbs is considered. Each limb connecting the platform to the base
is a 5-dof serial chain (identified by the subscript i, i= 1, 2, 3) that prevents the platform turning about a single axis iden-
tified by a unit vector ui and permits its rotation about any other line perpendicular to ui. It follows that any limb must
comprise at least two R-pairs nonparallel to each other and normal to ui. The presence of inactive joints, which decrease
the actual mobility of the limb output member (i.e., the platform), is discarded.
The R-pairs in each limb must be four at least. In fact, if there were only two, a zero angular velocity of the plat-
form would imply (for the generic limb)

θ$1,i w1,i + θ$2,i w 2,i = 0 (1)

where θj,i is the angular variable relative to the j-th R-pair and wj,i a unit vector along its axis. Since by hypothesis w1,i
and w2,i are not parallel, Eq. (1) could not be satisfied for nonzero values of θ$1,i and θ$2,i .
If the R-pairs were three, the constraint on the platform mobility would infer

θ$1,i w1,i + θ$2,i w 2,i + θ$3,i w 3,i = 0 (2)

If the axes of two joints were parallel, Eq. (2) could be satisfied only if the axis of the third one were so as well, violat-
ing the hypotheses. It follows that w1,i , w2,i and w3,i should be linearly dependent, but not parallel to each other. As a
consequence of a generic instantaneous translational motion of the platform, these vectors would become the following
w1,′ i = w1,i (3)

w ′2,i = w 2,i + θ$1,i w1,i × w 2,i dt (4)

w ′3,i = w 3,i (5)

where w1,i and w3,i would not change their orientation because they are axes of pairs either fixed to the frame and the
′ , w ′2,i and
platform respectively or connected to them by means of a number of prismatic joints. It follows that, for w1,i
′ to be still linearly dependent, w ′2,i should be expressed as a linear combination of w1,i and w3,i and hence of w1,i
w 3,i
and w2,i. Equation (4) proves that this is impossible, since w1,i and w2,i are not parallel.
The cases in which the limb possesses four or five revolute joints must be studied in detail.
The kinematic model of a limb including four R-pairs (Rj,i, j = 1, 2, 3, 4) is shown in Fig. 1. The prismatic pair Pi
cannot alter the orientation of the platform and thus can be placed anywhere along the kinematic chain. wj,i is a unit vec-
tor along the axis of the j-th R-joint, θj,i is the corresponding relative rotation variable and γj,j+1 is the angle comprised
between wj,i and wj+1,i (j = 1, 2, 3). The directions of the vectors wj,i are chosen so that γ12,i, γ23,i and γ34,i are acute angles.
The quantities

2
During the review process of this paper, the authors have become aware that similar results had been obtained, at the same time, by another re-
search team [23] by using a different approach, which makes use of screw algebra.

2
ASME Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 125, No.2, June 2003, pp. 302-307. ©2003 ASME

R4,i
R3,i
R2,i

γ12,i w4,i γ34,i

γ23,i
w2,i w3,i
Pi

w1,i R1,i

Fig. 1: General kinematic model of the i-th limb

w1,i ⋅ w 2,i = cos γ 12,i

w 2,i ⋅ w 3,i = cos γ 23,i (6)
w 3,i ⋅ w 4,i = cos γ 34,i

are construction parameters.

By hypothesis, the axes of the R-pairs cannot all be parallel to each other. It will be now proved that not even the
axes of three revolute joints may be mutually parallel. Since the angular velocity of the platform must be zero, the fol-
lowing relation must hold

θ$1,i w1,i + θ$2,i w 2,i + θ$3,i w 3,i + θ$4,i w 4,i = 0 (7)

If the axes of the revolute joints were all parallel except one (say wk,i), Eq. (7) could be satisfied only if Rk,i were inac-
tive ( θ$k ,i = 0) and the limb had only four actual dofs. In conclusion, the R-pair axes may be parallel only two by two.
Rj,i prevents the rotation of the two members connected to it about any axis perpendicular to wj,i. If the axes of all
the revolute pairs are perpendicular to a common line, the output link rotation about this line is impossible. Hence, a
sufficient condition to prevent the platform from rotating about ui is to have all the vectors wj,i of the i-th limb perpendi-
cular to ui [22], that is

⎜ ∑ a j w j ,i ⎟ ⋅ u i = 0
⎛ 4 ⎞
⎝ j =1 ⎠
(8)

for any value of the scalars aj. If

u1 ⋅ ( u 2 × u 3 ) ≠ 0 (9)

that is if u1, u2 and u3 are linearly independent, the platform cannot rotate about any axis and it is allowed a pure trans-
lational motion only.
The idea that will be followed in order to find the design and assembly conditions that guarantee that the mechan-
isms of the examined family are TPMs is the following. Let Eqs. (8) and (9) be verified at a certain instant, so that the
platform can do nothing but instantly translate. As a result of the movement, the i-th limb configuration varies and the
directions of the joint axes become accordingly
w1,′ i = w1,i (10)

w ′2,i = w 2,i + θ$1,i w1,i × w 2,i dt (11)

3
ASME Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 125, No.2, June 2003, pp. 302-307. ©2003 ASME

w ′3,i = w 3,i + θ$1,i w1,i + θ$2,i w 2,i × w 3,i dt

( ) (12)

w ′4,i = w 4,i + θ$1,i w1,i + θ$2,i w 2,i + θ$3,i w 3,i × w 4,i dt

( ) (13)

In the new configuration, the vectors w1,′ i , w ′2,i , w ′3,i and w ′4,i are still perpendicular to a common line only if spe-
cial geometric conditions are satisfied. In this case, provided that Eq. (9) still holds, the platform’s instantaneous move-
ment can again be nothing but a translation. Since the reasoning may be repeated at any instant, it can be inferred that
the output link can only translate during the entire motion.
Because the axes of no more than two revolute joints may be parallel to each other, the following cases have to be
examined:
i. γ 12,i ≠ 0, γ 34,i ≠ 0;
ii. γ 12,i = 0, γ 23,i ≠ 0, γ 34,i ≠ 0;
iii. γ 12,i ≠ 0, γ 23,i ≠ 0, γ 34,i = 0;
iv. γ 12,i = 0, γ 23,i ≠ 0, γ 34,i = 0.

1.2 Case γ12 , i ≠ 0, γ34 , i ≠ 0

The unit vectors perpendicular to the pairs of vectors (w1,i , w2,i) and (w4,i , w3,i) are respectively
w1,i × w 2,i
n1,i = (14)
sin γ 12,i

w 4,i × w 3,i
n3,i = (15)
sin γ 34,i

Equation (8) infers

n1,i = n 3,i (16)

If the conditions (9) and (16) are satisfied at a certain instant, the platform instantaneous motion is a pure transla-
tion. The directions of the joint axes after the movement are given by Eqs. (10)-(13), but, since the travelling plate
orientation has not changed, it is also
w ′4,i = w 4,i (17)

The lines perpendicular to the axes of R1,i and R2,i and of R3,i and R4,i become respectively
w1,′ i × w ′2,i
n1,′ i = (18)
sin γ 12,i

w ′4,i × w 3,′ i
n′3,i = (19)
sin γ 34,i

and hence, by virtue of Eqs. (10)-(12), (14), (15) and (17)

θ$1,i
n1,′ i = n1,i + w1,i × ( w1,i × w 2,i ) dt (20)
sin γ 12,i

θ$1,i θ$2,i
n′3,i = n3,i + w 4,i × ( w1,i × w 3,i ) dt + w 4,i × ( w 2,i × w 3,i ) dt (21)
sin γ 34,i sin γ 34,i

By imposing

4
ASME Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 125, No.2, June 2003, pp. 302-307. ©2003 ASME

n1,′ i = n′3,i (22)

and considering Eq. (16), the following equation can be obtained

θ$1,i ⎡⎣sin γ 34,i w1,i × ( w1,i × w 2,i ) − sin γ 12,i w 4,i × ( w1,i × w 3,i ) ⎤⎦ = θ$2,i sin γ 12,i w 4,i × ( w 2,i × w 3,i ) (23)

Since

w1,i × ( w1,i × w 2,i ) = cos γ 12,i w1,i − w 2,i (24)

w 4,i × ( w1,i × w 3,i ) = cos γ 34,i w1,i − ( w1,i ⋅ w 4,i ) w 3,i (25)

w 4,i × ( w 2,i × w 3,i ) = cos γ 34,i w 2,i − ( w 2,i ⋅ w 4,i ) w 3,i (26)

Equation (23) becomes

θ$1,i ⎡⎣sin (γ 34,i − γ 12,i ) w1,i − sin γ 34,i w 2,i + sin γ 12,i ( w1,i ⋅ w 4,i ) w 3,i ⎤⎦ = θ$2,i sin γ 12,i ⎡⎣cos γ 34,i w 2,i − ( w 2,i ⋅ w 4,i ) w 3,i ⎤⎦ (27)

Equation (27) is satisfied for any θ$1,i and θ$2,i only if

sin (γ 34,i − γ 12,i ) w1,i − sin γ 34,i w 2,i + sin γ 12,i ( w1,i ⋅ w 4,i ) w 3,i = 0 (28)

and

cos γ 34,i w 2,i = ( w 2,i ⋅ w 4,i ) w 3,i (29)

The condition (29) can be fulfilled only if w2,i and w3,i are parallel, that is
w 2,i = w 3,i (30)

which means
γ 23,i = 0 (31)

Equation (30) involves

w 3,i ⋅ w 4,i = w 2,i ⋅ w 4,i (32)

and hence, remembering the definitions (6), the fulfillment of Eq. (29).
By virtue of Eq. (30), the condition (28) becomes

sin (γ 34,i − γ 12,i ) w1,i = ⎡⎣sin γ 34,i − sin γ 12,i ( w1,i ⋅ w 4,i ) ⎤⎦ w 2,i (33)

Since w1,i and w2,i are not parallel (γ12,i ≠ 0), Eq. (33) holds only if

sin (γ 34,i − γ 12,i ) = 0 (34)

and

sin γ 34,i = sin γ 12,i ( w1,i ⋅ w 4,i ) (35)

Equation (34) yields

γ 34,i = γ 12,i (36)

whilst Eq. (35), together with Eq. (36), gives

w1,i = w 4,i (37)

5
ASME Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 125, No.2, June 2003, pp. 302-307. ©2003 ASME

In conclusion, the motion of the examined manipulator is purely translational if, at a design level, the conditions
(31) and (36) are imposed and, during the assembly, the condition (37) is fulfilled. Moreover, since Eq. (37) must hold
for each limb, the following geometric conditions must be respected
w1,1 ⋅ w1,2 = w 4,1 ⋅ w 4,2
w1,1 ⋅ w1,3 = w 4,1 ⋅ w 4,3 (38)
w1,2 ⋅ w1,3 = w 4,2 ⋅ w 4,3

that is, the mutual orientation among the axes of R1,1, R1,2 and R1,3 must equal that among the axes of R4,1, R4,2 and R4,3.
Provided that the platform purely translates, it derives from Eqs. (13), (17), (30) and (37) that

θ$2,i = −θ$3,i (39)

and, from Eqs. (7), (30), (37) and (39), that

θ$1,i = −θ$4,i (40)

A leg with five R-pairs may be simply obtained by replacing the prismatic joint with a fifth revolute pair (R5,i) adja-
cent and parallel to any one of those that are already present. In fact, as far as the mobility is concerned, two contiguous
parallel revolute joints are equivalent to the ensemble of an R-pair whose axis and a P-pair whose direction are perpen-
dicular to each other. If R5,i is parallel to w1,i, Eq. (40) becomes

θ$1,i + θ$5,i = −θ$4,i (41)

θ$5,i being the angular velocity between the links connected by R5,i; if R5,i is parallel to w2,i, Eq. (39) turns into

θ$2,i + θ$5,i = −θ$3,i (42)

The results obtained in this section coincide with those achieved by Tsai [19,22] and Di Gregorio and Parenti-
Castelli [21].

1.3 Case γ12 , i = 0, γ23 , i ≠ 0, γ34 , i ≠ 0

Since in this case
w1,i = w 2,i (43)

Equations (8), (11) and (12) may be respectively written in the form

w 2,i ⋅ ( w 4,i × w 3,i ) = 0 (44)

w ′2,i = w 2,i (45)

w ′3,i = w 3,i + θ$1,i + θ$2,i w 2,i × w 3,i dt

( ) (46)

If the conditions (44) and (9) hold, it is also

w ′4,i = w 4,i (47)

By imposing

w ′2,i ⋅ ( w ′4,i × w ′3,i ) = 0 (48)

and considering Eqs. (45)-(47), the following equation can be derived

w 2,i ⋅ ( w 4,i × w 3,i ) + θ$1,i + θ$2,i w 2,i ⋅ ⎡⎣ w 4,i × ( w 2,i × w 3,i ) ⎤⎦ dt = 0

( ) (49)

By virtue of Eq. (44) and the properties of the vector triple product, Eq. (49) infers

6
ASME Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 125, No.2, June 2003, pp. 302-307. ©2003 ASME

w 4,i ⋅ ⎡⎣ w 2,i × ( w 2,i × w 3,i ) ⎤⎦ = 0 (50)

The vector w 2,i × ( w 2,i × w 3,i ) lies in the same plane as w2,i, w3,i and w4,i and is perpendicular to w2,i. Then, Eq. (50)
may hold only if
w 2,i = w 4,i (51)

but this condition is not acceptable since it causes the axes of three revolute joints to be parallel to each other. It can be
concluded that there are no translational manipulators, in the examined family, so that γ12 , i = 0, γ23 , i ≠ 0, γ34 , i ≠ 0.

1.4 Case γ12 , i ≠ 0, γ23 , i ≠ 0, γ34 , i = 0

In this case
w 3,i = w 4,i (52)

and Eq. (8) leads to

w 3,i ⋅ ( w1,i × w 2,i ) = 0 (53)

In a way analogous to that adopted in Section 1.3, it can be proved that the platform purely translates only if
w1,i = w 3,i (54)

but again this condition is not acceptable since it causes the axes of three revolute joints to be parallel to each other.

1.5 Case γ12 , i = 0, γ23 , i ≠ 0, γ34 , i = 0

For this case, the kinematic model of the i-th limb is sketched in Fig. 2. It is
w1,i = w 2,i (55)

w 3,i = w 4,i (56)

Equation (8) is always satisfied, since the axes of all the revolute joints are perpendicular to the unit vector
w 2,i × w 3,i
n 2,i = (57)
sin γ 23,i

Hence, if the condition (9) holds, the movement of the manipulator can be nothing but translational. Consequently
the axes of R3,i and R4,i (like those of R1,i and R2,i) always maintain the same direction. Equation (12) becomes then

(θ$1, i + θ$2,i w 2,i × w 3,i = 0

) (58)

which yields

θ$1,i = −θ$2,i (59)

Equations (7), (55), (56) and (59) provide also

θ$3,i = −θ$4,i (60)

In order to realize a leg with R-pairs only, Pi can be replaced by a fifth revolute joint (R5,i) adjacent and parallel ei-
ther to R1,i or R2,i (in this case θ$1,i + θ$5,i must substitute θ$1,i in Eq. (59)) or to R3,i or R4,i (in this case θ$3,i + θ$5,i must
substitute θ$3,i in Eq. (60)).
As far as the 3-dof translational manipulators are concerned, and to the authors’ knowledge, the architecture pro-
posed in this section is original (see footnote 2).

7
ASME Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 125, No.2, June 2003, pp. 302-307. ©2003 ASME

Op
n3,i R4,i
w4,i
n2,i
R3,i
l3,i w3,i
O4,i
γ23,i
O3,i l2,i
n1,i O2,i
l1,i O1,i
R1,i
R2,i
w2,i
w1,i
Pi

Ob

Fig. 2: Kinematic model of the i-th limb for the new architecture

2 GEOMETRIC ANALYSIS OF THE SINGULARITIES OF THE NEW ARCHITECTURE

Direct kinematics singular configurations are particularly serious for parallel manipulators, since their occurrence
renders the actuators unable to control the mechanism, which gains additional finite or infinitesimal dofs. In other
words, for given values of the actuated joint variables, the pose of the platform is not determined at a singularity confi-
guration.
For the examined family of mechanisms, rotation and translation singularities may be distinguished, depending on
the occurrence of configurations in which the platform gains additional dofs of rotation or translation respectively. The
singularity analysis for the sub-family presented in Section 1.2 can be found in [24], whilst the singularities of the archi-
tecture introduced in Section 1.5 will be discussed henceforth.

2.1 Rotation Singularities

Since the orientation of the axes of the revolute pairs remains unmodified during the motion (see Section 1.5), so
does the vector n2,i, which is constructively determined by the geometry of the link interposed between R2,i and R3,i (Fig.
2). This means that the orientation of the axis ui, introduced in Section 1.1 and in this case equal to n2,i, is set once and
for all during the assembly of the manipulator and, if the condition (9) holds at the outset, it continues to hold during the
entire motion. Therefore, the mechanism does not present rotation singularities and translates throughout the workspace.

2.2 Translation Singularities

In this section, a geometric interpretation of the translation singularities of the new architecture is provided if the
actuation were to be realized by means of prismatic joints mounted perpendicular to the adjacent revolute ones (if Pi is
placed on the frame, any orientation can be chosen).
In agreement with the already adopted notation, let nj,i be a unit vector along the common perpendicular line be-
tween the axes of Rj,i and Rj+1,i (j = 1, 2, 3) and Oj,i the intersection point between such line and the axis of Rj,i (such defi-
nition is easily extended to O4,i). Let Op and Ob be two arbitrary points on the platform and the base respectively. By
definition

( )
l j ,i = O j +1,i − O j ,i ⋅n j ,i (61)

For each limb the following vector equation holds

8
ASME Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 125, No.2, June 2003, pp. 302-307. ©2003 ASME

( )
O p − Ob = O p − O4,i + l3,i n3,i + l2,i n 2,i + l1,i n1,i + ( O1,i − Ob ) (62)

Considering that (Op − O4,i) and n2,i are constant vectors, deriving Eq. (62) with respect to the time yields

O$ p = l3,i n$ 3,i + l1,i n$ 1,i + d$ i (63)

where

d$ i = l$3,i n3,i + l$2,i n3,i + l$1,i n1,i + O$1,i (64)

In Eq. (64), depending on the location of the actuator, only one among l$3,i , l$2,i , l$1,i and O$1,i , is different from zero;
in any case, d$ linearly depends upon the actuator velocity s$ .
i i

Since

n$ 1,i = θ$1,i w1,i × n1,i (65)

n$ 3,i = θ$3,i w 3,i × n3,i (66)

Equation (63) becomes

O$ p = l3,iθ$3,i w 3,i × n3,i + l1,iθ$1,i w1,i × n1,i + d$ i (67)

Writing Eq. (67) for each limb provides a system of nine linear equations

O$ p = l3,1θ$3,1w 3,1 × n 3,1 + l1,1θ$1,1w1,1 × n1,1 + d$ 1 (68)

O$ p = l3,2θ$3,2 w 3,2 × n 3,2 + l1,2θ$1,2 w1,2 × n1,2 + d$ 2 (69)

O$ p = l3,3θ$3,3 w 3,3 × n 3,3 + l1,3θ$1,3 w1,3 × n1,3 + d$ 3 (70)

in the twelve variables O$ p ,θ$1,1 ,θ$3,1 ,θ$1,2 ,θ$3,2 ,θ$1,3 ,θ$3,3 , s$1 , s$2 , s$3 . Once the actuator velocities are assigned, the above sys-
{ }
tem admits, in every nonsingular configuration, one solution in the remaining unknowns and makes it possible to uni-
quely determine the platform velocity.
In order to simplify the search for the singular configurations, it is convenient to eliminate O$ p by subtracting Eq.
(68) from Eqs. (69) and (70) respectively, obtaining a system of six equations in six unknowns

−l1,1θ$1,1w1,1 × n1,1 − l3,1θ$3,1w 3,1 × n 3,1 + l1,2θ$1,2 w1,2 × n1,2 + l3,2θ$3,2 w 3,2 × n 3,2 = d$ 1 − d$ 2 (71)

−l1,1θ$1,1w1,1 × n1,1 − l3,1θ$3,1w 3,1 × n 3,1 + l1,3θ$1,3 w1,3 × n1,3 + l3,3θ$3,3 w 3,3 × n 3,3 = d$ 1 − d$ 3 (72)

By defining the vector

j j , i = l j ,i w j ,i × n j ,i , j = 1,3 , i = 1, 2,3 (73)

Equations (71) and (72) may be written as follows

−θ$1,1 j1,1 − θ$3,1 j3,1 + θ$1,2 j1,2 + θ$3,2 j3,2 = d$ 1 − d$ 2 (74)

−θ$1,1 j1,1 − θ$3,1 j3,1 + θ$1,3 j1,3 + θ$3,3 j3,3 = d$ 1 − d$ 3 (75)

that is

Jθ$ = d$ (76)

9
ASME Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 125, No.2, June 2003, pp. 302-307. ©2003 ASME

where
⎡ − j1,1 0 ⎤
J=⎢
j3,3 ⎥⎦
− j3,1 j1,2 j3,2 0
⎣ − j1,1
(77)
− j3,1 0 0 j1,3

θ$ = ⎡⎣θ$1,1 , θ$3,1 , θ$1,2 , θ$3,2 , θ$1,3 , θ$3,3 ⎤⎦

T
(78)

⎡d$ − d$ 2 ⎤
d$ = ⎢ 1
$ $ ⎥
⎣ d1 − d3 ⎦
(79)

The direct Jacobian matrix J depends on the mechanism configuration, whilst the vector d$ depends on the veloci-
ties of the actuators as well.
Equation (76) admits a solution if and only if J is not singular. When
det ( J ) = 0 (80)

θ$ can be nonzero even if the actuator velocities are nought and the platform becomes uncontrollable.
As shown in [24] the determinant of a matrix like that displayed in Eq. (77) is equal to
det ( J ) = m1 ⋅ ( m 2 × m 3 ) (81)

where
m i = j1,i × j3,i , i = 1, 2,3 (82)

Hence, Eq. (80) may be written as

m1 ⋅ ( m 2 × m 3 ) = 0 (83)

and can be geometrically interpreted as follows.

Consider in Fig. 3 the axes of R1,i and R2,i, as well as the common perpendicular line between them: they all lie on
the same plane Π1,i. Analogously, the axes of R3,i and R4,i and their mutual perpendicular lie on the plane Π3,i. j1,i and j3,i
are the normal vectors to Π1,i and Π3,i respectively. Since mi must be perpendicular to both j1,i and j3,i, it can only be
parallel to the intersection line between Π1,i and Π3,i. When such directions, for the three limbs, are linearly dependent,
the Jacobian becomes singular. It must be noted that Eq. (83) is satisfied also when any mi is null, that is (assuming that
l1,i and l3,i are always different from zero) when Π1,i and Π3,i are parallel. When this happens, j1,i and j3,i (mutually paral-
lel) must be perpendicular to both w1,i and w3,i, and hence be parallel to n2,i. In other words, the Jacobian becomes sin-
gular any time both n1,i and n3,i are perpendicular to n2,i.

j3,i
Π3,i n3,i
w4,i

w3,i

n2,i w2,i
j1,i
w1,i mi
n1,i

Π1,i

Fig. 3: Geometric interpretation of the translation singularities

10
ASME Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 125, No.2, June 2003, pp. 302-307. ©2003 ASME

CONCLUSIONS
This paper has studied the requisites sufficient to provide a translational motion to the output link of a family of pa-
rallel mechanisms with three topologically equal 5-dof limbs. It has been rigorously proved that convenient conditions
imposed during the construction and the assembly of the manipulator guarantee the pure translation of the platform
throughout its movement. Two sub-families have been found that satisfy the imposed constraint: one is already known
in the literature, while the other is original.
Each limb of the new architecture contains four revolute joints, parallel two by two, and a prismatic pair, which can
be mounted anywhere along the kinematic chain or replaced by a fifth conveniently located revolute one. For the ex-
amined family, rotation and translation singularities can be distinguished, depending on the occurrence of configura-
tions in which the platform respectively gains additional dofs of rotation or translation. It has been shown that the novel
architecture does not exhibit rotation singularities and a geometric interpretation of the translation ones has been pro-
vided for a particular case of actuation.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the Italian MIUR and CNR.

REFERENCES
[1] Gough, V. E., and Whitehall, S. G., 1962, “Universal Tyre Test Machine,” Proc. of the 9th International Congress of
F.I.S.I.T.A., 117, pp. 117-135.
[2] Stewart, D., 1965, “A Platform with Six Degrees of Freedom,” Proc. of the Institute of Mechanical Engineering,
London, UK, 180 (15), pp. 371-386.
[3] Innocenti, C., and Parenti-Castelli, V., 1993, “Echelon Form Solution of Direct Kinematics for the General Fully-
Parallel Spherical Wrist,” Mechanism and Machine Theory, 28 (4), pp. 553-561.
[4] Gosselin, C. M., and Lavoie, E. 1993, “On the Kinematic Design of Spherical Three-Degree-of-Freedom Parallel
Manipulators,” The Int. Journal of Robotics Research, 12 (4), pp. 394-402.
[5] Gosselin, C. M., Sefrioui, J., and Richard, M. J., 1994, “On the Direct Kinematics of Spherical Three-Degree-of-
Freedom Parallel Manipulators of General Architecture,” ASME Journal of Mechanical Design, 116 (2), pp. 594-
598.
[6] Vischer, P., and Clavel, R., 2000, “Argos: a Novel 3-DOF Parallel Wrist Mechanism,” The International Journal of
Robotics Research, 19 (1), pp.5-11.
[7] Karouia, M., and Hervé, J. M., 2000, “A Three-DOF Tripod for Generating Spherical Rotation,” Advances in Robot
Kinematics, J. Lenarčič and M. M. Stanišič, eds., Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 395-402.
[8] Lee, K. M., and Shah, D. K., 1988, “Kinematic Analysis of a Three-Degrees-of-Freedom In-Parallel Actuated Ma-
nipulator,” IEEE Journal of Robotics and Automation, 4 (3), pp. 354-360.
[9] Waldron, K. J., Raghavan, M., and Roth, B., 1989, “Kinematics of a Hybrid Series-Parallel Manipulation System,”
ASME Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control, 111 (2), pp. 211-221.
[10] Carretero, J. A., Podhorodeski, R. P., Nahon, M. A., and Gosselin, C. M., 2000, “Kinematic Analysis and Optimiza-
tion of a New Three Degree-of-Freedom Spatial Parallel Manipulator,” ASME Journal of Mechanical Design, 122
(1), pp. 17-24.
[11] Clavel, R., 1988, “Delta, a Fast Robot with Parallel Geometry,” Proc. of the 18th International Symposium on In-
dustrial Robots, Lausanne, Switzerland, pp. 91-100.
[12] Hervé, J. M., and Sparacino, F., 1991, “Structural Synthesis of Parallel Robots Generating Spatial Translation,”
Proc. of the 5th IEEE Int. Conference on Advanced Robotics, Pisa, Italy, pp. 808-813.
[13] Hervé, J. M., and Sparacino, F. 1992. “STAR, a New Concept in Robotics,” Proc. of the 3rd Int. Workshop on Ad-
vances in Robot Kinematics, Ferrara, Italy, pp. 176-183.
[14] Hervé, J. M. 1995. “Design of Parallel Manipulators Via the Displacement Group,” Proc. of the 9th World Congress
on the Theory of Machines and Mechanisms, Milan, Italy, pp. 2079-2082.
[15] Arai, T., Hervé, J. M., and Tanikawa, T. 1996. “Development of 3 DOF Micro Finger,” Proc. of the 1996 IEEE/RSJ
Int. Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Osaka, Japan, pp. 981-987.
[16] Tsai, L. W., and Stamper, R. E., 1996, “A Parallel Manipulator with Only Translational Degrees of Freedom,”
MECH-1152, Proc. of the 1996 ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences, Irvine, CA.
[17] Wenger, P., and Chablat, D., 2000, “Kinematic Analysis of a New Parallel Machine Tool: the Orthoglide,” Ad-
vances in Robot Kinematics, J. Lenarčič and M. M. Stanišić, eds., Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 305-314.
[18] Zhao, T. S., and Huang, Z., 2000, “A Novel Three-DOF Translational Platform Mechanism and Its Kinematics,”

11
ASME Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 125, No.2, June 2003, pp. 302-307. ©2003 ASME

MECH-14101, Proc. of the 2000 ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences, Baltimore, MD.
[19] Tsai, L. W., 1996, “Kinematics of a Three-DOF Platform with Three Extensible Limbs,” Recent Advances in Robot
Kinematics, J. Lenarčič and V. Parenti-Castelli, eds., Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 401-410.
[20] Clavel, R., 1990, “Device for the Movement and Positioning of an Element in Space,” United States Patent No.
4,976,582.
[21] Di Gregorio, R., and Parenti-Castelli, V., 1998, “A Translational 3-DOF Parallel Manipulator,” Advances in Robot
Kinematics: Analysis and Control, J. Lenarčič and M. L. Husty, eds., Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 49-58.
[22] Tsai, L. W., and Joshi, S., 2000, “Kinematics and Optimization of a Spatial 3-UPU Parallel Manipulator,” ASME
Journal of Mechanical Design, 122 (4), pp. 439-446.
[23] Frisoli, A., Checcacci, D., Salsedo, F., and Bergamasco, M., 2000, “Synthesis by Screw Algebra of Translating In-
Parallel Actuated Mechanisms,” Advances in Robot Kinematics, J. Lenarčič and M. M. Stanišić, eds., Kluwer Aca-
demic Publishers, pp. 433-440.
[24] Di Gregorio, R., and Parenti-Castelli, V., 1999, “Mobility Analysis of the 3-UPU Parallel Mechanism Assembled
for a Pure Translation Motion,” Proc. of the 1999 IEEE/ASME International Conference on Advanced Intelligent
Mechatronics, Atlanta, GA, pp. 520-525.

12