Marc Arsenault1 Kinematic and Static

Department of mechanical engineering,

The Royal Military College of Canada,
Kingston, Ontario,
Analysis of a
Canada K7K 7B4,
marc.arsenault@rmc.ca
Three-degree-of-freedom
Clément M. Gosselin Spatial Modular
Département de génie mécanique,
Université Laval,
Tensegrity Mechanism
Québec, Québec,
Canada G1K 7P4
gosselin@gmc.ulaval.ca

Abstract history of these systems is given by Motro (1992). Generally

Tensegrity mechanisms benefit from a reduced inertia due to their
extensive use of cables and springs. However, they must be pre-
stressed at all times in order to keep the cables in tension. For a
given mechanism architecture, this is only possible in a specific set
of configurations such that the analysis of these mechanisms is rela-
tively complex. This paper presents the development and analysis of
a new three-degree-of-freedom positional tensegrity mechanism that
has a modular architecture. The mechanism, actuated by cables, has
a relatively large workspace. For the special case where external and
gravitational forces are neglected, solutions are given for the mech-
anism’s equilibrium configuration both for given actuator positions
as well as for a specified position of its effector. It is shown that the
mechanism can be considered as an assembly of construction ele-
ments based on Snelson’s X-shape tensegrity system and that these
behave independently from one another.
KEY WORDS—tensegrity mechanism, kinematic analysis,
workspace computation
1. Introduction
The word tensegrity was first coined by Fuller (1962) as a com-
bination of the words tension and integrity. However, it is gen-
erally agreed upon that the origin of tensegrity systems em-
anates from sculptures created by Snelson (1965). A detailed
The International Journal of Robotics Research
Vol. 27, No. 8, August 2008, pp. 951–966
DOI: 10.1177/0278364908091152
2
c SAGE Publications 2008 Los Angeles, London, New Delhi and Singapore
speaking, a tensegrity system can be seen as consisting of an
assembly of axially loaded components. However, this assem-
bly is such that each of the components is loaded either in ten-
sion or in compression. Furthermore, tensegrity systems have
a self-stress capability that allows internal forces to be intro-
duced in their components without requiring reaction loads to
be applied to the environment.
One of the principal motivations behind the development of
tensegrity systems is the fact that cables or springs can be used
for the tensile components, thus leading to systems with lower
mass and inertia than more conventional mechanisms such as
those of the serial or parallel types. A task that remains, how-
ever, is to demonstrate that this is indeed true in real-world
applications as the increased complexity of some tensegrity
systems and the corresponding difficulties in their fabrication
might overshadow the advantages of using cables. Although
historically tensegrity systems have mostly been studied for
use as structures, their reduced inertia makes them attractive
for use as mechanisms. Among the first to propose the devel-
opment of mechanisms using tensegrity principles were Op-
penheim and Williams (1997). Since then, several tensegrity
mechanisms have been proposed (Marshall and Crane 20041
Arsenault and Gosselin 20051 Baker and Crane 20061 Arse-
nault and Gosselin 2006a,b). Suggested applications include a
tensegrity flight simulator (Sultan and Corless 2000), a tenseg-
rity telescope (Sultan et al. 1999), a force and torque tensegrity
sensor (Sultan and Skelton 2004), a morphing wing (Moored
and Bart-Smith 2007), and a tensegrity walking robot (Chan-
dana et al. 2006). Some tensegrity mechanisms also have the
potential to be deployable (Tibert 20021 Furuya 1992). Such a
1 Corresponding author.

951
952 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ROBOTICS RESEARCH / August 2008
Fig. 1. Basic construction element of the mechanism.
mechanism can thus be folded in a small volume for trans-
portation purposes and then be erected to its full operating
size. The reduced inertia of tensegrity systems along with
their potential deployment capability make them interesting
alternatives for use in space applications. In a previous paper
(Arsenault and Gosselin 2006c), the authors have developed
and analyzed a two-degree-of-freedom (2-DoF) planar mod-
ular tensegrity mechanism that is based on the use of the X-
shape tensegrity system (Snelson 1965). In this work, the con-
cept used for the development of the planar mechanism is ex-
tended to a spatial modular tensegrity mechanism having three
positional degrees of freedom. The first part of the paper pro-
vides a complete description of the mechanism’s geometry as
well as an analysis of its mobility. Afterwards, for the special
case where no external or gravitational forces are acting on the
mechanism, solutions to its direct and inverse static problems
are found, and its workspace boundaries are computed. As was
shown by the current authors in Arsenault and Gosselin (2007),
it is possible to compensate for the gravitational forces in a
tensegrity mechanism by using static balancing techniques.
2. Mechanism Description
The basic element used in the mechanism’s construction,
shown in Figure 1, is developed from Snelson’s X-shape
tensegrity system (Snelson 1965). It consists of two compres-
sive components and four tensile components. The compres-
sive components are bars of length L that join node pairs
Ai Bi31 and Bi Ai31 . Although the bars cross, they do not touch
each other. In fact, it is possible to create a slot in one bar
in which the other bar may slide freely. Two of the tensile
components are springs joining node pairs Ai Bi and Ai31 Bi31
whereas the other two are cables joining node pairs Ai Ai31 and
Bi Bi31 . The springs, of stiffness K , have zero free lengths.
This assumption is not problematic since virtual zero-free-
length springs can be created by extending the actual springs
beyond their attachment points (Streit and Gilmore 1989). Ex-
amples of this are given in Herder (2001). Finally, the stiffness
of the struts and of the actuators are considered to be infinite
relative to those of the springs.
Fig. 2. Tensegrity mechanism module.
The mechanism’s module consists of an assembly in par-
allel of three X-shape construction elements as shown in Fig-
ure 2. All attachments between components both in a given
construction element and in neighboring elements can be as-
sumed, for the moment, to be made using spherical joints.
In the module, six bars are used to link node pairs Ai Bi31 ,
Ai Ci31 , Bi Ai31 , Bi Ci31 , Ci Ai31 , and Ci Bi31 . Meanwhile,
six springs are used to join node pairs Ai Bi , Ai Ci , Bi Ci ,
Ai31 Bi31 , Ai31 Ci31 , and Bi31 Ci31 while three cables are used
to join node pairs Ai Ai31 , Bi Bi31 , and Ci Ci31 .
The mechanism, illustrated in Figure 3(a), is obtained by a
series assembly of N modules. When two modules meet, the
resulting pairs of parallel springs of stiffness K are replaced
by springs of stiffness 2K . Furthermore, all connections be-
tween the components of the mechanism are of the spherical
type. Such an assembly requires the use of several concen-
tric spherical joints at each node of the mechanism. In fact,
there are four bars, two springs, and two cables converging at
each intermediate node (i.e. all nodes except those that are lo-
cated at the mechanism’s extremities). An alternative to spher-
ical joints must thus be found since in the aforementioned case
seven such joints would need to be installed at a single point.
As far as the cables are concerned, they can easily be attached
directly to their respective nodes while benefiting from their
flexibility to simulate the behavior of a spherical joint. For the
other components, one possibility for their assembly is to use
concentric multilink spherical joints (CMS joints) as proposed
by Hamlin and Sanderson (1994). A CMS joint is a six-bar
mechanism that imposes a spherical motion between two rigid
bodies without occupying the space in the area of the center
of rotation. In their work, Hamlin and Sanderson discuss the
use of CMS joints to allow spherical motion between ten com-
ponents that are meeting at a single node. It is thus feasible to
foresee the use of such joints for the mechanism proposed here
as the maximum number of components meeting at a node (ex-
cluding cables) is six.
 Arsenault and Gosselin / Three-degree-of-freedom Spatial Modular Tensegrity Mechanism
Fig. 3. 3-DoF spatial modular tensegrity mechanism: (a) isometric view1 (b) detailed view of the base.
Returning now to the mechanism’s architecture, a fixed ref-
erence frame X 0 Y0 Z 0 is defined as having its origin, repre-
sented by O, acting as the mechanism’s base. As is shown
in Figure 3(b), nodes A0 , B0 , and C0 are allowed to translate
freely on passive prismatic joints that are symmetrically dis-
tributed in the X 0 Y0 -plane (1 4 22 33). The fixed reference
frame is located at the intersection of the lines of action of the
prismatic joints with its Y0 -axis directed towards node C0 and
its Z 0 -axis perpendicular to the plane formed by nodes A0 , B0 ,
and C0 . The positions of the passive prismatic joints, measured
from the origin O to nodes A0 , B0 and C0 , are given by 4 1 ,
4 2 , and 4 3 , respectively. Meanwhile, the mechanism’s effector
is assumed to correspond to the origin of a mobile reference
frame X N Y N Z N . In order to maintain symmetry in the mecha-
nism, it is assumed that nodes A N , B N , and C N translate along
virtual passive prismatic joints that are arranged in the same
manner as is shown in Figure 3(b). Consequently, the origin
of the mobile frame is located at the intersection of the lines
953
of action of the virtual prismatic joints whereas its Y N -axis is
directed towards node C N and its Z N -axis is perpendicular to
the plane formed by nodes A N , B N , and C N . The mechanism
is actuated by modifying the lengths of its cables. For reasons
that will be clarified in Section 3, it is chosen to actuate the
cables so that, for instance, the lengths of the cables joining
each of the Ai Ai31 node pairs are always equal (this condi-
tion also applies to the cables joining node pairs Bi Bi31 and
Ci Ci31 ). There are different approaches that can be used to im-
plement such an actuation scheme. For example, it is possible
to use motor–pulley assemblies to modify the lengths of all ca-
bles individually which ensuring, through the use of a control
algorithm, that the lengths of the cables that must be equal re-
main as such. Such an approach has the disadvantage of requir-
ing motors to be installed on the mechanism’s mobile parts,
which would most assuredly hinder its dynamic performance.
Another possibility is to replace the mechanism’s cables with
shape memory alloy wires. This would have the advantage of
954 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ROBOTICS RESEARCH / August 2008

configurations (a task that has been shown in previous litera-

ture to be quite complex when done manually).
Referring to Figure 3(b), the positions of nodes A0 , B0 , and
C0 are given by

10 4 4 1 21 9 30 4 4 2 22 9 40 4 4 3 23 9 (2)

with
3 6 3 6
5 sin71 328 sin71 328
4 7 4 7
4 7 4 7
Fig. 4. Mobility graph. 21 4 45 cos71 3287
4
79 22 4 45 cos71 3287
4
79
5 8 5 8
0 0
not increasing the mechanism’s inertia. However, such actu-
3 6
ators would have a reduced operating range thus leading to 0
a smaller mechanism workspace. Other alternatives, not men- 4 7
4 7
tioned here, can also be considered. Regardless of the method 23 4 4 7
417
(3)
used to actuate the cable lengths, it is henceforth assumed that 5 8
the cables joining each of the Ai Ai31 node pairs have lengths 0
given by 5 1 3N and that the sum of these lengths is 5 1 . In a sim-
ilar fashion, the lengths of the cables joining node pairs Bi Bi31 Meanwhile, the lengths of the springs can be computed as fol-
and Ci Ci31 are given by 5 2 3N and 5 3 3N , respectively, while lows:
their sums are equal to 5 2 and 5 3 . It will also be assumed that 9
the cables have strictly positive lengths (i.e. 5 i 6 0). li 1 4 71i 5 3i 8T 71i 5 3i 89
An analysis of the mechanism’s mobility is beneficial to 9
gain a better understanding of its behavior. The mobility for- li 2 4 71i 5 4i 8T 71i 5 4i 89
mula used here is the one attributed to Chebychev, Grübler, 9
and Kutzbach (Phillips et al.) which takes the following form: li 3 4 73i 5 4i 8T 73i 5 4i 89 (4)

1
nJ
9 N . The mechanism’s vector of input vari-
1 4 d7n B 5 n J 5 18 3 1i 5 1 S 9 (1)
i41
where 1 represents the mechanism’s mobility, d is the degree
of freedom of an unconstrained rigid body moving in the space
in which the mechanism is to operate (i.e. d 4 6 for the spa-
tial case), n B and n J represent the quantities of rigid bodies
and joints in the mechanism, 1i is the degree of freedom as-
sociated to the ith joint, and 1 S is the quantity of superfluous
degrees of freedom in the mechanism (e.g. the spinning mo-
tion of a component attached at its ends by spherical joints). In
this analysis, the springs need not be taken into account since
they do not apply any constraint on the mechanism. By mod-
eling the cables as prismatic joints, the mechanism’s mobility
graph is obtained as shown in Figure 4 for an arbitrary num-
ber of modules. From this graph, it can 2 be shown that d 4 6,
n B 4 12N 3 4, n J 4 18N 3 3, 1i 4 48N 3 3, and
1 S 4 9N . Substituting these values into Equation (1) yields
1 4 3N 3 3. The mechanism thus has a total of 73N 3 38
DoF of which 3N are constrained by fixing the cable lengths.
This leaves the mechanism with three unconstrained degrees
of freedom. For given cable lengths, the mechanism is thus
capable of deforming itself so as to minimize the potential en-
ergy stored in its springs. This is an advantageous property
since it allows the mechanism to automatically find tensegrity
where i 4 09 19
ables is 5 4 [5 1 9 5 2 9 5 3 ]T . Its output variables are chosen
as the position coordinates of the mobile frame’s origin with
respect to the fixed frame. The output vector thus becomes
6 N 4 [x N 9 y N 9 z N ]T .
3. Direct Static Problem
In this paper, it is always assumed that the mechanism is in an
equilibrium configuration. When this is the case, it is possible
to compute the position of the mechanism’s effector for given
positions of its actuators (i.e. for given cable lengths). Whereas
this computation is typically referred to as a mechanism’s di-
rect kinematic problem, it will be referred to here as the mech-
anism’s direct static problem since it not only depends on the
geometry of the mechanism but also on its internal forces. A
similar wording will be used in Section 4 for the inverse prob-
lem. In what follows, the direct static problem is solved by se-
quentially finding solutions to smaller problems. In this way,
the equilibrium configuration of the X-shape construction ele-
ment (Figure 1) is first computed. The result is then exploited
to solve the direct static problem of a mechanism having a sin-
gle module before a solution is finally obtained for the general
case of N modules.
 Arsenault and Gosselin / Three-degree-of-freedom Spatial Modular Tensegrity Mechanism
Fig. 5. Mechanism with N 4 1.
3.1. Equilibrium of the X-shape Construction Element
The first step in the computation of a solution to the mech-
anism’s direct static problem is to find the equilibrium of its
X-shape construction element. In a previous work (Arsenault
and Gosselin 2006c), the authors have shown that for a pla-
nar mechanism having an architecture such as the one shown
in Figure 1 with cable lengths given by 5 i 3N and 5 j 3N , the
equilibrium corresponds to a trapezoidal shape where the ca-
bles are parallel to each other and where the springs have equal
lengths given by
nodes are the same in both elements, the assembly of the latter
N 2 L 2 5 5i 5 j
l4
(5) It follows that the assembly of the construction elements does
N
Although this result can be found geometrically by exploit-
ing the construction element’s symmetry, it can also be found
by minimizing the latter’s potential energy. By using this ap-
proach, it is then possible to verify that the equilibrium is al-
ways stable in the region of interest (Arsenault and Gosselin
2006c).
3.2. Mechanism Spring Lengths
In the following sections, results are generated for a mecha-
nism having a single module (i.e. N 4 1). Afterwards, these
results are generalized to the case of N modules. A mechanism
with N 4 1 is shown in an arbitrary configuration in Figure 5.
When N 4 1, the direct static problem consists of computing
61 in terms of the cable lengths 5 1 3N , 5 2 3N , and 5 3 3N (N
is written symbolically here to allow for a subsequent general-
ization of the results).
It is known that the spatial tensegrity module is formed by
a parallel assembly of three planar X-shape construction el-
ements. Furthermore, it has been stated in the previous sec-
tion that the equilibrium configurations of these elements al-
ways correspond (in the absence of external and gravitational
955
Fig. 6. Construction of a spatial tensegrity module from three
planar construction elements.
loads) to trapezoidal shapes. It is now assumed that the three
construction elements that form the spatial tensegrity module
are detached from each other as shown in Figure 6(a). The
elements can thus be considered as being completely inde-
pendent from one another with regards to their equilibrium
configurations. However, the lengths of the cables that join
node pairs A0 A1 , B0 B1 , and C0 C1 must be the same in all ele-
ments as indicated in Figure 6(a). Suppose now that elements i
and ii are attached together at their common B0 and B1 nodes
(Figure 6(b)). Since the lengths of the cables that join these
does not require changes to their equilibrium configurations.
not introduce interaction forces at their interface. In a similar
fashion, construction element iii can be assembled to elements
i and ii at nodes C0 and C1 without modifying the equilib-
rium configurations of the individual elements (Figure 6(c)).
In order to complete the assembly of the spatial module, the
assembly of construction elements shown in Figure 6(c) must
be modified so that the two pairs of A0 and A1 nodes become
coincident. To accomplish this, the construction elements are
simply rotated relative to each other about the axes defined
by node pairs B0 B1 and C0 C1 . Since all of the cables are par-
allel with their mid-points located on the line c–c and since
the lengths of the cables joining the two A0 A1 node pairs are
equal, it can be seen that the final assembly step, as was the
case for the preceding steps, does not require the construc-
tion elements to be deformed. It is thus concluded that the
equilibrium configurations of the construction elements used
in the spatial tensegrity module are identical to those of the
same construction elements taken individually. From this fact,
the lengths of the springs in the module can be deduced from
Equation (5) as follows:
9 9
N 2 L 2 5 5 152 N 2 L 2 5 515 3
li 1 4 9 li 2 4 9
N N
956 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ROBOTICS RESEARCH / August 2008

9
N 2 L 2 5 5 253
li 3 4
(6)
N
Because of the trapezoidal shape of the construction elements,
these lengths are valid for i 4 09 19


9 N which implies that
the triangles formed by each Ai Bi Ci trio of nodes in a mecha-
nism are congruent.

3.3. Positions of the base nodes

The lengths of the springs being known, the next step is to

locate the mechanism with respect to the X 0 Y0 Z 0 reference
frame. Referring to Figure 3(b), the edges of the triangle Fig. 7. Example of the intersection of the elliptic cylinders: (a)
formed by nodes A0 , B0 , and C0 correspond to the springs of isometric view1 (b) detailed view of an elliptical section.
length l01 , l02 , and l03 . The task thus consists of computing the
positions of the passive prismatic joints (i.e. 4 1 , 4 2 , and 4 3 )
that are compatible with the spring lengths. From Figure 3(b)
and Equation (2), the geometrical constraints related to this
compatibility are

710 5 30 8T 710 5 30 8 5 l021

5152
4 4 21 3 4 1 4 2 3 4 22 5 L 2 3 4 09 (7)
N2

710 5 40 8T 710 5 40 8 5 l022

5153
4 4 21 3 4 1 4 3 3 4 23 5 L 2 3 4 09 (8)
N2

730 5 40 8T 730 5 40 8 5 l023 Fig. 8. Geometrical proof of the existence of a unique solution
for which 4 1 6 0, 4 2 6 0, and 4 3 6 0.
5253
4 4 22 3 4 2 4 3 3 4 23 5 L 2 3 4 0
(9)
N2
The problem thus becomes that of computing the intersection this into account, the values of the 4 i can be obtained from
of three quadric surfaces in a three-dimensional space defined Equation (7), for instance, as follows:
by orthogonal axes that correspond to 4 1 , 4 2 , and 4 3 . It can 7
be shown that Equations (7)–(9) correspond to elliptic cylin- 39 2 2
41 4 42 4 43 4 N L 5 5 2
(10)
ders whose longitudinal axes coincide with the axes of the 3N
4 1 4 2 4 3 space (see Figure 7(a)). Furthermore, as illustrated in
For another special case where 5 i 4 5 j , Equations (7)–(9)
Figure 7(b), the minor and major axes of the elliptic cylinders
show that 4 i 4 4 j . For instance, if 5 1 4 5 2 it is observed from
(i.e. 4 i6 and 4 6j ) are pivoted by 5234 radians with respect to
Equations (8) and (9) that 4 1 4 4 2 . In this case, Equation (7)
axes 4 i and 4 j (where axes 4 i and 4 j correspond to the axes of
yields the following solution:
the 4 1 4 2 4 3 space that are perpendicular to the longitudinal axis
of the given elliptic cylinder). For a general case, up to four real 7

3
solutions can exist for the system given by Equations (7)–(9). 41 4 42 4 N 2 L 2 5 5 21
(11)
3N
Furthermore, for certain special cases, an infinity of solutions
are possible. However, there can always only be one real so- Afterwards, the solution for 4 3 is found from Equation (8) as
lution for which the values of 4 1 , 4 2 , and 4 3 are all positive

(which must be the case for the mechanism). This can easily
be observed in Figure 8 where nodes A0 and B0 of triangle
A0 B0 C0 are displaced along their respective prismatic joints
until node C0 is located on the line of action of its prismatic
joint. For a special case where 5 1 4 5 2 4 5 3 4 5, it can be
observed from Equations (7)–(9) that 4 1 4 4 2 4 4 3 . Taking
5N 4 1 3 N 2 74L 2 5 34 21 8 5 45 1 5 3
43 4 9 (12)
2N
or equivalently from Equation (9). The same approach applies
to the cases where 5 1 4 5 3 or 5 2 4 5 3 . For the general case
where 5 1 84 5 2 84 5 3 , the solution to Equations (7)–(9) is more
 Arsenault and Gosselin / Three-degree-of-freedom Spatial Modular Tensegrity Mechanism 957

complex. The Dixon elimination method (Kapur and Laksh- 3.4. Positions of the Remaining Nodes
man 1992) is used here to convert these equations into the fol-
lowing polynomial: For given positions of nodes A0 , B0 , and C0 , it can be observed
by referring to Figure 5 that node A1 of the spatial tensegrity
E 2 4 41 3 E 1 4 21 3 E 0 4 09 (13) module must be simultaneously located on the surfaces of the
following three spheres:
where
 711 5 10 8T 711 5 10 8 4 75 1 3N 82 9
E0 4 5 L 2 5 1 75 2 3 5 3 8 5 25 2 5 3 5 5 21 5 22 5 5 21 5 23
711 5 30 8T 711 5 30 8 4 L 29

 2 711 5 40 8T 711 5 40 8 4 L 2
(20)
5 5 22 5 23 5 5 1 5 2 5 3 5 1 5 275 2 3 5 3 8 9 (14)
As a result, the position of node A1 can be computed as the
  intersection of these spheres. Since the spheres’ centers are
E1 4 3 L 2 5 1 5 2 5 3 75 1 5 55 2 5 55 3 8 3 25 21 75 22 3 5 23 8 located in the X 0 Y0 -plane, their intersection (special cases
notwithstanding) corresponds to two points that are symmetric
with respect to this plane. The position of node A1 is chosen
3 55 22 5 23 5 25 31 75 32 3 5 33 8 3 5 32 5 33 here as the point that has a positive Z 0 coordinate. Once 11 is
 known, a unit vector directed along the cable joining nodes A0
5 5 1 5 2 5 3 5 21 75 2 3 5 3 8 5 55 1 75 22 3 5 23 8 and A1 can be computed as follows:

 24
N
711 5 10 8
(21)
3 45 2 5 3 75 2 3 5 3 8 5 35 1 5 2 5 3 9 (15) 51
Using this last result, the positions of nodes B1 and C1 can be
 1
3  obtained with the following expressions:
E2 4 9 5 15 253 5 i 5 5 21 5 22 5 5 21 5 23 5 5 22 5 23
(16) 5  5 
2 3
i41 31 4 30 3 29 41 4 40 3 29 (22)
N N
Since the degrees of Equations (7)–(9) are identical, the Dixon
method does not generate parasitic solutions (Kapur and Lak- where the fact that the cables are parallel has been exploited.
shman 1992). When only the positive values of 4 1 are consid-
ered, the solutions of Equation (13) are given by
3.5. Vector 61
 9 132
5E 1 3  1 E 12 5 4E 0 E 2
41 4 9 (17) It has been previously shown in Section 3.2 that the triangles
2E 2 formed by the Ai Bi Ci trios of nodes are congruent. More-
over, it is known that the cables in a given module are paral-
where  1 4 91. For each value of 4 1 , the only positive solu- lel and that their direction is given by the unit vector 2. The
tions for 4 2 and 4 3 are obtained from Equations (7) and (8) as mechanism’s A1 B1 C1 triangle is thus obtained as a projec-
follows: tion of triangle A0 B0 C0 where distances and angles are pre-

served and where the lines that project the vertices of triangle
5N 4 1 3 N 2 74L 2 5 34 21 8 5 45 1 5 2 A0 B0 C0 to the corresponding vertices of triangle A1 B1 C1 are
42 4 9 (18)
2N parallel. In Figure 5, vector 61 is defined as linking the ori-

gins of frames X 0 Y0 Z 0 and X 1 Y1 Z 1 . As was described in Sec-
5N 4 1 3 N 2 74L 2 5 34 21 8 5 45 1 5 3 tion 2, the localization of frame X 1 Y1 Z 1 with respect to nodes
43 4
(19) A1 , B1 , and C1 is based on the use of virtual prismatic joints
2N
that are arranged in the same manner as the prismatic joints
Equations (17)–(19) generate two sets of values for the 4 i . linking nodes A0 , B0 , and C0 to frame X 0 Y0 Z 0 (Figure 3(b)).
However, only one of these sets corresponds to a valid solu- Consequently, knowing that triangles A0 B0 C0 and A1 B1 C1 are
tion where 4 1 , 4 2 , and 4 3 are positive and where Equation (9) congruent, the relative position of frame X 1 Y1 Z 1 with respect
is satisfied. By filtering the solutions according to these con- to nodes A1 , B1 , and C1 must be the same as that of frame
ditions, the correct solution is readily identified. Once 4 1 , 4 2 , X 0 Y0 Z 0 with respect to nodes A0 , B0 , and C0 . Vector 61 can
and 4 3 are known, the positions of nodes A0 , B0 , and C0 can thus be found to be
be computed from Equation (2). 61 4
61
29 (23)
958 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ROBOTICS RESEARCH / August 2008

where
61
is the amplitude of 61 that must now be computed. As was mentioned in Section 3.1, the authors have previously
The condition needing to be satisfied by
61
is that the origin shown that this stability exists (Arsenault and Gosselin 2006c).
of frame X 1 Y1 Z 1 be located on the plane defined by nodes A1 , It can thus be stated that the mechanism is stable for an equilib-
B1 , and C1 . Mathematically, this condition translates into the rium configuration given by the results of this section as long
following:   as it is located in its workspace.

6
2 1 3 4 
 1 1 1 1
  4 0
(24)
 
 1 1 1 1 4. Inverse Static Problem
From this equation, one has The mechanism’s inverse static problem consists of computing
the lengths of its cables that will allow its effector to be posi-
11 31 41 

61
4
(25) tioned at a specified location (i.e. compute 5 given 6 N ). The
2 31 41  5 2 11 41  3 2 11 31  basic approach used here is to work backwards from the solu-
tion of the mechanism’s direct static problem that was given in
The direct static problem of a mechanism with a single module Section 3. As such, Equation (26) is first solved for 61 :
is thus solved. 1 51
N
61 4 Qi51 6N
(29)
i41
3.6. Vector 6 N
The inverse static problem for a mechanism with N modules
According to the description of the mechanism that was given is thus reduced to a simpler problem where N 4 1. However,
in Section 2, the lengths of the bars and cables as well as matrix Q in the above equation, which represents the rotation
the stiffness of the springs are the same for each of its mod- of frame X 0 Y0 Z 0 to frame X 1 Y1 Z 1 of the module depicted in
ules. When treated separately, the modules must then have the Figure 5, must be expressed as a function of 6 N . In order to do
same equilibrium configurations. It is also known that triangles so, it is beneficial to use the tilt and torsion angles (see, e.g.,
Ai Bi Ci and Ai31 Bi31 Ci31 of a given module are congruent. Bonev (2002)) to represent this rotation. According to the tilt
As a consequence, the assembly in series of the modules does and torsion angle definition, matrix Q can be decomposed as
not require any deviations from their (individual) equilibrium follows:
configurations. Based on these observations, the solution to the Q 4 Qz 78Q y 7
8Qz 758Qz 7 89 (30)
mechanism’s direct static problem for N modules is obtained
where
by summing the 61 vectors belonging to each module:
3 6
cos
0 sin

1
N
4 7
6N 4 Qi51 61 9 (26) 4 7
Q y 7
8 4 4
4 0 1 0 7 79 (31)
i41
5 8
where Q is a rotation matrix that brings frame X i Yi Z i in an 5 sin
0 cos

orientation parallel to frame X i31 Yi31 Z i31 . This matrix can 3 6
be computed using the results given in sections 3.4 and 3.5 as cos  5 sin  0
follows: 4 7
4 7
Q 4 [2 Q 1 2 Q 2 2 Q 3 ]9 (27) Qz 78 4 4
4 sin  cos  07
79 (32)
5 8
where 0 0 1
41 5 61 3 6
2Q1 4 2Q2  2 Q3 9 2Q2 4 9
43 cos  5 sin  0
4 7
4 7
731 5 11 8  741 5 11 8 Qz 78 4 4
4 sin  cos  07
7
(33)
2Q3 4
(28) 5 8

731 5 11 8  741 5 11 8
During the development of the solution to the mechanism’s
direct static problem, it has been demonstrated geometrically
that the equilibrium configurations of the modules and of the
construction elements are not influenced by the mechanism’s
assembly. The stability of the mechanism’s equilibrium is thus
a direct result of the stability of each construction element.
0 0 1
Referring to Figure 9, the general concept behind the use of
tilt and torsion angles is to make frame X 0 Y0 Z 0 parallel to
frame X 1 Y1 Z 1 using only two rotations. The first of these, il-
lustrated in Figure 9(a), brings axis Z 0 directly to its final ori-
entation where it is parallel to axis Z 1 . This is accomplished
 Arsenault and Gosselin / Three-degree-of-freedom Spatial Modular Tensegrity Mechanism 959

(their direction being given by unit vector 2). It can thus be ob-
served that these two lines along with the lines defined by axes
Y0 and Y1 must be located in a plane. Such a situation can only
occur if the orientation of frame X 1 Y1 Z 1 with respect to frame
X 0 Y0 Z 0 corresponds to a pure tilting rotation (i.e. a rotation
with zero torsion). Furthermore, it can be reasoned that this re-
sult applies in the same way to frames X 0 Y0 Z 0 and X N Y N Z N
of a N module mechanism.
Knowing that  4 0, the task that remains is to find expres-
sions for angles
and  in terms of vector 6 N to allow the
Fig. 9. Illustration of the tilt and torsion angles: (a) tilting of
axis Z 0 to axis Z 1 1 (b) torsion about axis Z 1 to the final orien-
tation.
subsequent computation of matrix Q. With this goal in mind,
it can be observed that when  4 0 the module is perfectly
symmetric with respect to a plane passing through the mid-
points of its cables whose normal vector is 2 (see Figures 10
and 6(c)). It is assumed for the moment that axes Z 0 and Z 1
are initially parallel to the unit vector 2. In order to bring axis
Z 0 to its final orientation where it is perpendicular to the plane
formed by nodes A0 , B0 , and C0 , frame X 0 Y0 Z 0 must be tilted
about an axis located in the plane of symmetry. The parame-
ters representing this tilt (rotation angle and angular position
of the rotation axis) depend on the cable lengths. Since the ca-
bles are symmetric with respect to the plane of symmetry, it
follows that the tilting of axis Z 1 bringing it into an orienta-
tion perpendicular to the plane formed by nodes A1 , B1 , and
C1 is identical to the rotation of axis Z 0 except that the rota-
tion occurs in the opposite direction. As a consequence, axes
Z 0 and Z 1 as well as unit vector 2 (or, equivalently, vector 61 )
are located in a unique plane. Furthermore, the axis of the tilt is
perpendicular to this plane. Based on these observations, angle
 can be computed from the elements of vector 61 as follows:
Fig. 10. Module’s plane of symmetry.
 4 arctan27y1 9 x1 8
(34)

Meanwhile, by definition, the cosine of angle simply corre-

using a single rotation of an angle (i.e. the tilt) about a line
sponds to the projection of a unit vector parallel to Z 0 (2 Z 0 )
d–d whose angular position in the X 0 Y0 -plane is specified by
on a unit vector parallel to Z 1 (2 Z 1 ), that is, cos 4 2TZ 0 2 Z 1 .
angle . After this first rotation, axes X 0 and Y0 find them-
However, since the angles between each of the Z 0 and Z 1 axes
selves in a new orientation represented by axes X 6 and Y 6 , re-
and vector 2 are equal, it is also possible to establish that
spectively. The second step consists of rotating frame X 6 Y 6 Z 6
cos 4 72 Z 0 3 2 Z 1 8T 2 4 22TZ 0 2. From this result, angle
about axis Z 1 (or, equivalently, about Z 6 ) by an angle  until
can be written from vector 61 as follows:
axes X 6 and Y 6 are coincident with axes X 1 and Y1 (i.e. the
torsion). 

The use of tilt and torsion angles to represent the relative 4 2 arctan2 x1 3 y1 9 z 1

2 2
(35)
rotation between the frames of a module places emphasis on
an interesting behavior of the latter. In fact, when the module
is in an equilibrium configuration in the absence of external
, respectively, in terms of vector 61 . This is not very use-
or gravitational loads, it can be observed that the orientation
of frame X 1 Y1 Z 1 with respect to frame X 0 Y0 Z 0 always cor-
Equations (34) and (35) allow the computation of angles  and
ful since these angles are needed to compute 61 from Equa-
tion (29). However, the results of Equations (34) and (35) can
responds to a case with zero torsion (i.e.  4 0). This result now be used in the search for expressions of angles  and

stems from the fact that triangle A1 B1 C1 is obtained as a pro-
jection of triangle A0 B0 C0 using parallel lines. It is known that
axes Y0 and Y1 are directed from the origins of the fixed and
mobile frames towards nodes C0 and C1 , respectively. It is also
known that the line joining the origins of the fixed and mobile
frames as well as the line joining nodes C0 and C1 are parallel
in terms of 6 N . As far as angle  is concerned, it has been
observed that axes Z 0 and Z 1 as well as vector 61 are lo-
cated in the same plane. For a mechanism with N modules,
knowing that all of the modules (as well as their equilibrium
configurations) are identical, it is deduced that axes Z 0 and Z N
as well as vector 6 N are also located in a unique plane. This
960 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ROBOTICS RESEARCH / August 2008

51
2 4 61 3 4 1 7Q 5 1821 9 (39)
N
52
2 4 61 3 4 2 7Q 5 1822 9 (40)
N
53
2 4 61 3 4 3 7Q 5 1823
(41)
N
For the specific case where x1 4 y1 4 0, it is observed from
Equation (35) that
4 0 and Q 4 1. Substituting this result
into Equations (39)–(41), it is found that
 5 2  5 2
i i
2T 2 4 4 6T1 61 4 z 12 9 (42)
N N
which leads to cables lengths of 5 1 4 5 2 4 5 3 4 N z 1 . The
Fig. 11. Vector closure diagram illustrating the relation be- positions of the passive prismatic joints for this case are given
tween 6 N and
. by Equation (10). For a general case, the product of the trans-
pose of Equation (39) by Equation (40), for example, leads to
5 15 2 

2
4 2T1 7Q 5 18T 7Q 5 1822 4 1 4 2
N
implies that angle  can, similar to Equation (34), be computed 

as 3 6T1 7Q 5 1821 4 1
 4 arctan27y N 9 x N 8
(36) 

3 6T1 7Q 5 1822 4 2 3 6T1 61
(43)
According to the above observations, the 61 vectors associ-
ated to each of the mechanism’s modules as well as vector Multiplying Equation (39) by Equation (41) as well as Equa-
6 N are located in a unique plane that is obtained by pivoting tion (40) by Equation (41), similar expressions are found.
the X 0 Z 0 -plane by an angle  about the Z 0 -axis. Referring It is then possible to substitute these expressions into Equa-
to Equation (26), it is thus possible to draw a vector closure tions (7)–(9), thus leading to the following system of equa-
diagram for the mechanism as shown in Figure 11. In this dia- tions:
gram, angle  is computed from the elements of 6 N as follows: 


 4 21 3 4 22 3 2T1 7Q 5 18T 7Q 5 1822 3 1 4 1 4 2
 4 arctan2 x N2 3 y N2 9 z N
(37)
3 6T1 7Q 5 18721 4 1 3 22 4 2 8 3 6T1 61 5 L 2 4 09 (44)
The series of 61 vectors combined with vector 6 N forms a 

7N 3 18-sided polygon. For a polygon with Ns sides, it is 4 21 3 4 23 3 2T1 7Q 5 18T 7Q 5 1823 3 1 4 1 4 3
known from trigonometry that the sum of the interior angles
is 7Ns 5 282. Using this knowledge, the following result can 3 6T1 7Q 5 18721 4 1 3 23 4 3 8 3 6T1 61 5 L 2 4 09 (45)
be found from Figure 11:


4 22 3 4 23 3 2T2 7Q 5 18T 7Q 5 1823 3 1 4 2 4 3
2

4
(38)
N
3 6T1 7Q 5 18722 4 2 3 23 4 3 8 3 6T1 61 5 L 2 4 0
(46)
Substituting Equations (36) and (38) into Equation (30) while
taking into account the fact that  4 0, an expression for Q in By applying the Dixon method to this system in order to elim-
terms of 6 N is finally obtained.
The preceding developments allow the computation of the
vector 61 that corresponds to a given 6 N . The inverse static
problem of the mechanism can now be solved by consider-
ing only one module. In a module, the geometrical constraints
given by Equations (7)–(9) must always be satisfied. Further-
more, since vector 61 is known, the following vector closure
equations must also be satisfied:
inate 4 1 and 4 2 , a 15  15 matrix D is generated whose deter-
minant corresponds to an eighth degree polynomial in terms
of 4 3 . Theoretically, it is possible to numerically compute the
values of 4 3 associated to the roots of this polynomial and then
to obtain the corresponding values of 4 1 and 4 2 by substitution
into the original system of equations. However, due to the size
and complexity of the polynomial, the computation of its roots
is poorly conditioned. As an alternative, according to Manocha
 Arsenault and Gosselin / Three-degree-of-freedom Spatial Modular Tensegrity Mechanism 961

(1994), it is possible to compute the polynomial’s roots di-
rectly from matrix D by formulating an eigenvalue problem.
This approach has already been used, for instance, in order to
solve the inverse kinematic problem of a 6-DoF serial manipu-
lator (Manocha and Canny 1994). Furthermore, the eigenvalue
formulation allows for an almost direct computation of the cor-
responding values of 4 1 and 4 2 . The first step in the approach
is to rewrite matrix D as a matrix polynomial in terms of the
powers of 4 3 as follows:
D 4 D3 4 33 3 D2 4 23 3 D1 4 3 3 D0 9
and 4 2 4  i3 since 7i lies on a unique line but may have
one of two different directions (one being the negative of the
other), which implies that the  i j can be negative even though
the corresponding values of 4 1 and 4 2 are positive. Among
the sets of values that are found with this method for 4 1 , 4 2
and 4 3 , only those for which all of the 4 i are real and positive
need to be considered. Once this step is complete, the actuator
positions are easily obtained from Equations (39)–(41). Once
again, the solutions of 5 are filtered to eliminate those where
the values of the 5 i are not all positive.
(47)

where matrix Di is obtained from D by considering only the 5. Actuator Workspace

coefficients of the elements of D that multiply 4 i3 . Since ma-
The mechanism’s actuator workspace corresponds to the area
trix D3 is always singular for the case considered here, the so-
of the three-dimensional space defined by 5 1 , 5 2 , and 5 3 where
lution must be obtained from a generalized eigenvalue prob-
it can operate. In order to compute the boundaries of this
lem (Manocha 1994). In this way, the values of 4 3 for which
workspace, each step of the solution to the direct static prob-
det D 4 0 correspond to eigenvalues of 7i 1 5 2 87i 4 1
lem that was given in Section 3 is analyzed to identify the con-
where
ditions needing to be satisfied by the actuators for a real solu-
3 6
05 15 05 tion to be obtained. From the resulting conditions, those that
4 7 are the most restrictive on the operation of the mechanism are
4 7
1 4 4 054 15 779
05 identified as the boundaries of its actuator workspace.
5 8 By definition, the mechanism’s cables lengths must be pos-
5D0 5D1 5D2 itive. It is thus straightforward to establish the following three
potential boundaries of its actuator workspace:
3 6
15 05 05 F1 4 5 1 6 09 F2 4 5 2 6 09 F3 4 5 3 6 0
(52)
4 7
4 7
2 4 4
405 15 05 7
7
(48) Turning now to the direct static problem’s solution, the first
5 8 step consisted of treating the mechanism modules as assem-
05 05 D3 blies of three planar construction elements. It was thus found
that the lengths of the springs in each construction module
In the above formulation, i represents an eigenvalue and 7i were equal and given by Equation (5). For this equation to
its corresponding 15  1 eigenvector. Only a subset of the sys- yield real spring lengths, the following conditions must be sat-
tem’s eigenvalues are real and positive (4 3 0 by definition). isfied:
Moreover, each eigenvector has the following form:
F4 4 N 2 L 2 5 5 1 5 2 6 09 F5 4 N 2 L 2 5 5 1 5 3 6 09
 T
7i 4 8iT 9 4 3 8iT 9 4 23 8Ti 9 (49) F6 4 N 2 L 2 5 5 2 5 3 6 0
(53)

where The general architecture of the construction elements, which

 T
consists of the bars crossing so that their end-nodes form
8i 4 19 4 1 9 4 2 9 4 1 4 2 9 4 22
(50)
a four-sided convex polygon, must also be maintained at
For each real and positive eigenvalue, which represents a po- all times. This will be satisfied when triangles Ai Bi Ai31 ,
tential solution for 4 3 , the corresponding values of 4 1 and 4 2 Bi Bi31 Ai31 , Ai Bi Bi31 , and Ai Bi31 Ai31 of Figure 1 exist
can be obtained from the eigenvectors as follows: (i.e. they do not degenerate into lines) or, alternatively, when
L 6 5 i 3N 3 l, 5 i 3N 6 L 3 l and l 6 L 3 5 i 3N (i 4 19 29 3).
 i4 4 4  i4 4 4 Substituting Equation (5) into any of these latter expressions
41 4 4 1 29 42 4 4 1 2
 i3 42  i2 41 and simplifying yields 2N L 5 5 i 5 5 j 6 0. Taking into ac-
count the three construction elements, this translates into the
 i5 42 following potential workspace boundaries:
or 4 2 4 4 29 (51)
 i3 42
F7 4 2N L 5 5 1 5 5 2 6 09
where  i j corresponds to the j element of 8i and where the
th
F8 4 2N L 5 5 1 5 5 3 6 09
latter is readily obtained from 7i as per Equation (49). It should
be noted that it is not valid to compute 4 1 and 4 2 as 4 1 4  i2 F9 4 2N L 5 5 2 5 5 3 6 0
(54)
962 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ROBOTICS RESEARCH / August 2008

Once the tensegrity module’s spring lengths have been deter- with
mined, the next step deals with the computation of the pas-
l021 3 l022 5 l023
sive prismatic joint positions. A real solution for 4 1 , 4 2 , and c0x 4 9
4 3 is obtained only if the spring lengths l01 , l02 , and l03 allow 2l01
nodes A0 , B0 , and C0 to form a triangle (see Figure 3(b)). This 7
7l01 3l02 3l03 87l01 5l02 3l03 87l01 3l02 5l03 875l01 3l02 3l03 8
condition is verified when the discriminant of the polynomial c0 y 4 2l01
9 (58)
appearing in Equation (13) is positive, that is, when
where the lengths of the springs (i.e. l0i ) are given in Equa-
E 12 5 4E 0 E 2 4 275 22 5 23 75 1 5 5 2 82 75 1 5 5 3 82
tion (6). By substituting these expressions into Equation (20),
 the position of node A1 in frame X 06 Y06 Z 06 , which corresponds
 3L 4 N 4 5 2L 2 N 2 75 1 5 2 3 5 1 5 3 3 5 2 5 3 8 to the intersection of the spheres, is found as a function of the
actuator positions as 11 4 [a1x 9 a1 y 9 a1z ]T with
5 5 21 5 22 5 5 21 5 23 5 5 22 5 23
5 75 5 5 2 8

a1x 4 91 1 9
1
3
2N L 2 N 2 5 5 1 5 2
3 25 1 5 2 5 3 5i 6 0
(55)
i41


5 1 L 2 N 2 75 1 35 2 525 3 8575 1 35 2 85 1 5 2 35 3 75 21 35 22 8
It can be seen that this expression is positive when a1 y 4 7 9
2N 7L 2 N 2 55 1 5 2 8F7
F10 4 3L 4 N 4 5 2L 2 N 2 75 1 5 2 3 5 1 5 3 3 5 2 5 3 8 
51 F11
1
3 a1 z 4 9 (59)
2N F10
5 5 21 5 22 5 5 21 5 23 5 5 22 5 23 3 25 1 5 2 5 3 5 i 6 09 (56)
i41
where
which constitutes another potential workspace boundary. The  1
3 
positions of nodes A0 , B0 , and C0 and the lengths of all com- F11 4 L N 3L N 5
2 2
2 2
5i 5 5152 5 5153 5 5253
2
ponents of the mechanism now being known, the direct static i41
problem’s solution proceeds with the computation of the po-
sitions of nodes A1 , B1 , and C1 . In Section 3.4, this is done 1
3
by computing the intersection of spheres that are associated 3 5 15 252 5i
(60)
to the cable joining nodes A0 and A1 , and to the bars joining i41
node pairs B0 A1 and C0 A1 . If this intersection exists, the po- Knowing from Equation (56) that F10 6 0, it can thus be con-
sition of node A1 is identified which subsequently allows the cluded that the intersection of the spheres is not possible unless
computation of the positions of nodes B1 and C1 . It is thus F11 6 0.
sought to develop an expression needing to be satisfied for an A total of 11 conditions needing to be satisfied by the actu-
intersection of the three spheres to exist. Moreover, this ex- ator positions are thus obtained from the solution to the mech-
pression must be uniquely a function of the actuator positions. anism’s direct static problem. Among these conditions, it is
The method that has been used to model the mechanism makes obvious that F1 , F2 , and F3 must correspond to workspace
the development of the required expression difficult since the boundaries. The task that remains is thus to identify which of
positions of nodes A0 , B0 , and C0 are given as a function of the remaining conditions act as workspace boundaries. This
the 4 i variables who, in turn, are computed for given actuator can be done, for instance, by plotting the surfaces associated
positions by solving the polynomial of Equation (13). The re- to each condition on a graph and observing which are the
sulting expressions of the form 4 i 4 f 75 i 8 are thus relatively most restrictive on the mechanism’s workspace. With this ap-
complex. In order to overcome this difficulty, a new reference proach, it can be seen that the mechanism’s actuator workspace
frame X 06 Y06 Z 06 is defined with its origin located at node A0 , is bounded by the 5 1 4 0, 5 2 4 0, and 5 3 4 0 planes as well
its X 06 -axis directed towards node B0 , and its Z 06 -axis perpen- as the surface given by F11 4 0. An example of this workspace
dicular to the plane formed by nodes A0 , B0 , and C0 (see Fig- is shown in Figure 12.
ure 3(b)). In this frame, the positions of nodes A0 , B0 , and C0 The workspace boundaries described above apply to mech-
are as follows: anisms with any number of modules. However, for cases
3 6 3 6 3 6
0 l01 c0 where N
3 the mechanism cannot physically reach all the
4 7 4 7 4 x7 configurations of its actuator workspace. This result is sim-
4 7 4 7 4 7
10 4 4 7 4 7 4 7
407 9 30 4 4 0 7 9 40 4 4c0 y 7 9 (57) ilar to the one that was found by the current authors (Arse-
5 8 5 8 5 8 nault and Gosselin 2006c) for the planar modular tensegrity
0 0 0 mechanism and the latter is used to illustrate the concept in
 Arsenault and Gosselin / Three-degree-of-freedom Spatial Modular Tensegrity Mechanism
7 2. For each point in the grid, the mechanism’s inverse sta-
Fig. 12. Actuator workspace with L 4 2.
Fig. 13. Types of mechanism configurations (planar ex-
ample): (a) normal operating configuration1 (b) closed-loop
configuration1 (c) unfeasible configuration.
what follows. A typical (or normal) configuration of the pla-
nar mechanism is shown in Figure 13(a). When N
3, there nism’s three-dimensional workspace.
exists a surface inside the workspace for which the mecha-
nism forms a closed loop onto itself where its effector is co-
incident with its base (Figure 13(b)). If the mechanism oper-
ates past this surface, it assumes a configuration of the type
shown in Figure 13(c). Because of obvious mechanical inter-
ference, such configurations are not practically feasible and
are avoided during the mechanism’s operation. In any case,
each position of the effector that is associated to these unfeasi-
ble configurations can also be reached by the mechanism with
a normal (and feasible) configuration. In other words, the un-
feasible configurations belonging to the actuator workspace do
not influence in any way the size and shape of the mechanism’s
Cartesian workspace that is computed in the next section. This
also implies that the inverse static problem of the mechanism at
such positions has two theoretical solutions. However, because
of the hypothesis that was made in Section 4 with regards to
the computation of angle
(more specifically regarding the workspace stems from a different condition. In fact, it can be
963
form of the vector closure polygon illustrated in Figure 11),
only the feasible solution is computed. The computation of the
surface that divides the actuator workspace into its feasible and
unfeasible parts is left as a future exercise.
6. Cartesian Workspace
In what follows, due to the mechanism’s complexity, the repre-
sentation of its Cartesian workspace is done numerically using
the following approach:
1. For a given value of z N , a region of the corresponding
plane is discretized in order to generate a point grid. The
size of the region must be chosen so as to encompass the
mechanism’s workspace in the plane.
tic problem is solved. Using the resulting actuator posi-
tions, the presence of each point inside the mechanism’s
workspace is verified by using the actuator workspace’s
analytical boundaries.
3. From the preceding step, sets of point clouds belong-
ing to the mechanism’s workspace are obtained. These
points are then sent to an algorithm that identifies the
points that are (approximately) located on the mech-
anism’s Cartesian workspace boundary. The algorithm
that is used is an adaptation of the modified gift wrapper
algorithm algorithm (Dibakar and Mruthyunjaya 1999).
4. Approximate representations of the mechanism’s Carte-
sian workspace boundaries in the plane corresponding
to z N are drawn from the points.
5. Steps 1 to 4 are repeated for different values of z N so as
to generate an acceptable representation of the mecha-
Using this method, the Cartesian workspaces of the mecha-
nism for N 4 19 29 3 are illustrated in Figures 14–16. From
these figures, it can be observed that the mechanism displays
an interesting property where the addition of modules expands
its outer workspace boundary without significantly modifying
its inner boundary. In this way, the mechanism can theoreti-
cally reach infinite-sized spaces while still being able to oper-
ate in configurations near to its base.
In many cases, the boundaries of a mechanism’s Cartesian
workspace correspond to mappings of its actuator workspace
boundaries. When the 5 i 4 0 planes are mapped to Carte-
sian space, a set of surfaces are generated that correspond to
the inner boundaries of the Cartesian workspace. However, the
mapping of F11 4 0 to Cartesian space leads to the X 0 Y0 -
plane. This means that the outer boundary of the Cartesian
964 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ROBOTICS RESEARCH / August 2008

When 5 i 4 N L for i 4 19 29 3, each module’s compo-

nents are collinear (i.e. nodes Ai , Bi , and Ci are coincident
for i 4 09 19


9 N ) and the mechanism behaves as an as-
sembly in series of N links of length L joined together by
passive spherical joints. In such a case, the mechanism gains
3N DoF and becomes uncontrollable. When 5 i  N L, the
mechanism can still be modelled as a series assembly of N
links (although the components of each module are not ex-
actly collinear). However, the orientation between two consec-
utive links must now be given by the rotation matrix Q. By
varying angles and  that appear in Q, a parametric surface
corresponding to the outer workspace boundary is obtained as
follows:
7   
Fig. 14. Cartesian workspace for N 4 1 and L 4 2. 1
N
1
xN 4 5L cos  sin i 5 9
i41
2

1
N   
1
yN 4 5L sin  sin i 5 9
i41
2

1
N   
1
zN 4 L cos i 5 9 (61)
i41
2

where 0   2 when N 4 1 and 0   22 3N oth-

7 fectly collinear, the mechanism’s Cartesian workspace can be
Fig. 15. Cartesian workspace for N 4 2 and L 4
erwise, and where 52    2. The mechanism’s Carte-
sian workspace corresponds to the intersection of the volumes
that are located above the surfaces that are associated to the
5 i 4 0 planes and inside the parametric outer surface defined
above. As the outer boundary cannot be reached by the mech-
anism, since when 5 i  N L the components are not per-
2.
regarded as an open set in Cartesian space. Finally, it can be
noted that the outer boundary of the mechanism is directly re-
lated to an equivalent boundary of the planar modular mecha-
nism’s workspace (Arsenault and Gos-selin 2006c).

7. Conclusion

In this work, a new modular spatial tensegrity mechanism was

7 ing on the actuation scheme that is used, it has the potential
Fig. 16. Cartesian workspace for N 4 3 and L 4 2.
shown numerically that the outer workspace boundary corre-
sponds to the special case where 5 i  N L for i 4 19 29 3.
developed and analyzed. The mechanism, built using a series
assembly of modules that are based on the use of Snelson’s
X-shape tensegrity system, has three degrees of freedom al-
lowing it to position its effector in space. Because of its exten-
sive use of springs and cables, the mechanism benefits from
a reduced inertia of its moving parts. Furthermore, depend-
of being deployable. A mobility analysis of the mechanism
showed that it has three unconstrained degrees of freedom re-
gardless of its number of modules. For given cable lengths, the
mechanism will thus deform so as to remain in a tensegrity
configuration where it is in a self-stressed equilibrium. The
 Arsenault and Gosselin / Three-degree-of-freedom Spatial Modular Tensegrity Mechanism
computation of this equilibrium for given cable lengths, re-
ferred to as the mechanism’s direct static problem, was solved
for the special case where external and gravitational forces are
not considered. The inverse static problem, corresponding to
the computation of the cable lengths required to position the
effector at a given location, was also solved. In both cases,
the solutions were developed by observing that the equilibrium
configurations of the construction elements used in the mech-
anism are not influenced by the latter’s assembly. Based on
the solution of the direct static problem, the mechanism’s ac-
tuator workspace boundaries were identified. It was thus seen
that mechanisms with three or more modules cannot operate
in their entire actuator workspaces because of mechanical in-
terferences. By numerically mapping the actuator workspace
to Cartesian space and then using a modified version of the
gift wrapper algorithm, the Cartesian workspace boundaries
were approximated. The size of the Cartesian workspace is de-
pendent on the number of modules in the mechanism. In fact,
the addition of modules tends to expand the workspace’s outer
boundary while having little effect on its inner boundary. The
computation of the mechanism’s workspace in this work as-
sumed that the actuation scheme that is used allows the cable
lengths to vary from a quasi-zero value up to the length of
the bars. If this is not the case the size of the workspace will
be reduced. The neglect of external and gravitational forces
in this work can be justified for certain types of applications
depending on the selection of the mechanism’s parameters. In
particular, the use of static balancing techniques compensates
for the gravitational forces. However, in other cases, the forces
can have a significant impact on the mechanism’s behavior
because of the latter’s unconstrained degrees of freedom. Al-
though results are not given here, the effects of these forces on
the mechanism were analyzed by Arsenault (2006) who also
evaluated the mechanism’s dynamic performance.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank the Natural Sciences and Engineer-
ing Research Council of Canada (NSERC) for its financial
support as well as the Fonds Québécois de la Recherche sur
la Nature et les Technologies (FQRNT) and the Canada Re-
search Chair Program (CRC).
References
Arsenault, M. (2006). Développement et analyse de mé-
canismes de tenségrité. Ph.D Thesis, Department of Me-
chanical Engineering, Université Laval, Québec, Québec,
Canada.
Arsenault, M. and Gosselin, C. M. (2005). Kinematic, static
and dynamic analysis of a planar 1-DoF tensegrity mecha-
nism. ASME Journal of Mechanical Design, 127(6): 1152–
1160.
965
Arsenault, M. and Gosselin, C. M. (2006). Kinematic, sta-
tic and dynamic analysis of a planar 2-DoF tensegrity
mechanism. Mechanism and Machine Theory, 41(9): 1072–
1089.
Arsenault, M. and Gosselin, C. M. (2006). Kinematic, static
and dynamic analysis of a spatial three-degree-of-freedom
tensegrity mechanism. ASME Journal of Mechanical De-
sign, 128(5): 1061–1069.
Arsenault, M. and Gosselin, C. M. (2006). Kinematic and sta-
tic analysis of a planar modular 2-DoF tensegrity mecha-
nism. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on
Robotics and Automation, Orlando, FL, 15–19 May.
Arsenault, M. and Gosselin, C. M. (2007). Static balancing of
tensegrity mechanisms. ASME Journal of Mechanical De-
sign, 129(3): 295–300.
Baker, A. and Crane, C. D. III. (2006). Analysis of three de-
gree of freedom 6x6 tensegrity platform. Proceedings of the
ASME International Design Engineering Technical Confer-
ences and Computers and Information in Engineering Con-
ference (ASME IDETC/CIE), Philadelphia, PA, 10–13 Sep-
tember.
Bonev, I. (2002). Geometric analysis of parallel mechanisms.
Ph.D Thesis, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Uni-
versité Laval, Québec, Québec, Canada.
Chandana, P., Valero-Cuevas, F. J. and Lipson, H. (2006). De-
sign and control of tensegrity robots for locomotion. IEEE
Transactions on Robotics, 22(5): 944–957.
Dibakar, S. and Mruthyunjaya, T. S. (1999). A computa-
tional geometry approach for determination of boundary of
workspaces of planar manipulators with arbitrary topology.
Mechanism and Machine Theory, 34(1): 149–169.
Fuller, B. (1962). Tensile-integrity structures. United States
Patent No. 3,063,521, 13 November.
Furuya, H. (1992). Concept of deployable tensegrity structures
in space applications. International Journal of Space Struc-
tures, 7(2): 143–152.
Hamlin, G. J. and Sanderson, A. C. (1994). A novel concen-
tric multilink spherical joint with parallel robotics applica-
tions. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference
on Robotics and Automation, San Diego, CA, 8–13 May,
pp. 1267–1272.
Herder, J. L. (2001). Energy-free systems: theory, conception
and design of statically balanced spring mechanisms. Ph.D
Thesis, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Nether-
lands.
Kapur, D. and Lakshman, Y. N. (1992). Elimination methods:
an introduction. Symbolic and Numerical Computation for
Artificial Intelligence. New York, Academic Press, ch. 2.
Manocha, D. (1994). Solving systems of polynomial equa-
tions. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 14(2):
46–55.
Manocha, D. and Canny, J. F. (1994). Efficient inverse kine-
matics for general 6R manipulators. IEEE Transactions on
Robotics and Automation, 10(5): 648–657.
966 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ROBOTICS RESEARCH / August 2008
Marshall, M. and Crane, C. D. III. (2004). Design and analy-
sis of a hybrid parallel platform that incorporates tensegrity.
Proceedings of the ASME 2004 Design Engineering Tech-
nical Conferences and Computers and Information in En-
gineering Conference, Salt Lake City, UT, 28 September–
2 October.
Moored, K. W. and Bart-Smith, H. (2007). The analysis
of tensegrity structures for the design of a morphing
wing. ASME Journal of Applied Mechanics, 74(4): 668–
676.
Motro, R. (1992). Tensegrity systems: the state of the art. In-
ternational Journal of Space Structures, 7(2): 75–83.
Oppenheim, I. J. and Williams, W. O. (1997). Tensegrity
prisms as adaptive structures. ASME Adaptive Structures
and Material Systems, 54: 113–120.
Phillips, J. (1984). Freedom in machinery: Volume 1, Intro-
ducing Screw Theory. Cambridge University Press, Cam-
bridge, United Kingdom.
Snelson, K. (1965). Continuous tension, discontinuous com-
pression structures. United States Patent No. 3,169,611, 16
February.
Streit, D. A. and Gilmore, B. J. (1989). Perfect spring equili-
brators for rotatable bodies. Journal of Mechanisms, Trans-
missions, and Automation in Design, 111(4): 451–458.
Sultan, C. and Corless, M. (2000). Tensegrity flight simulator.
Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 23(6): 1055–
1064.
Sultan, C., Corless, M. and Skelton, R. E. (1999). Peak to peak
control of an adaptive tensegrity space telescope. Proceed-
ings of the International Society for Optical Engineering,
Vol. 3667, pp. 190–201.
Sultan, C. and Skelton, R. E. (2004). A force and torque
tensegrity sensor. Sensors and Actuators, A: Physical,
112(2–3): 220–231.
Tibert, G. (2002). Deployable tensegrity structures for space
applications. Ph.D Thesis, Department of Mechanics,
Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden.