Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T08:24:01.748Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Kinetostatic analysis and solution classification of a class of planar tensegrity mechanisms

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 August 2018

P. Wenger  and
D. Chablat
P. Wenger*
Affiliation:
Laboratoire des Sciences du Numérique de Nantes, UMR CNRS 6004, Nantes 44321, France. E-mail: [email protected]
D. Chablat
Affiliation:
Laboratoire des Sciences du Numérique de Nantes, UMR CNRS 6004, Nantes 44321, France. E-mail: [email protected]
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Tensegrity mechanisms are composed of rigid and tensile parts that are in equilibrium. They are interesting alternative designs for some applications, such as modeling musculo-skeleton systems. Tensegrity mechanisms are more difficult to analyze than classical mechanisms as the static equilibrium conditions that must be satisfied generally result in complex equations. A class of planar one-degree-of-freedom tensegrity mechanisms with three linear springs is analyzed in detail for the sake of systematic solution classifications. The kinetostatic equations are derived and solved under several loading and geometric conditions. It is shown that these mechanisms exhibit up to six equilibrium configurations, of which one or two are stable, depending on the geometric and loading conditions. Discriminant varieties and cylindrical algebraic decomposition combined with Groebner base elimination are used to classify solutions as a function of the geometric, loading, and actuator input parameters.

Keywords

Tensegrity mechanismKinetostatic modelGeometric designAlgebraic computation
Type
Articles
Information
Robotica , Volume 37 , Special Issue 7: Computational Kinematics Conference, CK 2017 , July 2019 , pp. 1214 - 1224
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Fuller, R. B., “Tensile-integrity structures,” United States Patent 3063521 (1962).Google Scholar
Skelton, R. and de Oliveira, M., Tensegrity Systems (Springer-Verlag, USA, 2009).Google Scholar
Motro, R., “Tensegrity systems: The state of the art,” Int. J. Space Struct. 7 (2), 75–83 (1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lessard, S., Castro, D., Asper, W., Chopra, S. D., Baltaxe-Admony, L. B., Teodorescu, M., SunSpiral, V. and Agogino, A., “A Bio-Inspired Tensegrity Manipulator with Multi-DOF, Structurally Compliant Joints,” Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), Daejeon (2016) pp. 5515–5520. doi: 10.1109/IROS.2016.7759811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vogel, S., Cats Paws and Catapults: Mechanical Worlds of Nature and People (W.W. Norton and Company, New York, 2000).Google Scholar
Levin, S., “The tensegrity-truss as a model for spinal mechanics: biotensegrity,” J. Mech. Med. Biol. 2 (3), 375–388 (2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sabelhaus, A. P., Ji, H., Hylton, P., Madaan, Y., Yang, C. W., Agogino, A. M., Friesen, J. and SunSpiral, V., “Mechanism Design and Simulation of the ULTRA Spine: A Tensegrity Robot,” Proceedings of the ASME 2015 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences & Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, Boston, MA, USA (2015).Google Scholar
Aldrich, J. B. and Skelton, R. E., “Time-Energy Optimal Control of Hyper-Actuated Mechanical Systems with Geometric Path Constraints,” Proceedings of the 44th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (2005) pp. 8246–8253.Google Scholar
Arsenault, M. and Gosselin, C. M., “Kinematic, static and dynamic analysis of a planar 2-dof tensegrity mechanism,” Mech. Mach. Theory 41 (9), 1072–1089 (2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crane, C., Bayat, J., Vikas, V. and Roberts, R., “Kinematic Analysis of a Planar Tensegrity Mechanism with Pres-Stressed Springs,” In: Advances in Robot Kinematics: Analysis and design (Lenarcic, J. and Wenger, P., eds.) (Springer, Dordrecht, 2008) pp. 419–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boehler, Q., Charpentier, I., Vedrines, M. S. and Renaud, P.., “Definition and computation of tensegrity mechanism workspace,” ASME J. Mech. Robot. 7 (4), 044502-044502-4 (2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wenger, P. and Chablat, D., “Kinetostatic Analysis and Solution Classification of a Planar Tensegrity Mechanism,” Proceedings of the Computational Kinematics, Poitiers, France (2017).Google Scholar
Arsenault, M., Développement et Analyse de Mécanismes de Tenségrité, Ph.D. Thesis (Québec, Canada: Université Laval, 2006).Google Scholar
Lazard, D. and Rouillier, F., “Solving parametric polynomial systems,” J. Symb. Comput. 42 (6), 636–667 (2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, G. E., Quantifier Elimination for Real Closed Fields by Cylindrical Algebraic Decomposition (Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, 1975).Google Scholar
Corvez, S. and Rouillier, F., “Using Computer Algebra Tools to Classify Serial Manipulators,” In: Automated Deduction in Geometry, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 2930, (Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, 2002) pp. 31–43.Google Scholar
Manubens, M., Moroz, G., Chablat, D., Wenger, P. and Rouillier, F., “Cusp points in the parameter space of degenerate 3-RPR planar parallel manipulators,” ASME J. Mech. Robot. 4 (4), 041003-041003-8 (2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hines, R., Marsh, D. and Duffy, J., “Catastrophe analysis of the planar two-spring mechanism,” Int. J. Robot. Res. 17 (1), pp. 89–101 (1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bakker, D. L., Matsuura, D., Takeda, Y. and Herder, J., “Design of an Environmentally Interactive Continuum Manipulator,” Proceedings of the 14th World Congress in Mechanism and Machine Science, IFToMM2015, Taipei, Taiwan (2015).Google Scholar