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

net/publication/267486300

Design of an Adjustable Compensation Mechanism for Use in a Passive Arm

Support

Conference Paper · January 2005

DOI: 10.1115/DETC2005-85442

CITATIONS READS
7 734

2 authors, including:

Just L Herder
Delft University of Technology
268 PUBLICATIONS   2,618 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Parallel Manipulators View project

Stable and Adjustable Mechanisms for Optical Instruments and Implants (SAMOII) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Just L Herder on 03 December 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Proceedings of DETC 2005
ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences
and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference
September 24-28, 2005, Long Beach, California

DETC2005-85442

DESIGN OF AN ADJUSTABLE COMPENSATION MECHANISM FOR USE IN A

PASSIVE ARM SUPPORT

Pieter Lucieer, Just L. Herder

Delft University of Technology, Faculty of Mechanical, Maritime, and Materials Engineering

Department of BioMechanical Engineering; Mekelweg 2, 2628 CD Delft, The Netherlands
V: +31-15-2784713, F: +31-15-2784717, E: j.l.herder@wbmt.tudelft.nl

ABSTRACT
People with (neuro-)muscular diseases have problems lifting
their arms against gravity because of degeneration of their
muscles. Many of them are in need of a device that supports the
weight of their arms, so as to regain some independence.
Existing solutions do not meet all of the requirements. This
paper presents the design of a new type of spring-compensation
mechanism which is adjustable to varying load. The most
important part of this design is a wrapping cam with variable
transmission to compensate for errors, which rolls on a support
plane to minimize friction.
INTRODUCTION
People suffering from (neuro-)muscular diseases like Spinal
Muscular Atrophy (SMA), Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy
(DMD) and Limb Girdle, have problems lifting the arms
against gravity. Consequently, they are not able to perform
various Activities of Daily Living (ADL) independently.
Nevertheless, many still have enough strength and feeling in
their hands to be able to use them in a useful way. Therefore,
some of those patients desire a device that enables them to
make use of their hands in a larger range of motion than they
can reach themselves.
Known assistive devices available can be subdivided in
three major groups [10]. Firstly, a number of rehabilitation
robotic manipulators have been developed. Two of them have
been successfully commercialized [1]: the MANUS and the
Handy 1. A second group are powered orthoses, for example
the MULOS [2]. The work presented in [3] on the Upper Limb
Motion Assist System with Parallel Mechanism should also be
included in the powered orthoses group. A third group is
formed by non-powered orthoses, typically based on static
balancing using springs. Reference [4] and [5] are two of the
earliest. Current efforts include [6]. The Radial Arm Orthosis
[7] and the TOP [8], are two examples of commercially
available non-powered orthoses.
Robotic manipulators and powered orthoses are intended
for the weakest patients, who in some cases have virtually no
muscle force. Passive (non-powered) orthoses require muscle
effort for accelerating and decelerating, and to overcome
friction and balancing errors. Moreover, objects or clothing are
not accounted for during the initial adjustment of the spring
mechanism and therefore need to be carried by muscle force. In
particular the latter effort can be substantial, and disqualifies
non-powered orthoses for many patients.
To make non-powered orthoses available to a wider group
of patients, this paper proposes a design of an adjustable
gravity balancing mechanism with low friction in order to
reduce the operating effort associated with non-powered
orthoses. The conceptual and dimensional design will be
presented. Additionally, preliminary patient evaluations will be
discussed.
FIRST PROTOTYPE
From a clinically driven approach it was found [10] that key
factors for a useful orthosis are an inconspicuous appearance,
good comfort of wearing under different circumstances
(clothing), easy operation (low mental effort). Also it was
found that the fixed arm rest may not be sacrificed for it is
essential for trunk balance. Finally, in principle, a non-powered
device was preferred because this concept inherently uses the
natural control still present, and because low energy
consumption is a vital issue, especially for those persons using
respiration augmentation. It was concluded that the technology
of static balancing would be useful.
Initially, it was assumed that a previously developed
mechanism could be used for the purpose of balancing the
patient's arm. This mechanism, called Anthropomobile Robot

1 Copyright © 2005 by ASME

 r1
L

m
L

r2

k1 a
k2

Figure 1. User (SMA patient) demonstrating her increased range of

motion with the device (first prototype).

(a) (b)
Arm, is a two-link open chain with four degrees of freedom, Figure 2. Parallelogram linkage and balancer design used for the
statically balanced by two zero-free-length springs [9], which second prototype: (a) diagram showing parameters, (b) diagram
could in principle be placed alongside the patient's arm, with showing use as arm support.
connections to both upper arm and forearm. However, a
satisfactory conceptual design was not found.
A review of the force analysis led to another solution
of the fitting with respect to comfort and easy donning and
principle [10]. In this solution, a paradigm shift was made by
doffing, general improvement of appearance. These aspects
realizing that the patient's shoulder joint is very well capable of
will be briefly illustrated in this section. Subsequently, this
carrying a part of the arm mass. It was found that the patient's
paper will be constrained to the design of the adjustable gravity
arm can be perfectly statically balanced while in fact only
balancer.
around 75% of the patient’s arm mass is supported by the
The linkage was changed by selecting in fact the other
orthosis. Moreover, only a single point needs to be supported,
branch of the inverse kinematic solution (Fig. 2 [14]). For this
as opposed to the previous concepts, where two interfaces are
linkage, the workspace was optimized, aiming at a compact
required and the mechanism needs to be arranged alongside the
mechanism fixed at a convenient location. The resulting link
arm.
lengths are 280 mm for the base link and 320 mm for the end
A first prototype (Fig. 1) was developed based on this
link. An offset is incorporated in the end link to avoid
principle [10]. Kinematically, the mechanism is a hybrid
interference with the user’s elbow.
version of a serial (open-loop kinematic chain) and a parallel
A comfortable fitting was achieved by a design that
(closed kinematic chain) mechanism, combining their
requires only pure normal forces (no shear) on the interface,
advantages of a large range of motion and all springs connected
and has sufficient free skin for good perspiration. It can be put
to the base ([11], [12], [13]).
on and off by the users themselves.
Home visits were performed with three users. All of them
The appearance design was suited to a young user group
were capable of lifting their arm against gravity (Fig. 1), and
while still being inconspicuous and compact.
found the concept promising, in particular the esthetics, the
single point support and the fact that the fixed arm rest does not
ADJUSTABLE BALANCER DESIGN
need to be removed. In spite of this result, some improvements
were found necessary. Firstly, the end link of the mechanism
Conceptual design
interferes with the fixed arm rest. Secondly, slight unbalance
Results of a series of tests with potential users showed that the
was present in the fitting design. Thirdly, in weak patients, the
compensation mechanism should meet the following
combination of the balancing error and friction proved to be
too great, even though ball bearings were used throughout the requirements:
mechanism. The maximum balancing error (5% relative to 2.3 • Several users indicated that they wanted to be able to
kg user’s arm weight) occurred when reaching far forward. ‘switch the device off’, whereas the heaviest user arms
weigh approximately 3 kg, excluding clothing and picked-
SECOND PROTOTYPE: ARMON up objects. Therefore it was decided to aim at an
To reduce the problems present in the first prototype, a second adjustability from 0 to 3.5 kg.
design iteration was decided upon. Four areas of improvement • Available space for the total mechanism is about
were identified: optimization of linkage design to eliminate 150x190x55 mm, determined by the available space on the
interference and to minimize the link lengths, optimization of wheelchair below the fixed arm rest (or table) and the
balancing quality and adjustment of the balancer, improvement

2 Copyright © 2005 by ASME

 wheels.
• Linkage according to previous section, where the range of
motion of the links is determined at roughly -45 to 180
degrees.
The linkage can be balanced by springs that are all located
around the base joint of the mechanism (Fig. 2). Neglecting
link mass and assuming zero-free-length springs, the balancing
conditions for the linkage are [9]:
mgL1 = k1 a1 r1
(1)
mgL2 = k 2 a 2 r2
where a is fixed spring attachment point on the vertical, r is the
spring attachment point on the links, k is the spring stiffness, L (a) (b)
is the link length, m is the mass to be carried, and g is the
acceleration of gravity. Figure 3. Emulation of zero-free-length springs: (a) pulley and string
arrangement, (b) inverted compression spring arrangement.
It can be observed that various options for adjustment of
the balancer to the end mass are present: variation of a,
variation of r, variation of k, and variation of L. From these
options, the first one seems most practical, since the link length Three concepts
is determined by the desired range of motion, variation of r A first concept makes use of zero-free-length springs. A
implies adjustment mechanisms on the moving links, and problem with this type of compensation mechanism is that ideal
adjustment of the spring stiffness requires a fairly bulky springs are not readily available. A second disadvantage of
construction [13]. ideal springs is that the maximum length of the spring can only
It was decided to incorporate an electric motor to adjust the be up to twice the minimum length, which results in:
balancer. This motor is controlled by three switches on the
wheelchair control unit. Pressing a first switch will increase the a max + r = 2(a min − r ) (4)
support force by a certain amount, whereas a second switch is
This limits the adjustment to:
used to decrease the support force. A third switch can be used
to return to the nominal adjustment. a max
Another major advantage of placing the adjustment << 2 (5)
mechanism in the basis is that a single adjustment mechanism
a min
suffices, which holds as long as Eqs. 1 and the following It can be shown [15] that this solution provides an
condition are met: insufficiently large range of adjustment because the increased
r1 r initial tension springs have limited deflection.
= 2 (2) A second concept makes use of a pulley and string
L1 L2 arrangement, as shown in Fig 3a. By storing the initial length
of the spring behind the pulley, the characteristics of zero-free-
Possible inequality of weight of the links can be compensated
length springs can be emulated. The range of adjustment of this
by a single additional spring k3, which must satisfy the
solution is larger than when using zero-free-length springs, but
following condition:
still limited: if distance a equals length r, the range of motion is
limited, because parts collide. To retain the range of motion, a
(12 L1 − L2 )m L + (L2 − r1 )m L
1 2
− L2 mr1 should be larger than r under all circumstances. This means the
k 3 a 3 r3 range of adjustment is limited by available space. Besides
+ ( 12 r2 − r1 )m r2 = (3) having a larger range of adjustment this system is favorable
g over the first solution, because it does not rely on zero-free-
The zero-free-length condition for the springs implies that length springs. Disadvantages are that an error is introduced by
the force they produce is proportional to their length (rather the radius of the pulley, and that extra friction is introduced.
than their elongation). This can be achieved in various ways, Moreover, there is a risk of interference of the links with the
including increased initial tension, pulley and string pulleys.
arrangements, and special constructions [13]. This yields three A third possibility lies in the use of special constructions,
distinct concepts that are discussed below. e.g. compression springs instead of tension springs. Figure 3b
shows such a system. An advantage of this system is the
absence of spring loops, which decreases the length.

3 Copyright © 2005 by ASME

Disadvantages are the complexity of the system, and friction
due to the linear guide against buckling. The spring also needs
space to swing around.

Selection
Taking the above three concepts into consideration, it is clear
that the required range of adjustment can not be met. If the
links need to swing through the line between the pivot and
point a, then a should be larger than r at all times. The
mechanism using ideal springs is extremely limited in range of
adjustment.
A second problem is that none of the three systems fits
within the available space [15]. The length of the springs
appears to vary according to:
Figure 4. Principle of proposed gravity compensation mechanism: the
L0 + (a min − r ) < Ls < L0 + (a max + r ) (6) spring is connected by a string to a wrapping (non-circular) cam,
which rolls over a support plane. Another wrapping cam (larger
To limit forces on the links, length r can not be chosen too circular disk) is used to connect a string to the linkage to be balanced.
small. If an adjustment range of 1.75-3.5 kg should be met,
then a must vary from amin to amax=2amin. It should also be taken
into account that to enable large extension, springs have a large
diameter. All together the springs require at least 300 mm of [17] and Kobayashi [18] did research on a different class of
length [15]. compensation mechanisms, consisting of two pulleys with
different (varying) radii, used to convert the linear potential
Fourth concept energy function of a mass to the quadratic potential energy
The major problem with the above concepts is the lack of space function of a spring:
required to fit the mechanism. None of the three concepts could
be fitted inside the available space. A large part of the length mgh(β ) + C
f (β ) = (9)
available was needed for extension of the springs. By using a
k (s (β ))
1 2
pulley with transmission the total required length can be 2

reduced. Through replacing the pulley of the second concept by
one with a transmission, the space requirements can be met.
However by solving this problem, other problems arise. The
pulley-arrangement consists of a large pulley leading to the
linkage, and a smaller pulley leading to the springs. To
establish the desired transmission, the larger pulley becomes so
large that the error introduced can no longer be neglected. A
second problem is that, because of the transmission, the forces
on the pulley are increased, which introduces additional
friction. The following conditions should be met:
mgLf 2 = kar (7)
⎛a +r⎞
Fmax = k ⎜⎜ max ⎟⎟ (8)
⎝ f ⎠ amount of energy in the system constant:
It is proposed to combine these elements to obtain a
compact spring compensation mechanism, with low friction,
and small compensation error. The system will be named after
the error-compensating rolling pulleys. It is shown in Fig. 4.
The Siemens design compensates for a single analytically
determinable function. However, this design has to deal with a
number of different errors, that all should be compensated for
in the radius of the smaller pulley. A method for solving this
problem must therefore be developed.
ENERGY METHOD
The design of the rolling pulleys is to be optimized to minimize
operating forces. The potential energy released by moving
down a mass is to be stored in springs, thus keeping the total

where f is defined as the ratio between the larger pulley and the
smaller pulley (f >1). The spring stiffness increases by a factor
of f 2, the maximum force on the pulley increases by a factor
of f. By using rolling link mechanisms instead of ball bearings
the total friction can be decreased by factor of 2 [16]. A
problem using a rolling pulley is the travel of the pulley, which
adds an extra error to the compensation.
A solution for decreasing the compensation error can
possibly be found in use of a variable transmission. Siemens
mgL sin α + 12 ks 2 = C (10)
If a good estimate can be made for the constant C, which
depends on the mass to be balanced (and therefore on the
adjustment), the energy needed to be stored in the springs can
be determined. Knowing the potential spring energy, and given
a certain spring stiffness, the extension of the springs can be
calculated.

4 Copyright © 2005 by ASME

 Essentially almost every value of C will meet the equation,
as long as it is independent of the configuration of the linkage.
A small constant, giving a minimum of potential energy in the
springs, has as profit a minimal load on the system. Taking a
large constant has as advantage that the pulley radius stays
more constant. For the best decision, the constant is derived
from the case using zero-free-length springs. Considering this,
spring stiffness as well as extension is determined for the
situation where the link is in horizontal position, so Vm = 0 and:

C = V s = 12 ks 2 =
mgL 2
2ar
(
a + r2 )2
(11)

DIMENSIONAL DESIGN
Between the configuration of the linkage and the corresponding
spring extension, the geometry of the whole system is involved.
It seems to be sensible to split the system into two parts: a first
part consisting of the linkage up to the larger circular cam, and
a second part consisting of the smaller non-circular cam and the Figure 5. Kinematics of the first part of the mechanism: the linkage
springs. This is even more so because the dimensions of the and the larger circular rolling cam. The smaller non-circular cam is
linkage are largely predetermined by range of motion drawn with dotted lines.
requirements. The second part, in particular the non-circular
cam, can now be adjusted to meet the criterion of potential
spring energy. Because this part of the system includes a
compliant element, the springs, no requirements are made on Values for all parameters can be found in Table 1. The fixed
the kinematics, and it can be fully determined by energy. parameters are selected with respect to the rest of the design.
Subscript i indicates that the value changes with the
Kinematics of first part: linkage and circular cam configuration of the mechanism, subscript j indicates a setting
The linkage kinematics can be described by a vector loop of the adjustment, subscript 0 indicates a starting value for
closure according to: calculation, the real value for this parameter is obtained by
solving the set of equations.
∑
n
r
i =1 i
=0 (12)
Table 1: Lengths and angles of vectors
Figure 5 provides a schematic representation of the first part of Variable Length Variable Angle [rad]
the mechanism. The geometry of this system can be described [mm]
by four equations. First the vector loop can be split up in r1 28.75 φ1i (position) 5/4 π…22/9 π
Cartesian coordinates, giving the first two equations: r2 1.25 φ2i φ1i-π/2
r3 = r2 φ3i φ4i+π/2
r1 cos ϕ1i + r2 sin ϕ1i + r4i cos ϕ 4i r40 37 φ40 3π/2
+ r5 sin ϕ4i − r2 sin ϕ 4i + r7 i sin ϕ8 j (13) r5 25 φ5i φ4i-π /2
r6 3 φ6i φ8j
+ ( r6 + r8 j ) cos ϕ8 j + r9 cos ϕ9 = 0 r70 54.98 φ7i φ8j-π /2
r8 106.99 Φ8j (adjustment) 0.1845…0.5
r9 136.64 φ9 2.3412
r1 sin ϕ1i − r2 cos ϕ1i + r4i sin ϕ4i β0 0
− r5 cos ϕ4i + r2 cos ϕ 4i − r7 i cos ϕ8 j (14)
The third and fourth equations represent the rolling conditions.
+ ( r6 + r8 j ) sin ϕ8 j + r9 sin ϕ9 = 0 The cable wraps around the pulley with radius r5, and around
the rounded edge of the link with radius r2. Angle β represents
where ri represents the length of a vector, whereas φi represents the angular position of the cam:
the angle between the horizontal and the vector, measured
⎛ 3π ⎞
counterclockwise. Because of orthogonality φ2i = (φ1i-π/2), φ3i r4i = r40 − r2 (ϕ1i − ϕ 4i ) + r5 ⎜ β i + β 0 + − ϕ 4i ⎟ (15)
= (φ4i+π /2) φ5i = (φ4i-π /2), φ6i = φ8i and φ7i = (φ8i-π /2). ⎝ 2 ⎠

5 Copyright © 2005 by ASME

 Angle of pulley vs. position mechanism The pulley moves down while rolling equal to the radius of the
axle times the angular displacement:

250 r7 i = r6 (β i + β 0 ) − r70 (16)

200 Essential for solving this set of equations is that all equations
150
are solved simultaneously. The Matlab function FSOLVE was
used to do this. Figure 6 shows the outcome: a relation between
β

100 angles φ1i, the position of the link-mechanism, φ8j, the position
50
of the adjustment mechanism, and β, the position of the cam.

0
Kinematics of the second part: the non-circular cam
18
15 The geometry of the second part of the mechanism is shown in
180
12
9
135 figure 7 and described by the following equations:
90
6 45
3 2
Ls = u 2 + v 2 − rv
0
φ8
0 -45 (17)
φ1

⎛ u ⎞ ⎛ rv ⎞
Figure 6. Cam position as a function of the linkage configuration and χ = arcsin⎜ ⎟ + arcsin⎜ ⎟ (18)
the compensation setting. ⎜ 2 2 ⎟ ⎜ 2 2 ⎟
⎝ u +v ⎠ ⎝ u +v ⎠
where χ is defined as the angle between rv and the vertical, u is
defined as the horizontal distance from axis to spring
attachment point, and v is the vertical distance. As the rolling
cam travels while rotating, the angle in which the springs arrive
at the pulley varies a little. For every position of the pulley this
should be compensated by subtracting angle χ from angle β.

Optimization of cams
Combining equations 10 and 11 gives the desired potential
spring energy in every position of the mechanism:

Figure 7. Kinematics of second part of the mechanism: non-circular

rolling cam and spring. V s = 12 ks 2 =
(a 2
+ r2 )
2

(19)
2ar sin α
desired spring extension The mass to be compensated is proportional with the distance
40
a, the position of the mechanism is represented by α. Using the
35 following equation, the desired potential spring energy can be
converted to desired spring extension:
30

25
s=
2V s
=
(a 2
+ r2 )
2

(20)
k kar sin α
s desired

20

Since the relation between pulley position and the positions of

15
the mechanism is known, and the desired extension for each
10
position of the mechanism is known, a plot can be made of the
position of the cam versus the desired spring extension. The
5 result is shown in Fig. 8 in blue. Logically it is not a smooth
curve, but a scatter plot, as for different positions of the
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 mechanism the position of the pulley is the same. The deviation
β is a measurement for the perfection of the mechanism: error
due to this deviation can not be eliminated, but al kinds of
Figure 8. Desired spring extension and fitted line.
irregularities in the curve can, as long as the curve is smooth
and concave. Using the Matlab program CFTOOL a curve is

6 Copyright © 2005 by ASME

 so ρ=p2 en s0=p1. For second and higher order extension curves
it is much more difficult to find the corresponding cam shape.
In these cases it can not be found analytically.
Figure 9 represents a slice of the cam. Approximately the
line of length ds can be considered straight, as long as dβ is
taken sufficiently small. When the radius of the pulley, ρ(β), is
known, and the desired extension at interval (β,β+dβ) is
known, solving next two equations simultaneously gives the
radius ρ(β+dβ).
ρ (β ) = ρ (β + dβ ) cos dβ + ds cos γ (23)

Figure 9. Arc-length method. ρ (β + dβ ) sin dβ − ds sin γ = 0 (24)

pulley radius 1st(red), 2nd(green), 3rd(blue) order polynomial [mm] Only obstacle is that – except for the case that ρ(β)= ρ(β+dβ) –
90
8 two solutions exist. One solution gives an ascending radius, the
120 60
other one a descending radius. The second derivative of the
6
extension curve gives an indication which solution is right: if
150 4 30 the extension curve is positively rising, there is need for room
on the cam. If it is negatively rising, the radius must decrease.
2 Although not impossible, calculating the desired cam shape
takes a lot of calculating effort, as well as a very accurate
180 0 estimate of the starting radius. It takes considerably less time to
find a more or less accurate solution using an approximation. If
increase or decrease of the cam radius is limited, the derivative
of the extension curve gives a fairly good idea of the shape.
210 330
The explanation for this lies in the following: approximately
the sine of a small angle equals the angle in radians. Also, the
240 300 sine of an angle of approximately 90 degrees equals 1.
270 Combining this with the law of sines gives:
Figure 10. Resulting cam shapes due to 1 (red), 2nd (green) and 3rd
st

(blue) order approximation. ds ds ρ (β + dβ )

s ′(β ) = ≈ = ≈ ρ (β + dβ ) (25)
dβ sin dβ sin γ
For a circular cam, this approximation equals the exact
fitted through the blue points. Figure 8 shows a cubic solution. For a second or third order pulley the cumulative error
polynomial fit, described by: is 1.7 and 3.47 percent, respectively. This can be calculated by
recalculating the arc-length with known radii according to:
Ps 3 (β ) = p 4 β 3 + p3 β 2 + p 2 β + p1 (21)
(ρ (β + dβ ) sin(dβ ) )2
Table 2 shows values for the best fits of 1st, 2nd and 3rd order ds true (β ) = (26)
+ (ρ (β ) − ρ (β + dβ ) cos(dβ ))
2
polynomials.

Table 2: parameters fits The resulting cam shapes are plotted in Fig. 10.
p1 p2 p3 p4
1st order 10.1 5.925 0 0 RESULTS
2nd order 9.921 6.184 -0.0639 0
3rd order 9.667 6.903 -0.5025 0.07134 Theory
The result for the third order cam is plotted in Fig. 11. The
Now that the desired spring extension for every position of sharp peaks in the surface around φ1i = 0 are caused by string
the cam is known, the shape of the pulley that meets this and link being not exactly aligned.
extension curve can be sought. The simplest case is the linear As long as the adjustment of the mechanism is controlled
fit. The following equation describes the extension for a by the user, there is free choice in finding the best adjustment.
circular cam: Not only can the user choose a position of the mechanism
where the mean error is minimal, he can also choose a position
s (β ) = ρβ + s 0 (22) in which the maximum error is minimal. Figure 12 presents the

7 Copyright © 2005 by ASME

 compensation error 3rd order polynomial

10

-5

-10

-15
20
15 200
150
10 100
5 50
0
0 -50
φ8 φ1
Figure 11. Minimum mean error of 3rd order cam (percent of set
weight).
Figure 13. Prototype of the adjustable compensation mechanism.
compensation error 3rd order polynomial

10 Results of the tests with the prototype, built in an early

stage of research, i.e. with suboptimal cam shape, are already
5 very promising. The strongest of the subjects – generally
incapable of bringing their hands to their mouths – were able to
0
drink independently, directly from a cup or glass, not with the
-5 use of a straw. The weakest of the subjects was able to put on
and off her glasses, and eat small portions.
-10
20
15 200
Table 4: results cams (minimal mean error)
10 100
150 Mean error max error Best position
5
0
50 (%) (%) mean error (%)
φ8
0 -50
φ1 1st order 3.33 13.23 2.27
2nd order 3.06 13.22 1.62
Figure 12. Minimum maximum error of 3rd order cam (percent of set 3rd order 3.057 13.21 1.54
weight).
Table 5: results cams (minimal maximum error)
Mean max max error Best position
error (%) (%) max error (%)
compensation error according to this criterion, again for the
1st order 6.85 10.49 5.38
third order cam. Table 4 presents the results with minimum
2nd order 5.79 8.68 4.48
mean error, Table 5 with minimal maximum error. Best position
means the position of the adjustment mechanism in which 3rd order 5.81 8.51 4.46
mean error is minimal.
EVALUATION
Tests The complete prototype was evaluated by 5 users. They were
A prototype of this mechanism has been built, to perform a asked to perform several ADLs with the device. Their opinion
series of tests with people from the target group. Figure 13 was generally very positive. Some discomfort was experienced
shows the internal of the mechanism, a cassette in which due to slight mechanical deficiencies of the prototype.
springs are fitted, connected to the pulleys. As explained before Nevertheless, the results are already very promising. The
it is a double mechanism, but from this view only one in clearly strongest of the subjects – generally incapable of bringing their
visible. The blue strings connect the smaller pulleys to the (8 hands to their mouths – were able to drink independently,
parallel) springs; the white strings will lead to the link- directly from a cup or glass, not with the use of a straw. The
mechanism. The upper spindle-drive is fitted to adjust the weakest of the subjects was able to put on and off her glasses,
mechanism; the lower one is used to pretension the springs and eat small portions independently.
before use. Figure 14 shows the complete prototype in use.

8 Copyright © 2005 by ASME

CONCLUSION
An arm support was presented that is essentially based on a
statically balanced spring mechanism (non-powered), but
incorporates an electric actuator to adjust the support force
generated by the balancer. Thus, the user can adjust the arm
support to heavy clothing or mass increase due to picking up
objects.
The device is based on the notion that not the complete
mass of the user’s arm needs to be carried in order to achieve
nontheless a fully balanced arm. Typically, the shoulder of a
user can be used to carry part of their arm mass. This allows a
concept with only one fitting, and with a mechanism not
alongside the user’s arm.
A first prototype was made to assess the viability of this
concept. It was found that users appreciate its intended
qualities. A second prototype (ARMON) was made to eliminate
some of the problems of the first one. In particular, an
adjustable spring compensation mechanism was developed, (a) (b)
with requirements considering size, range of adjustment, and
range of motion. Existing solutions failed to meet the Figure 14. The ARMON: (a) CAD drawing showing the fitting, the
requirement with respect to size, so a completely new parallelogram linkage and the box containing the spring mechanism,
(b) The ARMON in use during the evaluation tests.
mechanism had to be developed that would fit inside a box of
190x150x55 mm.
By applying a rolling cam instead of using ball-bearings,
the friction has been brought back by over 50%. By
optimization of the cam shape, the balancing error, defined as NOMENCLATURE
the force needed to operate the mechanism as a percentage of 0 initial value
the set weight, could be reduced to 3.057 percent, a reduction a distance from grounded pivot to grounded spring
by over 68%. Optimizing the radius of the larger pulley, as well attachment point
as changing the trajectory of the cassette can further reduce the C constant
balancing error. F magnitude of force
The first results are promising. Even severely affected f transfer ratio
persons can perform elementary ADLs unassisted, and the g gravitational constant
general appearance is highly appreciated. h height
i value changes with position of mechanism
ACKNOWLEDGMENT k spring constant
This work is based on the MSc-Thesis work of the first L length of link
author. However, this paper could not have been written L0 initial length of spring
without the contribution of other MSc-Thesis works, in l0 free length of spring
particular those of Sergio Tomazio (spring mechanism), Luis Ls length of spring
Cardoso (linkage design), Jorine Koopman (evaluation), Clara m mass
Gil Guerrero (CAD design), Wendy van Stralen (linkage max maximum value
kinematics), Sabine Gal (appearance design), and Tonko min minimum value
Antonides (fitting design), all of which were supervised by the mL1 mass of link with length L1
second author. The authors gratefully acknowledge the Dutch mL2 mass of link with length L2
association for neuromuscular diseases VSN, in particular J.F. mr1 mass of link with length r1
Jordaans, for their enthusiasm and support. The authors owe a mr2 mass of link with length r2
large debt of gratitude to the persons kind enough to receive us pi parameter i
for extensive home visits and interviews, and to their physician, Ps polynomial of spring extension (estimated)
Ms I.J.M. de Groot, MD, from the Maastricht Academic r distance from pivot to spring attachment point on
Medical Center and Rehabilitation Center ‘De Trappenberg’. link
Furthermore the company Microgravity Products is gratefully rn length of vector n
acknowledged for their support in the manufacturing of the rn vector n
prototype. rv variable radius of smaller pulley
s spring extension

9 Copyright © 2005 by ASME

s0 initial spring extension
u horizontal distance axle pulley to attachment
point springs
v vertical distance axle pulley to attachment point
springs
Vs potential spring energy
α angle of link
β position on pulley
γ angle
ρ radius of pulley
φn angle of vector n (horizontal reference)
χ correction angle spring

REFERENCES
[1] Mahoney RC (1997) Robotic Products for Rehabilitation: Status and
Strategy, Proceedings of the 5th ICORR.
[2] Johnson GR, Buckley MA (1997) Development of a new Motorised
Upper Limb Orthotic System (MULOS), RESNA ’97, pp399-401.
[3] Homma K, Arai T (1995) Upper Limb Motion Assist System with Parallel
Mechanism, JRSJ, Vol. 15, Num 1, pp90-97.
[4] Chyatte SB, Vignos PJ (1965) The Balanced Forearm Orthosis in
Muscular Dystrophy, Arch. of Phys. Med. & Rehab., p633-636.
[5] Skorecki J (1971) Biomechanical Applications of the Synthesis of
Mechanisms, Proceedings of the Third IFToMM World Congress, Kupari,
Yugoslavia, Vol. E, Paper E-24, pp311-322.
[6] Rahman T, Sample W, Seliktar R, Alexander M, Scavina M (2000) A
Body-Powered Functional Upper Limb Orthosis, JRRD, 37(6).
[7] Radial Arm Orthosis (2001) Universal Healthcare Systems,
http://www.uhs1.com/radial.html.
[8] Focal TOP, http://www.focalmeditech.nl/
[9] Herder JL, Tuijthof GJM (2000) Two Spatial Gravity Equilibrators,
Proceedings ASME DETC, Paper number MECH-14120.
[10] Cardoso LF, Tomazio S, Herder JL (2002) Conceptual design of a passive
arm orthosis, Proceedings ASME DETC, No: MECH-34285.
[11] Carwardine G (1935) Improvements in equipoising mechanism, UK Patent
433.617.
[12] Streit DA, Shin E (1993) Equilibrators for planar linkages, Journal of
Mechanical Design, 115(3)604/11.
[13] Herder JL (2001) Energy-free Systems, PhD-Thesis, Delft University.
[14] Herder JL (2005) Development of a statically balanced arm support:
ARMON, Proceedings of IEEE ICORR2005.
[15] Lucieer P. (2004) An adjustable compensation mechanism for a passive arm
support, MSc-Thesis, Delft University of Technology.
[16] Vrijlandt N. (2003) – Internal Report, MicroGravity Products.
[17] Kobayashi K. (2001) New Design Method for Spring Balancers,
Transactions of the ASME, Vol 123 December 2001, p 494-500.

10 Copyright © 2005 by ASME

View publication stats