Prismatic Compliant Joint for Safe Cobots

  • J. SandovalEmail author
  • M. A. Laribi
  • S. Zeghloul
Conference paper
Part of the Mechanisms and Machine Science book series (Mechan. Machine Science, volume 73)


This paper analyses the safety performances of a collaborative robot, i.e. cobot, when using a new prismatic compliant joint (PCJ) on its end-effector. The proposed PCJ with variable stiffness gives an intrinsic compliance to the cobot. This feature allows to preserve the human safety when both human and collaborative robot share a common workspace. In order to validate the effectiveness of the proposed compliant joint in terms of human safety compared with a classical rigid-body robot, we developed a dynamic simulator emulating the behavior of a cobot when using the proposed compliant joint. We present a study case, where the impact force is used as a safety performance criterion.


Intrinsic compliance Variable stiffness mechanism Safe human-robot interaction Cobot 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    O. Khatib, K. Yokoi, O. Brock, K. Chang, A. Casal, Robots in human environments: basic autonomous capabilities, International Journal of Robotics Research 18 (7) (1999) 684–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    De Santis, A., Siciliano, B., De Luca, A., and Bicchi, A. (2008). An atlas of physical human–robot interaction. Mechanism and Machine Theory, 43(3): 253–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    J. J. Park, S. Haddadin, J. B. Song, and A. Albu-Schäffer, “Designing optimally safe robot surface properties for minimizing the stress characteristics of human-robot collisions,” in 2011 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, 2011, pp. 5413–5420.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Markus Fritzsche, Norbert Elkmann, and Erik Schulenburg. 2011. Tactile sensing: a key technology for safe physical human robot interaction. In Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Human-robot interaction (HRI ‘11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 139-140.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chiaverini, S., Siciliano, B., and Villani, L. (1999). A survey of robot interaction control schemes with experimental comparison. IEEE/ASME Transactions on mechatronics, 4(3) :273–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bicchi, A., Tonietti, G., Bavaro, M., and Piccigallo, M. (2005). Variable stiffness actuators for fast and safe motion control. Robotics research, pages 527–536.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation (DOT), ‘Occupant crash protection – head injury criterion S6.2 of MVSS 571.208’, Docket 69-7, Notice 17, NHTSA, Washington, DC, 1972.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    J.A. Newman, N. Shewchenko and E. Welbourne, ‘A proposed new biomechanical head injury assessment function – the maximum power index’, Proc 44th stapp car crash conf, SAE Paper No. 2000-01-SC16, 2000Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Y. Ayoubi, M. A. Laribi, F. Courrèges, S. Zeghloul, M. Arsicault, A complete methodology to design a safety mechanism for prismatic joint implementation, IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 9-14 Oct. 2016, DOI Number:
  10. 10.
    Y. Ayoubi, M. A. Laribi, F. Courrèges, S. Zeghloul, M. Arsicault «Complete design methodology of biomimetic safety device for cobots’ prismatic joints» Robotics and Autonomous Systems, Volume 102, April 2018, pp. 44–53, doi: Scholar
  11. 11.
    Y. Ayoubi, M. A. Laribi, F. Courrèges, S. Zeghloul, M. Arsicault «A Synthesis of a Six Bar Mechanism with Nonlinear Stiffness for Prismatic Compliant Joint» Proceedings of the 25th Conference on Robotics in Alpe-Adria-Danube Region (RAAD2016), pp 152-161, June 30–July 2, 2016, Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol 540, Springer, Cham.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dept. of GMSCPprime Institute, CNRS - University of Poitiers - ENSMA - UPR 3346PoitiersFrance

Personalised recommendations