Special Celebratory Symposium in honor of Bernie Roth's 70th Birthday

Mechanism Classifications over the Time:

An Illustration Survey

Marco Ceccarelli
(Chairman of the IFToMM Permanent Commission for History of MMS)
Laboratory of Robotics and Mechatronic s
DiMSAT, University of Cassino, Via Di Biasio 43, 03043 Cassino (Fr), Italy
ceccarelli@unicas.it

Abstract – In this paper the concept and variety of mechanism classifications are reviewed to give a survey of the
evolution of this basic analysis of mechanisms over the time by using illustrations. Classifications, catalogues, and basic
element of mechanisms are the means that have been used to overview and give unifying principles for existing
mechanisms. Many of the past approaches can be still of current interest and application for teaching, research, and
practice, even for the Computer Oriented Technology in the new Millennium.

Introduction
Classification is a need when an object or a concept has been evolved with a great variety. Thus, a classification means
is required for orienting choices but further evolutions in the acquired knowledge and new additional entries of the
variety. In many disciplines of Science, classification of subjects and objects is obtained by formulating procedures that
can be summarized basically in two approaches, namely topological views and mathematical algorithms. In practice
both the two approaches give tables for catalogue purposes and formulation for design aims, respectively.
In MMS (Machine and Mechanism Science) Classification of mechanisms has been recognized as a need since the
Antiquity when a multitude of mechanical designs were available and a designer/user needed to be oriented for a proper
choice in practical applications. But at the same time, since the beginning of engineering activity and specifically for
mechanism classification, a deeper knowledge of mechanism design was recognized as necessary in order to discover
and/or formulate algorithms and procedures that could give a unified view of the great variety of existing mechanisms.
In this paper we have attempted to overview the evolution of mechanism classifications that have been proposed over
the time, by giving a unique frame of interest and application also for current and future developments.
The History of MMS has been overviewed by several authors, mainly since the beginning of TMM (Theory of
Machines and Mechanisms) in XIXth century.
TMM has evolved to MMS in the last decades by enlarging the technical contents with other disciplines like Robotics
and Mechatronics, but mainly by looking at Mechanism Design with a broader view for theory and applications.
Many authors have attached the problem of outlining the History of MMS at different level of content, in the past like
for example Chasles (1837) and Reuleaux (1875), and recently like for example De Jonge (1943), Ferguson (1962),
Hartenberg and Denavit (1956 and 1964), Hain (1967), Nolle (1974), Crossley (1988), Dimarogonas (1993), Marchis
(1994), Angeles (1997), Ceccarelli (1998, 2001). Those authors have addressed to mechanism classification as a part of
TMM evolution giving it a marginal attention, like for example in (Hartenberg and Denavit 1956), or a certain
importance, like for example in (Ceccarelli 2001).
In addition, the subject of mechanism classification has become of primary importance since TMM has evolved to a
mature discipline and it has been considered as a basic means for technical development during the Industrial
Revolution in XIXth century. Thus, new ideas for mechanism classifications have been proposed as a design tool
together with a review of previously adopted schemes. The review of these new classifications developed in XIXth
century is the core of this paper, since still nowadays we use those concepts and approaches, but with the modern
Computer Technology that seems not to have stimulated further conceptual developments. This renewed use of
mechanism classifications via computer for type synthesis of mechanisms has stimulated a re-examination of past
procedures in order to develop computer-oriented classifications (expert systems on mechanisms). In general, the
feasibility of computer adaptation of past mechanism classifications requires an in-depth study of them. Still nowadays
the classification of mechanisms is an open problem concerning with aspects for exhaustive expert systems for
computer use in design procedures for type synthesis.
A significant example of this new specific interest for the past mechanism classifications can be considered the paper
(Roth 2000). In this paper a specific analysis of Willis's classification has been carried out by using the original
textbook in its second edition of 1871 as the core of an overview of XIXth works that have given the modern view of
mechanism classification. Indeed, Roth has overviewed the evolution of mechanism classifications by looking at the
principles, which they are based on. Even the principles are listed and discussed from historical viewpoints, starting
from simple basic machine descriptions up to kinematic schemes. Twenty principles are enunciated and discussed as
summary of the overview that is limited to works of XIXth century, but with a view to present and future for the activity
on Mechanism Design.
In this paper, the proposed overview gives a panorama on historical basis by using significant pages of fundamental

1
works. Thus, the historical developments are illustrated by discussing mainly the reported figures covering the main
aspects of the historical evolution of mechanism classifications.

Early Classifications in the Antiquity

First studies on mechanical systems can recognized to Aristotele who in 3 rd century B.C. in his work “Mechanical
Problems” attached problems of Mechanics with application also to mechanical design of machines. Indeed, the
machines of the time were based on elementary mechanisms, although some elaborated mechanism was built like those
for theatre machines.
Great attention was addressed to elementary machines like the lever, wheel, inclined plane and screw. Unfortunately, no
original documents have passed the time but they have been reproduced and interpreted during Renaissance.
Fundamental contributions can be recognized in the work by Ctesibius, Filon, and Heron who were first mechanical
engineers and investigators at the School of Alexandria of Egypt during the 3rd and 2nd centuries B.C.. Following their
work Archimedes seems to be the first who attached the Mechanics of elementary machines by looking at the
Kinematics and Statics equilibrium of a lever and screw. This can be also considered a first attempt of cataloguing the
existing machines under a unified view of their basic components.
Roman engineers improved and designed machinery and first catalogues were produced to give an overview of the
variety but possibility of mechanical systems. Relevant are the works in the field of hydraulic mechanical systems
(Frontini 1930) by Frontini , who lived in 1st century B.C., and in the analysis of machines (Vitruvius 1511) by
Vitruvius, who lived in 1st century B.C.
In Fig.1 an example of the cataloguing feature of Vitruvius’s work (written from 25 to 23 B.C.) is shown as reproduced
in the Renaissance. Besides a description of the mechanical design, Vitruvius explained the operation of a system with
technical details that makes very clear also the teaching purpose of the work. Figure 1 shows machines with several
type of mechanism as a part of systems and attention is addressed to machines systems, although in the text a first
definition of a machine is proposed as composed of elementary mechanisms.

Fig.1: A catalogue of mechanisms in Antiquity as reproduced during the Renaissance from the work by Vitruvius in 1-st
century B.C.(Vitruvius 1511).

2
Collections of Mechanism Designs
In the Renaissance the growth of Society and production required enhancements in the machinery. Thus, new designs
were conceived and used. Collections of these machines were made mainly as handbooks for the designers themselves,
as personal notes or preliminary explanatory sketches.
Examples are shown in Fig.2 in the form of a limited selection but in order to stress basic views. In Fig.2 a) Villard de
Honnecourt (XIII-th century) drew several automatic devices by a primitive description by using a variety of
mechanisms. The purpose of the sketches seems to be the illustration of overall machines with hints on their operation,
but with deficiency of explanation that requires the designer consulting.
In Fig.2b) a study of different gripping devices by il Taccola is shown for a specific application. The variety of grippers
can be thought as a result of both studies on the grasp and available devices.
In Fig.2c) Brunelleschi’s work is reported as referring to crane machines that he used for his architectural goals.
Different crane structures and mechanisms are shown as referring to different construction situations. Even the lifting
mechanisms are different but emphasis is addressed to the overall design and its applications.

a) b)

c)
Fig. 2: Early collections of mechanisms: a) by Villard de Honnecourt in13th century; b) by Mariano di Jacopo (il
Taccola)(1382-1458?); c) by Filippo Brunelleschi(1377-1446).

3
 a)

b) c)
Fig. 3: Early collections of mechanisms: a) by Agostino Ramelli(1531?-1608?); b)Francesco Di Giorgio (1439-1501);
c) Leonardo da Vinci(1452-1519).

4
 a)

b)
Fig.4: Collections of mechanisms in the form of Theatrum Machinarum: a) by Jacques Besson in (1578);
b) by Giovanni Branca in (1629).

5
 a)

b)

c)
Fig.5: Collections of mechanisms in the form of Theatrum Machinarum: a) by Gaspar Schott in (1664); b) by Georg A.
Boeckler in (1661); c) by Jacob Leupold in (1724).

6
 a)

b)
Fig.6: Early Encyclopedic Handbooks for machines and mechanisms: a) by J.H.M. Poppe in (1803); e) by J.B.
D’Alembert and D. Diderot in (1774).

These early collections of mechanical devices do not show a clear aim of cataloguing machines and mechanisms, but
they seem to be notes for personal use of the designers and their co-workers.
Catalogue purposes became more evident once the wide use of machines made the machines of common practice. Thus,
publications of collections of machines were proposed as early handbooks at different levels of mechanism study, but to
show the practical possibility and use of well-established mechanical designs. Examples of these collections are shown
in Fig.3 from the time of Renaissance.
In Fig.3a) a first catalogue by Ramelli in (1588) is shown with an example of complete machinery that is also explained
with a specific text. The machinery is completely illustrated and the explaining text is specifically addressed to the
machine operation. This kind of approach will be common to the machine collections as Theatrum Machinarum in the
17h and 18th centuries.
Some specific attention to mechanisms that are the core of a machine was also addressed as the case of Fig.3b)
illustrates in which the pump mechanisms are listed and discussed.
Figure 3c) shows notes by Leonardo da Vinci studying alternative solutions for a mechanical transmission. The
ingenuity of Leonardo is great from engineering viewpoint even when he studied and re-designed existent systems with
the aim to improve the clarity and effectiveness of operation and mechanical design. This gives a sure impression of the
high skill of Leonard as practical mechanism designer.

7
The collections of mechanisms were more and more riches of used machinery and the mechanisms also evolved with
more elaborated solutions. Thus, the schemes became more detailed and presentation became more attractive, like in the
examples in Fig.4a) from France and Fig.4b) from Italy. It is to note from Fig.4a) the machine power is indicated by
showing man operating the system; from Fig.4b) the machine system is illustrated emphasizing its automatic operation.
The use of word Theatrum (theatre) refers to the aim to show machinery to a wide public with both illustrations and
explanations, which can be helpful for a general understanding but indicating the expertise of the author who is
available for consulting.
The success and optimism in the use of mechanisms reached highs that in some case gave to designers the ambition of
designing mechanisms for perpetual motion, like the case in Fig.5a). The mechanical design evolved considerably if one
compares Fig.5b) with Fig.4b) referring to an automatic sawing machinery. In Fig.5b) the mechanical design is more
elaborated and gives first industrial machinery in term of size and production capability. The collections of mechanisms
became also a sort of Encyclopaedia for the wide variety of illustrated devices, like the case of the work in Fig.5c). In
addition, this kind of survey gave also the possibility to show unusual mechanism for that time, like the case of the
spatial 4-bar linkage in the right bottom corner of the right figure in Fig.5c).
Thus, mechanism collections evolved clearly to encyclopedic surveys that show technical details also for a larger
public, like the cases in Fig.6. Specific mechanisms are shown in Fig.6a), and in Fig.6b). Moreover in Fig.6b) a clock
mechanism is shown in an early modern drawing for assembling that is used to show both basic components and
mechanism complexity.
Both in the Theatrum Machinarum and early Encyclopaedias there is not clear attempts to classify the variety of
mechanisms under few principles that could help the choice of a solution among the many available ones. But the aim
seems to astonish a reader with the variety and complexity of the illustrated mechanisms and machines.

Basic Elementary Mechanisms over the time

Since the beginning of an Engineering Technology an alternative way to classify mechanisms has been considered the
identification and study of basic elements that can be used to assemble a mechanism or a machine. Indeed, the analysis
of basic components has been understood as a principle under which recognizes common nature and design rules for the
variety of mechanisms.
Archimedes was the first who attached the problem for an overview of mechanisms from engineering viewpoint by
studying the Mechanics of the so-called basic machines. Particularly he analyzed the lever and screw, and he used the
results also to design new machines, like for example the so-called Archimedes screw pump. His approach was
considered as a milestone reference for long time, through the Roman engineers up to the Renaissance designers.
In the Renaissance, with the growth of interest and use of machines, basic elements address great attention mainly for
mechanical design purposes. Thus, the examples in Fig.7 show studies of basic elements of mechanisms in terms of
joints but the classification aim is not evident. In Fig.7a) Leonardo studied both operation and construction of basic
mechanism joints and he reported those possibilities as an early catalogue variety. In Fig.7b) Ramelli studied the
practical construction and operation of gear systems as fundamental parts of power transmissions.
A fundamental work in the topic that can be considered a milestone for TMM, is the book by Guidobaldo Del Monte in
(1577), Fig.8. This is a first rigorous treatise fully dedicated to the analysis of Mechanics of machines and mechanisms
by looking at elementary machines as basic principles for analysis and design of mechanical systems: lever, pulley,
wheel and axle, wedge (inclined plane), and screw. Each basic machine is studied in a chapter with great details, even
by using very early kinematic schemes, as shown in Fig.8b) and c). The approach refers to Archimedes's view by
which a fundamental system is the screw that can be studied by referring to the Mechanics of inclined plane that finally
can be modeled as a lever. Thus, once a system is sketched the basic behavior is formulated as an equivalent inclined
plane by using mechanical principles for levers.

a) b)
Fig.7: Early studies of elementary components for mechanisms: a) joints by Leonardo Da Vinci; b) gear connections by
Agostino Ramelli.

8
A further improvement of the study of Del Monte's approach can be found in the early work by Galilei in (1593) in
which the description and discussion has been deepened and mainly it brought the attention of the Academic world to
the mechanical practical systems. The subject of Mechanics of machines and mechanisms addressed attention at the end
of Renaissance and several studies were published that used approaches similar or deduced from Galilei's study. An
example is reported in Fig.9 from Naples with the aim to show that such an interest on mechanism design was well-
established even with very early standardized kinematic schemes that were used also for classification purposes.

a)

b)
Fig.8: Basic elementary machines/mechanisms as studied by Guidobaldo Del Monte in 1577: a) title page; b) schemes.

a) b)
Fig.9: Basic elementary machines/mechanisms as studied by Stigliola in 1597: a) title page; b) schemes.

9
In Fig.10 the portraits are shown of those who contributed significantly with milestones works to establish an early
discipline on Mechanism Design, not only with their treatises but even with their engineering activity.
The interest on basic elements of machines was considered along the XVII-th and XVIII-th centuries by following Del
Monte's approach and no relevant novelties have been proposed.
A renewed interest on basic mechanism elements arose when a modern view of mechanisms was conceived with
milestones works at Ecole Polytechnique not only in TMM, but also mainly in Geometry and Mechanics. A significant
example is reported in Fig.11 in which in (1821) Coulomb treated the basic mechanisms with a modern approach and
detailed schemes as shown in the examples in Fig.11b), but mainly by examining their operation through results of early
modern experimental Mechanics.
In addition, milestone works on mechanism classifications by Willis in (1841) and Reuleaux in (1875) gave a further
attention to catalogue and classification of basic components of mechanisms. Thus, both Willis and Reuleaux
considered the elementary components in term of joints as fundamental for mechanism architectures, even for a
mechanism notation. The joints were analyzed in great details and suitable schemes were elaborated for catalogue
purposes, like in the example in Fig.12b). Those schemes of joints were the bases for mechanism classification and
notation and still nowadays they are used with almost the same mechanical design and kinematic schemes as shown in
Fig.13. Indeed, this approach has still the basic features of the view by Del Monte.

a) b) c) d)
Fig.10: Portrait of: a) Leonardo Da Vinci (1452-1519); b) Francesco Di Giorgio (1439-1501); c) Guidobaldo Del
Monte (1545-1607); d) Galileo Galilei (1564-1642).

a) b)
Fig.11: Basic elementary machines/mechanisms as studied by Coulomb in 1821: a) title page; b) schemes.

10
 a) b)
Fig.12: Basic elementary machines/mechanisms as studied by F. Masi in 1883: a) title page; b) schemes.

a) b)
Fig.13: Basic elementary machines/mechanisms as studied at present time: a) mechanical designs; b) schemes.

However, the more abstract representation of mechanism but even new mechatronic designs have required also a new
consideration of elementary mechanisms, as shown in Fig.14 in which the attention is focused to have a unified
enlarged view for mechatronic design of mechanisms.
Modern TMM was established at Ecole Polytechnique at the beginning of XIX-th century, when civil and industrial

11
engineering was recognized as independent of a military formation. Among the Ecole founders, founding fathers of
TMM can be recognized in Gaspard Monge, Jean Pierre Nicolas Hachette, and Maria Jose Lanz, and Agustin
Betancourt, Fig.15.

a) b)
Fig.14: Basic elementary machines/mechanisms as studied by H.S. Yan in 2000: a) title page; b) schemes.

a) b) c)
Fig.15: Portrait of: a) Gaspar Monge (1746 - 1818); b) Jean Nicolas Pierre Hachette(1769-1834); c) Agustin de
Betancourt (1758-1824).

Early Modern Classifications with the Establishment of TMM

Monge and Hachette classified mechanism as a function of the type of motion transformation that can be obtained from
input link to output link in a mechanism, as shown in Figs.16, 17, and 18. They classified all existing mechanisms by
considering the conversion of one motion into another, but between circular and rectilinear motions only, Fig.19.
Borgnis extended this view by including a description of machine components in terms of "receptors, modificators,
frames, regulators, and operators" whose an example is shown in Fig.20; but then he catalogued the existing machines
also by referring to practical uses. His Encyclopedic work in 9 volumes was used as reference handbook by practicing
engineers along the whole XIX th century, as a first modern technical handbook. A specific volume on technical
terminology on machines and mechanisms completes the catalogue and classification purposes of Borgnis's work.
The work of Borgnis is divided in 9 Volumes:
1 – “De la composition des machines” (450 pages, published in 1818), which contains classification and description of
mechanical devices in agreement with the approach proposed by Gaspard Monge. The treatise is completed with
drawing of 1200 mechanical devices, which are also compared in term of figure and operation characteristics. The
classification is summarised in Tables, which give a synopsis of available mechanisms at that time.
2 – “Du mouvement des fardeaux” (334 pages, published in 1818), which contains a description of the mechanical
design and operation characteristics of the machines that can be used for transportation and lifting all kind of weights.
3 – “Des machines emp loyées dans les constructions diverses” (336 pages, published in 1818), which describes the
design and operation of machines that are used for construction in the field of civil engineering, hydraulic engineering,
naval engineering and military applications.

12
 b)

a)
Fig.16: The “ Essai sur la Composition des Machines" by JoseMaria Lanz and Agustin de Betancourt in 1808: a) title
page; b) classification of mechanisms.

13
 a)

a)
Fig.17: The “Traite elementaire des Machines" by Jean Nicolas Pierre Hachette in 1811: a) title page; b) classification
of mechanisms.

14
4 – “Des machines hydrauliques” (295 pages, published in 1819), which contains an overview of machines used in
hydraulic systems. In particular, an in -depth study is reported for machines applied in agriculture and mining.
5 – “Des machines d’agriculture” (295 pages, published in 1819), which contains description of equipment and
machines used in agriculture. In particular, detailed study are reported on mechanisms that are used for harvesting
machines, winding and drilling machines, and any devices for the production of oil and wine.
6 – “Des machines employèes dans diverses fabrications” (285 pages, published in 1819), which contains the
description of machines used in industrial plants for production of metal components, paper products, textile
manufactures, and tannery products.
7 – “Des machines qui servent à confectioner les ètoffes” (335 pages, published in 1820), which contains description of
procedures for spinning of vegetal or animal material, a comparative analysis of mechanical means for industrial
spinning and equipment of different kind of machines for different kind of products.
8 – “Des machines imitatives et des Machines théatrales” (285 pages, published in 1820), which contains a description
of mechanical device, which are used for any kind of transportation and movement, including devices mimicking
animal motion. The text includes an Appendix with interesting description of old machines for theatres and how to
adapt the use to the current need and other aims.
9 – “Thèorie de la Mecanique usuelle” (published in 1821), which contains an introduction to the mechanics applied to
practical industrial applications and refers to principles of Statics, Dynamics, and Hydraulics. In particular, description
and formulation are presented on main mechanical transmissions.
Borgnis completed the encyclopaedic work with publication of the “Dictionnaire de Mecanique appliquèe aux arts” in
1823. This is a brilliant synthetic dictionary with technical terminology for the Mechanical Science.
In the tables by Lanz and Betancourt in Fig.16, and by Hachette in Fig.17 there is also a first attempt of notation for
catalogue purposes, if one considers the names and number codes on rows and columns.
Since then, notation was recognized fundamental for mechanism catalogues and analysis. Charles Babbage presented a
relevant attempt of a detailed notation in (1826). But, as one can understand from the example of Fig.21, the Babbage's
notation was considered too cumbersome and unpractical and thus it was quickly forgotten. The complexity of a
graphical representation for a table codification was not considered useful and even difficult to understand.
The novelty of Monge's classification with respect to previous machine catalogues consists in the fact that Monge
addressed attention to mechanism capability and architecture in order to illustrate design possibility of mechanisms and
machines but without referring to specific applications. In fact, previous machine collections, both Theatrum
Machinarum and early Encyclopaedias, had the aim to show and explain general behavior of machinery as a whole for
well-established applications.

a) b)
Fig.18: The “Composition des Machines” by Gian Antonio Borgnis in 1818: a) title page; b) a collection of
mechanisms.

15
Fig.19: Monge classification of machines and mechanisms as function of motion conversion.

Fig.20: A table of the mechanism catalogue by Gian Antonio Borgnis in 1819-21.

16
 a)

b)
Fig.21: An example of notation by Charles Babbage in 1826 for mechanism catalogue: a) mechanical design of a clock;
b) its schematic notation

Improvements and Enlargements of Classification Criteria

The Monge's approach was considered for long time, even as a first view by which derives new classifications. In
(1841) Willis proposed to classify mechanisms in three classes depending on the value of transmission ratio and in five
divisions depending on the type of contacts among basic components, Fig.22. Thus, he analyzed mechanisms within the
classification frame with a common view and notation that can be recognized as a first modern kinematic
schematization.

17
 a) b)

c)
Fig.22: The “Principles of Mechanism” by R. Willis in 1841: a) title page; b); notation for analyzed mechanism with
design purposes; c) classification of mechanisms.

18
 a)

b)
Fig.23: The “Theoretische Kinematik” by Franz Reuleaux in 1874: a) title page; b) example of notation for mechanism
classification.

19
 a) b)

c)
Fig.24: The “Manuale di Cinematica Applicata” by Francesco Masi in 1883: a) title page; b) an example of notation
for mechanism analysis; c) classification and numbering of mechanisms.

20
Willis combined the description of mechanism with a mathematical analysis by deducing and using formulas, although
still with a specific formulation for specific mechanism architecture.
Willis's classification was successfully accepted in brief time all around the industrialized world, like for example in the
works (Giulio 1846), (Rankine 1869) (Robinsaon 1896), and its notation and concepts were used for long time and still
can be found in current approaches. Following the Monge's view, in (1849) Laboulaye enlarged the Monge's
classification by adding a classification of basic elements in the form of rod links, screws, and plane systems.
Several further studies were proposed on the basis of Monge's and Willi's classifications in order to have a more
exhaustive unifying principle for the analysis of mechanisms. Relevant examp les on these aspects are the works (De La
Goullepierre 1864), (Belanger (1864), and (Morin 1851) developed along the French tradition.
Finally, in (1875) Reuleaux conceived the modern TMM view for mechanism classification, Fig.23. In his work
Reuleaux approached the classification and catalogue of mechanisms as basic components of machinery by introducing
an analysis of kinematic architectures and relative motion among mechanism links. Indeed, he introduced the concept
and corresponding notation for kinematic chains, kinematic pairs, and mechanism links, so that he could reduce the
wide variety of mechanisms to few basic combinations of pairs and few classes of kinematic chains. For these last
results he introduced and used successfully the concepts of kinematic inversion that gives the possibility to consider
several mechanisms as belonging to the same kinematic architecture chain. The Reuleaux's approach was immediately
accepted as a milestone work and it was translated in many languages (the English version by A.B.W. Kennedy was
published in 1876!). Some refinements were also proposed to obtain more practical application even for design
purposes, like in the brilliant work by Francesco Masi in (1883) in which he could classified up to 10,362,600
composed quaternary mechanisms, Fig.24. Reuleaux catalogued mechanisms in six classes: screw mechanisms, crank
mechanisms, gear mechanisms, pulley mechanisms, cam mechanisms, and locking mechanisms. This classification is
till used today both for teaching and practice purposes.
Portraits of the above-mentioned personalities of the Golden Age of TMM are shown in Fig.25.
However, collections of mechanisms were still of great interest for designers' practice, as the success of the work
(Hiscox 1899) illustrates. The example of Fig.26 shows mechanism drawings still with a short explanatory test, but
kinematic details are included and emphasis is addressed to basic mechanism and not to whole machinery.
Kinematics was deepened and results were used also for classification purposes of mechanisms, whose variety
increased day by day. Very significant is the table in Fig.27 from the work by Lorenzo Allievi in (1895) who applied
the theory outlined by Ludwig Burmester in (1888). In the table of Fig.27a) mechanisms are classified with respect to
geometric and kinematic properties of coupler curves.
The concept of kinematic chain was further exploited by classifying mechanisms with a unifying principle that in
(1913) Assur recognized in the identification of basic chains with basic kinematic behaviors. By using those basic
chains, today named as Assur Groups, it is possible to assemble any mechanism but particularly to deduce the
corresponding Kinematics formulation by using an assembling of expressions for the used Assur Groups, Fig.28. In this
classification procedure one can recognize a very early use of the concept of Graph Theory for mechanism analysis.
In (1943) Rudolf Franke attempted a further extension of the concept of a mechanism by including electrical systems,
fluidic systems, and mechanical systems whose relative motions of the parts do not depend of the connections only. In
Fig.29 the Franke's classification is overviewed by using his sketches for examples in a survey paper by Allen Hall in
(1953). Franke classified mechanisms as constrained mechanism, which are 1 d.o.f. because of the relative motion
ensured by kinematic pairs; partially constrained mechanisms whose relative motions depend of external actions like
spring and inertia forces; mechanical systems in which the d.o.f.s change during the operation.
Another basic means for general mechanism classification can be recognized in the mobility criterion by which the
motion capability of a mechanism is synthetically evaluated by the number of degrees of freedom (d.o.f.) for the
mechanism motion. The mobility criterion is based on Grubler's formula and its extension and modifications, which are
known as Kutzbach criterion and modified Kutzbach formula. Nowadays the mobility degree of freedom of a
mechanism is used as a first classification means, even for design purposes.

a) b) c)
Fig.25: Portrait of: a) Robert Willis (1800-1875); b) Franz Reuleaux (1829-1905); c) Pafnutii Livovich Chebyshev
(1821-1894); d) Francecso Masi (1852-1944)

21
 a) b)
Fig.26: The “Mechanical Movements” by G. Hiscox in 1899 in a Spanish edition of 1912: a) title page; b) a catalogue
of mechanisms.

a) b)
Fig.27: “Cinematica della Biella Piana” by Lorenzo Allievi in 1895: a) title page; b) a classification of coupler curves.

22
Fig.28: Assur groups for mechanism classification in (Ghigliaza and Galletti 1986) as proposed by Assur in 1913.

Fig.29: The classification of mechanisms according to Rudolf Franke as reported in (Hall 1953).

23
Modern Handbook with Mechanism Classification
The use and usefulness of machine and mechanism catalogues has been persistent over the time because of their
practical help in Mechanism Design. Of course, the approach and presentation has evolved as depending of the
conceived variety of mechanism and acquired knowledge on Theory and Practice in Mechanism Design. Thus, modern
handbooks have been elaborated not for full machinery but for main mechanisms for specific applications either for a
defined task or as a machine component. In the example of Fig.30, the handbook by Chironis in (1961) is illustrated
with examples of mechanical systems. Each mechanism is shown with basic features on mechanical design and
operation, with hints on kinematical schemes and characteristics, Fig.30b). A short test helps for a full understanding of
the figure yet (like in Theatrum Machinarum !).
However today those handbooks have not a wide diffusion or at least there is not a relevant production of them since
there are already fundamental works with exhaustive collections of existing mechanisms. Very significant is the
Encyclopedic work by Ivan I. Artobolevski in (1975), Fig.31, in which one can recognize a synthesis of theoretical
classifications with practical catalogues of mechanisms, as shown in Fig.32. Even the mechanism presentation can be
seen as fusion of past and modern approaches for mechanism analysis. In the example of Fig.31c) a mechanism is
presented with a drawing with partially a mechanical design and partially a kinematic scheme. Kinematic characteristics
are outlined by identification of significant points and trajectories. In the enclosed test a description of operation and
design characteristics clarifies the interest for the mechanism. The mechanism sheet is comp leted with an alphabetic
code for classification purposes and a numerical code for catalogue aims. The name of the mechanism recognizes also
a designer's paternity when possible. The classification purpose of Artobolevski's work is synthesized in Table 1, whose
a part is shown in Fig.31b), in which basic architecture features of mechanisms are used together with a classification of
mechanism types. The catalogue purpose is reported in Table 2, whose a part is shown in Fig.32, in which the
mechanism are lis ted depending of characteristic applications of mechanisms, but still considering the classification
view of Table 1.

Classifications for Computer Uses

The new technology of computer calculation has influenced all the Engineering disciplines, and analysis and design
approaches have been re-formulated for computer calculations. Thus, even mechanism classification has been
reconsidered with the aim to achieve algorithms for numerical and/or automatic type synthesis of mechanisms.
A fundamental new approach has been developed in the 1950's by using graph modeling and mathematics in order to
obtain formulation that is suitable for computer implementation. A synthetic view of the method is reported in Fig.33
from a fundamental text overviewing the modern field of Mechanism Design. But even in this modern abstract
mathematical representation of mechanisms, schemes for kinematic chains and their classifications are needed to
complete a modern design procedure but mainly the engineering interpretation, as in the example of Fig.34.

Fig.30: The handbook “Mechanisms, Linkages, and Mechanical Controls” by Nicholas F. Chironis in 1961: a) title
page; b) a mechanism catalogue.

24
 a) b)

c)
Fig.31: The “Mechanism in Modern Engineering” by Ivan I. Artobolevski in 1975: a) title page; b) classification of
mechanisms based on kinematic architecture; c) catalogue of mechanisms based on functional features.

25
 Fig.32: An analyzed mechanism with design purposes by Ivan I. Artobolevski in 1975 within the frame of kinematic
classification and functional catalogue of mechanisms in Fig.31.

Fig.33: A mechanism model and mathematization by using graphs by Erdman et al. in 1987 for mechanism catalogue
useful in Computer oriented analysis and design algorithms.

26
Fig.33: A current classification of mechanisms by H.S. Yan in 2000: a) a chain catalogue; b) a mathematical model for
classification based on graphs.
Conclusions
The classification of mechanisms has evolved through two main views, namely the study of basic elements and
catalogue of the existing devices. The classifications and catalogues of mechanisms have been evolved from pure
practical needs to pure theoretical approaches through step by step modifications and enlargements, although concepts
have made relevant changes also in mechanism design. The completeness of the current mechanism classifications that
have been proposed and evolved over the time may rise a question: is it possible to conceive new mechanisms for
practical applications and to enlarge and enhance the mechanism variety?

References
(Reference list has been limited to the most significant works in order to give main sources and bibliography panorama
of historical developments in the field of TMM. The books of references that are indicated by an asterisk have been
donated by prof. Bernie Roth to the author in several occasions)

Allievi L, 1895, “Cinematica della biella piana”, Regia Tipografia Francesco Giannini & Figli, Napoli.
Angeles J., 1997, “A Fin-de-Siecle View of TMM”, Proc. of Int. Conference on Mechanical Transmissions and
Mechanisms, Tianjin.
Artobolevsky I.I., 1975-80, "Mechanisms in Modern Engineering", Mir Publ. Moscow, 5 Vols.
Assur L.V., 1913, "Reserches sur la structure et la classification des mecanismes planes articules à paires cinematique
inferieures", Annales de l'Institution Polytechnique de St. Petersburg, Vol.21, pp.187-283.
Babbage C., 1826,"On a method of expressing by signs the action of machinery", Philosophical transactions of the
Royal Society, London, vol. 116, pp. 250-265.
Beggs J.S. , 1955, "Mechanisms", Mc Graw Hill, New York.
Belanger, 1864, “Traitè de Cinèmatique”, Paris.
Besson J., 1578, "Théatre des instruments Mathématiques et Mécaniques...", Lyon.
Bobillier E.E., 1870, “Cours de Geometrie”, Paris.
Boeckler G.A., "Theatrum Machinarum Novum", Nuremberg, 1661.
Borgnis G.A. , 1818-21, "Traitè complet de mecanique appliquée aux arts", Bachelier, Paris, 9 Vols.
Bourguignon P. , 1906, "Cours de Cinematique Theorique et Appliquée -II. Cinematique Appliquée", Paris.
Bresse J.A., 1885, "Cours de Mecanique et Machines", Ecole Polytecnique, Paris.
Bricard R., 1926-27, “ Lecons de Cinematique”, Gauthier-Villars, Paris. 2Vols. (*)
Burmester L. , 1888, "Lehrbuch der Kinematik", Leipzig.

27
Cavalli E., 1882, Elementi di cinematica teorica - ad uso delle scuole di applicazione per gli ingegneri, Hoepli, Milano.
Ceccarelli M., 1998, "Mechanism Schemes in Teaching: A Historical Overview", ASME Journal of Mechanical Design,
Vol.120, pp.533-541.
Ceccarelli M., 1999a, “Cinematica della Biella Piana by Lorenzo Allievi in 1895”, Xth IFToMM World Congress on
Theory of Mechanisms and Machines, Oulu, Vol.1 , pp. 37-42.
Ceccarelli M., 1999b, “On the meaning of TMM over time”, Bulletin IFToMM Newsletter, Vol.8. Nr.1.
Ceccarelli M., 2000a, “Screw Axis defined by Giulio Mozzi in 1763 and Early Studies on Helicoidal Motion”,
Mechanism and Machine Theory, Vol.35, pp.761-770.
Ceccarelli M. , 2000b, “Italian Kinematic Studies in XIXth Century”, International Symposium on History of Machines
and Mechanisms - Proceedings of HMM2000, Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp.197-206.
Ceccarelli M., 2000d, “Preliminary Studies to Screw Theory in XVIIth Century”, Ball Conference, Cambridge, CD
Proceedings, July 2000.
Ceccarelli M. (Ed.), 2000, International Symposium on History of Machines and Mechanisms - Proceedings of
HMM2000, Kluwer, Dordrecht.
Ceccarelli M., 2001, “The Challenges for Machine and Mechanism Design at the Beginning of the Third Millenium as
Viewed from the Past”, Proceedings of COBEM2001, Uberlandia, Invited Lectures, Vol.20, pp.132-151.
Ceccarelli M., Cuadrado I., 1997, "Sobre el Essai sur la Composition des Machines por Jose Maria De Lanz y Augustin
de Betancourt en 1808", 3° Congresso Iberoamericano di Ingegneria Meccanica, CD Proceedings, La Habana.
Chasles M., 1837, “Apercu historique sur l’origin et le développement des méthodes en géométrie ...”, Mémoires
couronnés par l’Académie de Bruxelles, Vol.11. (2nd Ed., Paris, 1875).
Chasles M., 1886, “Exposé historique concernant le cours de machines dans l’enseignement de l’Ecole Polytechinique”,
Gauthier-Villars, Paris.
Chebyshev P.L., 1899, “Ouvres de P.L. Tchebychef”, Imp. de la Academie de Sciences, St. Petersbourg.
Crelier L., 1911, “Systemes Cinèmatìques”, Paris. (*)
De la Goullepierre H. , 1864, "Traité des mecanìsmes", Paris.
De Jonge A.E.R., 1943, “A Brief Account of Modern Kinematics”, Transactions of the ASME, August, pp.663-683. (*)
Erdman A.G., Thompson T., Riley D.R., 1987, "Type Selection of Robot and Gripper Kinematic Topology using
Expert Systems", in "The Kinematics of Robot Manipulators", J.M. McCarthy (Ed.), The MIT Press, pp.202-208.
Ferguson E.S., 1962, “Kinematics of Mechanisms from the Time of Watt”, Contributions from the Museum of History
and Technology, Washington, paper 27, pp. 186-230.
Franke R.,"Vom Aufbau der Getriebe", VDI, Vol.1, 1943; Vol.2, 1951.
Franke R., Oldenbourg R., 1930, "Eine Vergleichende Schalt und Getriebelehre - NeuWege der Kinematik", Munich.
Frontini S.J., "De Aquaeductu Urbis Romae", codex Casinis 361, reprinted in Montecassino 1930.
Giulio C.I., 1846, "Sunti delle Lezioni di Meccanica applicata alle arti", Tipografia Pomba, Torino.
Goodeve T.M., 1876, “The Elements of Mechanism”, London.
Grashof F., 1883, "Theorie der Getriebe und der Mechanischen Messinstrumente", Hamburg.
Grubler M., 1917, "Getriebelehre", Springer, Berlin.
Kennedy A.B.W., 1886, “The Mechanics of Machinery”, MacMillan, London.
Koenigs G., 1905, “Introduction a une Théorie Nouvelle des Mécanismes”, Librarie Herman, Paris. (*)
Koetsier T., 1999, "The Story of Archimedes and the Screw", Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, Rapport nr.WS-523.
Koetsier T., 2000, "Mechanism and Machine Science: its History and its Identity", International Symposium on History
of Machines and Mechanisms HMM2000, Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp.5-24.
Hachette J.N.P., 1811, "Traitè elementaire des machines", Paris.
Hain K., , 1967, "Applied Kinematics", McGraw-Hill, New York.
Hall A.S.jr, 1961, "Kinematics and Linkage Design", Prentece-Hall, Englewood Cliffs.
Hartenberg R.S. and Denavit J., 1956, "Men and Machines … an informal history", Machine Design, May 3, 1956,
pp.75-82; June 14, 1956, pp.101-109; July12, 1956, pp.84-93.
Hartenberg R.S. and Denavit J. , 1964, "Kinematic Synthesis of Linkages", Mc Graw-Hill, New York.
Hiscox G.D., 1899, “Mechanical Movements”, NewYork.
Hunt K.H., 1982, "Kinematic Geometry of Mechanisms", Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
IFToMM, 1991, “IFToMM Commission A. Standard for Terminology”, Mechanism and Machine Theory, Vol.26, n.5.
Laboulaye C., 1861, “Traitè de Cinèmatique ou theoriè des mecanismes”, Paris.
Lanz J.M. and Betancourt A., 1808, "Essai sur la composition des machines", Paris.
Machine Design (Ed.), 1953, Transactions of the First Conference on Mechanisms, Purdue University, October 12-13,
1953, Machine Design, Vol.25, dec 1953, pp.173-220 (7 papers).
MacCord C.W., 1883, “Kinematics”, NewYork.
Mannheim A., 1880, “Cours de Gèometrie Descriptive Contenant les èlements de la Gèomètrie Cinèmatique, Paris. (*)
Marchis V., 1994, "Storia delle Macchine - Tre millenni di cultura tecnologica", Ed. Laterza, Milano.
Masi F., 1883, "Manulae di Cinematica Aplicata", Zanichelli, Bologna.
Masi F., 1897, "La teoria dei meccanismi", Zanichelli, Bologna.
Nolle H., 1974, "Linkage Coupler Curve Synthesis: A Historical Review – I and II", IFToMM Journal Mechanism and
Machine Theory, Vol.9, n.2, pp.147-168 and pp.325-348.

28
Poppe J.H.M., 1803, "Encyclopaedie des gesammten Machinenmesens", Leipzig
Rankine M.W.J., 1887, “Manual of Machinery and Millwork”, London.
Redtenbacher, 1857, “Die Bewegungsmechanismen”, Heidelberg.
Resal H., 1862, “Traitè de Cinèmatique”, Paris.
Reuleaux F., 1875, “Theoretische Kinematic”, Braunschweig.
Robinson S.W., 1896, “ Principles of Mechanisms, NewYork.
Rosenauer N., Willis A.H., 1953, "Kinematics of Mechanisms", Sidney.
Roth B., 2000, "The Search for the Fundamental Principles of Mechanism Design", International Symposium on
History of Machines and Mechanisms - Proceedings of HMM2000, Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp.187-195.
Schoenfies A., 1872, “Geometrie der Bewegung”, Leipzig.
Tessari D., 1880, “La Teoria delle Ombre e del Chiaro-Scuro”, Tip. Camilla e Bertolero, Torino.
Tessari D. , 1890, La cinematica applicata alle macchine, Loescher, Torino.
Villiè E., 1888, “Traitè de Cinèmatique”, Paris.
Vitruvius P. M. , 1511, "De architectura" edited by Fra Giocondo, Verona, (reprinted in 1513, 1522 and 1523).
Willis R., 1841, "Principle of Mechanism", 1870- 2nd Ed., London. (*)
Yan H.S., 2000, "Creative Design of Mechanical Devices", Springer, Singapore.

Acknowledgements
This is to acknowledge gratefully prof. Bernie Roth of Stanford University, USA, who has trusted and supported my
historical interest. He has donated me some old books from his personal library (see reference note) but mainly he has
shown and taught me through his activity that advanced study and investigation on MMS can be suitably motivated and
completed also by a knowledge on History of MMS.

29