Brigham Young University

BYU ScholarsArchive

Theses and Dissertations

2002-11-08

Development and Design of Constant-Force Mechanisms

Brent Lewis Weight
Brigham Young University - Provo

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd

Part of the Mechanical Engineering Commons

BYU ScholarsArchive Citation

Weight, Brent Lewis, "Development and Design of Constant-Force Mechanisms" (2002). Theses and
Dissertations. 3.
https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd/3

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion
in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please
contact [email protected], [email protected].
 DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN OF
CONSTANT-FORCE MECHANISMS

by

Brent L. Weight

A thesis submitted to the faculty of

Brigham Young University

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Science

Department of Mechanical Engineering

Brigham Young University

December 2001
Copyright © 2001 Brent L. Weight
All Rights Reserved
 BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY

GRADUATE COMMITTEE APPROVAL

of a thesis submitted by

Brent L. Weight

This thesis has been read by each member of the following graduate committee and by
majority vote has been found to be satisfactory.

____________________________ _______________________________________
Date Larry L. Howell, Chair

___________________________ _______________________________________
Date Spencer P. Magleby

___________________________ _______________________________________
Date Mark S. Evans
 BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY

As chair of the candidate’s graduate committee, I have read the thesis of Brent L. Weight
in its final form and have found that (1) its format, citations, and bibliographical style are
consistent and acceptable and fulfill university and department style requirements; (2) its
illustrative materials including figures, tables, and charts are in place; and (3) the final
manuscript is satisfactory to the graduate committee and is ready for submission to the
university library.

___________________________ _______________________________________
Date Larry L. Howell
Chair, Graduate Committee

Accepted for the Department

_______________________________________
Brent L. Adams
Graduate Coordinator

Accepted for the College

_______________________________________
Douglas M. Chabries
Dean, College of Engineering and Technology
 ABSTRACT

DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN OF

CONSTANT-FORCE MECHANISMS

Brent L. Weight

Department of Mechanical Engineering

Master of Science

This thesis adds to the knowledge base of constant-force mechanisms (CFMs). It

begins by reviewing past work done in the area of CFMs and then develops new non-

dimensionalized parameters that are used to simplify the calculations required to design a

CFM. Comparison techniques are then developed that utilize these non-dimensionalized

parameters to compare mechanisms based on stiffnesses, percent constant-force, actual

lengths, normal displacements, and feasible design orientations. These comparison tech-

niques are then combined with optimization to define new mechanisms with improved

performance and range of capabilities. This thesis also outlines a design process, methods

to identify mechanisms that are suitable for a given design problem, and relationships and

trends between variables. The thesis concludes by discussing the adaptation of CFMs for

use in electrical contacts and presenting the results of a design case study which success-

fully developed a constant-force electrical contact (CFEC).

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research was supported by funding from the Utah Center of Excellence Pro-

gram and the National Science Foundation through grant No. DMI-9624574. These foun-

dations are gratefully acknowledged for their help.

I would like to acknowledge the continuous help and support of Dr. Larry Howell.

He has dedicated countless hours to training, guiding, and teaching me. His impact on me

extends beyond the engineering classroom and laboratory.

I would also like to acknowledge the help of the Mechanical Engineering Faculty

and staff. They have been an immense help to me and have always been there. Especially

the help of Dr. Spencer Magleby and Dr. Mark Evans for their support and direction with

regards to this work.

The help of Christopher Mattson, Dan Carroll, and Ryan Weight in development

and testing of the constant-force electrical contact and Cameron Boyle for his efforts in

discovering the affects of friction on constant-force mechanisms is appreciated and

acknowledged.

Most of all, I would like to thank my wonderful wife. She is truly a pillar of

strength in my life. I am thankful for her patience with long, odd hours, for her genuine

interest in my research, her playful teasing, and her efforts to motivate me through to the

end.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1 Introduction and Background ........................................................................ 1
1.1 Thesis Problem .................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Background.......................................................................................................... 2
1.2.1 Constant-Force Mechanisms.............................................................. 2
1.2.2 Compliant Mechanisms ..................................................................... 3
1.2.3 The Pseudo-Rigid-Body Model (PRBM) .......................................... 3
1.3 Literature Review ................................................................................................ 4
1.3.1 Constant-Force Systems .................................................................... 4
1.3.2 Constant-Force Mechanisms.............................................................. 5
1.3.3 Compliant Mechanisms ..................................................................... 8

CHAPTER 2 Behavioral Model Development and Previous Results ............................... 11

2.1 Constant-Force Behavioral Model..................................................................... 11
2.1.1 Slider-Crank Model ......................................................................... 12
2.1.2 Principle of Virtual Work................................................................. 13
2.1.3 Non-Dimmensionalization............................................................... 15
2.2 Type Synthesis ................................................................................................... 16
2.3 Original Optimization Problem ......................................................................... 17
2.3.1 Displacement Vector ........................................................................ 18
2.3.2 Objective Function........................................................................... 18
2.3.3 Other Variables ................................................................................ 19
2.4 Original Results ................................................................................................. 19
2.5 Model Verification ............................................................................................. 20
2.6 Model Exceptions .............................................................................................. 21
2.6.1 Eccentricity ...................................................................................... 21
2.6.2 Class 1B Mechanisms ...................................................................... 21
2.7 Outstanding Issues ............................................................................................. 22

CHAPTER 3 Classification Refinement............................................................................ 25

3.1 Original Classification ....................................................................................... 25
3.2 Classification Refinement.................................................................................. 27
3.2.1 Flexible Segment Configuration ...................................................... 27
3.2.2 Sub-Classes ...................................................................................... 28

ix
 3.2.3 Classification Summary................................................................... 29
3.2.4 Mechanism Inversions ..................................................................... 30

CHAPTER 4 Stress and Force Feasibilities....................................................................... 31

4.1 Stress Feasibility ................................................................................................ 32
4.1.1 Stress Derivation.............................................................................. 32
4.1.2 Stress Parameters Development....................................................... 37
4.1.3 Stress Feasibility Example............................................................... 41
4.2 Force Feasibility ................................................................................................ 43
4.2.1 Force Derivation .............................................................................. 44
4.2.2 Force Parameter Development......................................................... 45
4.2.3 Relating Moments of Inertia ............................................................ 46
4.2.4 Exceptions in the Force Parameter β ............................................... 49
4.2.5 Force Feasibility Example ............................................................... 50

CHAPTER 5 Mechanism Comparisons ............................................................................ 53

5.1 Length Comparison............................................................................................ 54
5.1.1 Length Parameter for class 1A-lpp .................................................. 54
5.1.2 General λ values .............................................................................. 56
5.2 Stiffness Comparisons........................................................................................ 56
5.2.1 Stiffness Comparison Issues ............................................................ 56
5.2.2 Comparison Derivation.................................................................... 58
5.2.3 Stiffness Comparisons Results......................................................... 61
5.2.4 Stiffness Comparison Conclusions .................................................. 64
5.3 Percent Constant-Force Comparison ................................................................. 65
5.3.1 Percent Constant-Force Inversion.................................................... 65
5.3.2 Percent Constant-Force Comparison ............................................... 66
5.3.3 Percent Constant-Force Results ....................................................... 69
5.4 Manufacturing Orientations ............................................................................... 71
5.4.1 In-plane Orientation......................................................................... 71
5.4.2 Out-of-plane Orientation.................................................................. 71
5.4.3 Orientation Comparison................................................................... 72
5.5 Flexible Segment Design Space Comparison .................................................... 72
5.5.1 Thickness Limits.............................................................................. 72
5.5.2 Width Limits .................................................................................... 74
5.5.3 Flexible Segment Design Area ........................................................ 76
5.5.4 Determining Fabrication Orientations ............................................. 77
5.6 Normal Displacement Comparison.................................................................... 78
5.6.1 Normal Displacement Derivation .................................................... 78
5.6.2 Normal Displacement Results ......................................................... 80

x
 5.6.3 Normal Displacement Behavior....................................................... 81

CHAPTER 6 Model and Optimization .............................................................................. 83

6.1 CFM Model........................................................................................................ 83
6.1.1 General Model ................................................................................. 84
6.1.2 Model Inputs .................................................................................... 85
6.1.3 Model Outputs ................................................................................. 86
6.1.4 Model Verification ........................................................................... 87
6.2 Optimization ...................................................................................................... 87
6.2.1 Objective Functions ......................................................................... 87
6.2.2 Variables........................................................................................... 88
6.2.3 Functions.......................................................................................... 88
6.2.4 Optimization Problem - Stiffer Mechanisms ................................... 89
6.2.5 Optimization Problem - Smaller Normal Displacement.................. 89
6.2.6 Optimization Problem - In-plane/Out-of-plane ............................... 89
6.2.7 Combinations of Optimization Problems ........................................ 90

CHAPTER 7 New Mechanisms......................................................................................... 93

7.1 New Mechanisms............................................................................................... 93
7.1.1 Sub-class Expansion ........................................................................ 94
7.2 Class 1A ............................................................................................................. 94
7.2.1 Optimization Details ........................................................................ 95
7.2.2 Optimization Observations .............................................................. 95
7.2.3 Optimization Results........................................................................ 96
7.3 Class 1B ............................................................................................................. 98
7.3.1 Optimization Details ........................................................................ 98
7.3.2 Optimization Observations .............................................................. 99
7.3.3 Optimization Results...................................................................... 100
7.4 Class 2A ........................................................................................................... 102
7.4.1 Optimization Details ...................................................................... 102
7.4.2 Optimization Observations ............................................................ 103
7.4.3 Optimization Results...................................................................... 105
7.5 Class 2B .......................................................................................................... 108
7.5.1 Optimization Details ...................................................................... 108
7.5.2 Optimization Observations ............................................................ 108
7.5.3 Optimization Results...................................................................... 109
7.6 Class 3A.......................................................................................................... 112
7.6.1 Optimization Details ...................................................................... 112
7.6.2 Optimization Observations ............................................................ 113
7.6.3 Optimization Results...................................................................... 114

xi
 7.7 Optimization Results Summary ....................................................................... 115

CHAPTER 8 Design Approach and Methods.................................................................. 117

8.1 General Design Approach................................................................................ 117
8.1.1 Background, Assumption, and Limitations ................................... 118
8.1.2 Principal Equations ........................................................................ 118
8.1.3 Variable Types................................................................................ 120
8.1.4 Variable Value Types...................................................................... 121
8.1.5 Basic Design Steps......................................................................... 122
8.1.6 Other Flexible Segments................................................................ 124
8.1.7 Final Segment Lengths .................................................................. 125
8.2 Feasible Configurations ................................................................................... 127
8.2.1 Method 1 - Stress Feasibility ......................................................... 128
8.2.2 Method 2 - Force Feasibility.......................................................... 131
8.2.3 Combined Stress and Force Feasibilities ....................................... 133
8.3 Other Mechanism Considerations.................................................................... 134
8.3.1 Percent Constant-Force.................................................................. 134
8.3.2 Flexible Segment Configuration .................................................... 134
8.3.3 Manufacturing................................................................................ 134
8.3.4 Normal Displacement .................................................................... 135
8.4 Variable Manipulation...................................................................................... 135
8.4.1 Variable Relationships ................................................................... 136
8.4.2 General Guidelines ........................................................................ 137
8.5 Design Examples ............................................................................................. 138
8.5.1 Example 1 - Basic Design Case..................................................... 138
8.5.2 Example 2 - Mechanism Elimination - Method 1.......................... 141
8.5.3 Example 3 - Feasible Mechanisms Only ....................................... 145

CHAPTER 9 Constant-Force Electrical Contact ............................................................. 149

9.1 Introduction...................................................................................................... 150
9.2 Electrical Contacts ........................................................................................... 152
9.2.1 Electrical Contact Industry Practice and Standards ....................... 152
9.3 Constant-Force Mechanisms as Electrical Contacts ........................................ 154
9.4 CFEC Configurations ...................................................................................... 155
9.4.1 Simulated Pin Joints....................................................................... 156
9.4.2 Parameter Definitions .................................................................... 159
9.5 Case Study Details ........................................................................................... 160
9.6 Model Development ........................................................................................ 161
9.7 Model optimization.......................................................................................... 163
9.7.1 Optimization .................................................................................. 164
xii
 9.8 Model Validation.............................................................................................. 165
9.8.1 Dimensional Analysis .................................................................... 167
9.8.2 Testing............................................................................................ 167
9.9 Results.............................................................................................................. 168
9.10 Case Study Conclusions and Recommendations ........................................... 172

CHAPTER 10 Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations...................................... 175

10.1 Review of Research Purposes........................................................................ 175
10.2 Summary........................................................................................................ 175
10.3 Conclusions.................................................................................................... 176
10.4 Recommendations for Further Research........................................................ 178
10.4.1 New Configurations ..................................................................... 179
10.4.2 Physical Implementation.............................................................. 180
10.4.3 Other Mechanisms ....................................................................... 180
10.4.4 Other Flexible Segment Configurations ...................................... 180
10.4.5 Applications ................................................................................. 181
10.4.6 Constant-Force Electrical Contacts ............................................. 181

APPENDIX A Pseudo-Rigid-Body Model....................................................................... 187

A.1 PRBM Overview............................................................................................. 187
A.2 Small-Length Flexural Pivots ......................................................................... 189
A.3 Cantilever Beam with Force at End ................................................................ 191
A.4 Cantilever Beam with End Moment Loading ................................................. 193
A.5 Fixed-Guided Beam ........................................................................................ 194

APPENDIX B Model and Optimization Code ................................................................. 197

B.1 MatLab Code................................................................................................... 197
B.1.1 File Run Order............................................................................... 197
B.1.2 Variable Name Mapping ............................................................... 199
B.1.3 CFMModel Code........................................................................... 199
B.1.4 UserModel Code ........................................................................... 206
B.1.5 OptdesModel Code........................................................................ 208
B.2 Optimization Code .......................................................................................... 210
B.2.1 anasubC Code ............................................................................... 210
B.3 Optdes/Matlab Link ........................................................................................ 215

xiii
APPENDIX C Optimization Plots.................................................................................... 217

APPENDIX D Mechanism Tables.................................................................................... 221

APPENDIX E Glossary of Terms and Variables.............................................................. 229

xiv
 LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1 (a) A compliant parallel mechanism and (b) its PRBM counter part .......... 4
Figure 1.2 Two element chain of constant-force generator mechanisms
developed by Nathan (1985) .................................................................. 6
Figure 1.3 Rigid-body CFM developed by Jenuwine and Midha (1994) ..................... 7
Figure 2.1 Compliant and rigid-body slider crank model and parameters .................. 12
Figure 2.2 Fifteen original configurations ................................................................... 17
Figure 3.1 Fifteen original configurations ................................................................... 26
Figure 3.2 Refined classification system which identifies flexible
segment configurations ........................................................................ 28
Figure 3.3 Summary of classification scheme ............................................................ 30
Figure 4.1 Values of ∆θ for each pivot point ............................................................. 33
Figure 4.2 Graph of α vs. d for Class 1A-spp-a .......................................................... 40
Figure 5.1 Ψ values for sub-class b ............................................................................. 61
Figure 5.2 Normalized Ψ values for sub-class b ......................................................... 62
Figure 5.3 Normalized Ψ values for sub-class a ......................................................... 63
Figure 5.4 Normalized Ψ values for sub-class b without stress equalization ............. 64
Figure 5.5 Parameters for Ξ'abs calculation ................................................................. 68
Figure 5.6 (a) In-plane and (b) out-of-plane manufacturing orientations ................... 71
Figure 5.7 Graphical representation of flexible segment design area ......................... 76
Figure 5.8 Normal displacement definition ................................................................. 78
Figure 7.1 Explore plot of R versus Ξ'ex and Ψ for (a) Class 1A-lpp-a and
(b) Class 1A-spp-a ............................................................................... 96
Figure 7.2 Explore plot for (a) Class 1A-lpp-b and (b) Class 1A-spp-b ..................... 97
Figure 7.3 Explore plots for (a) Class 1B-psp-a (b) Class 1B-psp-b .......................... 99
Figure 7.4 Explore plots for (a) Class 1B-plp-a (b) Class 1B-plp-b ......................... 100
Figure 7.5 2-D explore plots for slp-a of R and K1 with contours of
(a) Ξ'ex and (b) Ψ ............................................................................... 103
Figure 7.6 2-D explore plots for ssp-a with R vs. K1 and contours of
(a) Ξ' ex and (b) Ψ .............................................................................. 104
Figure 7.7 Optimum plot for lps-a which shows Ξ'ex, Ψ and optimal
K2 for given R values ......................................................................... 109
Figure 7.8 2-D explore plots for sps-a with R vs. K2 and contours of
(a) Ξ'ex and (b) Ψ ............................................................................... 110
Figure 7.9 Optimum plot of design variables K1 and K2 versus R for
sss-b with curves of Ξ'ex and Ψ ......................................................... 113
Figure 8.1 Interdependencies of coupled primary equations .................................... 120
Figure 8.2 Flow chart of CFM design steps .............................................................. 124

xv
Figure 8.3 Definition of flexible and rigid segment lengths ..................................... 126
Figure 8.4 Summary of M value requirements for different types of
identified mechanisms ....................................................................... 129
Figure 8.5 Overlap of guaranteed stress and force feasible mechanisms .................. 133
Figure 8.6 Summary of variable effects on force and stress magnitudes for
an increase in variable magnitudes .................................................... 136
Figure 9.1 (a) Pogo type connector and (b) cantilever type connector ..................... 152
Figure 9.2 Typical compression slider-crank constant-force configuration ............. 155
Figure 9.3 Simulation of pin joints with a circular cam ............................................ 156
Figure 9.4 Limitations and solutions to limitations of simulated pin joint method .. 158
Figure 9.5 Selected constant-force electrical connector configuration ..................... 158
Figure 9.6 Selected CFEC configuration in PDA dock. ........................................... 159
Figure 9.7 Important parameters for general CFEC. ................................................. 160
Figure 9.8 Key Points for the finite element model .................................................. 163
Figure 9.9 CFEC final design .................................................................................... 166
Figure 9.10 CFEC prototype as compared to a dime .................................................. 167
Figure 9.11 (a) General testing setup and (b) close-up of contact with fixture
and probe ............................................................................................ 169
Figure 9.12 Graph of force versus displacement from test data .................................. 169
Figure 9.13 Average and predicted force comparison ................................................ 171
Figure A.1 (a) A small-length flexural pivot and (b) its PRBM ................................ 189
Figure A.2 (a) Cantilever beam with force at end and (b) its PRBM ........................ 191
Figure A.3 (a) Cantilever beam with force at end and (b) its PRBM ........................ 193
Figure A.4 (a) Fixed-guided beam and (b) its PRBM ................................................ 194
Figure B.1 Summary of Matlab file paths and run order ........................................... 198
Figure C.1 2-D Explore plots for slp-b with R vs. K1 and contours of
(a) Ξ'ex and (b) Ψ ............................................................................... 217
Figure C.2 2-D Explore plots for ssp-b with R vs. K1 and contours of
(a) Ξ'ex and (b) Ψ ............................................................................... 218
Figure C.3 Optimum plot for lps-b which shows Ξ'ex, Ψ and optimal
K2 for given R value ........................................................................... 218
Figure C.4 2-D explore plots for sps-b with R vs. K2 and contours of
(a) Ξ'ex and (b) Ψ ............................................................................... 219
Figure C.5 Optimum plot of design variables K1 and K2 versus R for
sss-b with curves of Ξ'ex and Ψ ......................................................... 219

xvi
 LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 Original results ........................................................................................... 20
Table 4.1 Primary pivot and parameter C for each configuration ............................. 38
Table 4.2 Power function values for all classifications ............................................. 40
Table 4.3 β for each configuration and sub-class ...................................................... 46
Table 4.4 Values for Kx-1 and κx for each sub-class and configuration ..................... 48
Table 5.1 Length parameter formulas and values ...................................................... 57
Table 5.2 Percent constant-force values for the original mechanisms. ...................... 70
Table 5.3 Maximum thickness and minimum width constants .................................. 73
Table 5.4 Summary of manufacturing orientation possibilities ................................. 77
Table 5.5 Summary of dNmax values .......................................................................... 81
Table 6.1 Summary of different possible optimization problems .............................. 90
Table 7.1 Optimization results ................................................................................... 96
Table 7.2 Parameter summary for new mechanisms in Class 1A. ............................. 98
Table 7.3 Optimization results for Class 1B configurations .................................... 101
Table 7.4 Parameter summary for new mechanisms of Class 1B ............................ 102
Table 7.5 Optimization results for Class 2A ............................................................ 105
Table 7.6 Summary of Class 2A parameters ........................................................... 107
Table 7.7 Summary of Class 2A thickness and width ratios ................................... 107
Table 7.8 Optimization results for Class 2B ............................................................ 110
Table 7.9 Summary of Class 2B parameters ............................................................ 112
Table 7.10 Summary of Class 2B thickness and width ratios .................................... 112
Table 7.11 Optimization results for Class 3A ............................................................ 114
Table 7.12 Summary of Class 3A parameters ........................................................... 115
Table 7.13 Summary of Class 3A thickness and width ratios ................................... 115
Table 7.14 Largest stiffness parameters and percent increase ................................... 115
Table 8.1 Needed values to calculate flexible and rigid segment lengths ............... 127
Table 8.2 Summary of stress and force feasibility methods .................................... 130
Table 8.3 Example 1 design requirements ............................................................... 139
Table 8.4 Final design values ................................................................................... 141
Table 8.5 Summary of example 2 design requirements ........................................... 142
Table 8.6 Design problem summary for example 3 ................................................. 146
Table 9.1 Summary of case-study constraints ......................................................... 161
Table 9.2 Parameter summary of final design ......................................................... 166
Table 9.3 Dimensional analysis of CFEC prototypes .............................................. 168
Table 9.4 Parameter summary of prototype 3 .......................................................... 171
Table 9.5 Summary of testing and prediction comparisons ..................................... 172
Table 10.1 Mechanisms with highest stiffness .......................................................... 177

xvii
Table B.1 Mapping of parameter names to names in Matlab and OptdesX code .... 199
Table D.1 Combined mechanism table ..................................................................... 222
Table D.2 Combined mechanism table ..................................................................... 223
Table D.3 Combined mechanism table sorted by M ................................................. 224
Table D.4 Combined mechanism table sorted by M ................................................. 225
Table D.5 Combined mechanism table sorted by Ψ ................................................. 226
Table D.6 Combined mechanism table sorted by Ψ ................................................. 227

xviii
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND
BACKGROUND

1.1 Thesis Problem

Many efforts have been made to design systems that produce constant force. Some

of these systems use complex control loops and algorithms that result in costly systems or

operate only in tension. There still exists the need for inexpensive compression constant-

force mechanisms.

Through the effort of others and in correlation with other research projects, com-

pliant constant-force mechanisms have been developed. However, despite the many recent

advances in these mechanisms, there is still a lack of understanding of these configura-

tions. This includes their design, their limits, and how to improve their performance.

Additionally, there exists new configurations that have yet to be explored. Once a better

understanding of constant-force mechanisms has been achieved, there is an opportunity to

develop mechanisms for specific applications.

This work attempts to further develop the understanding of compliant constant-

force mechanisms. Using the results of prior research efforts as a starting point, this work
1
first seeks to understand compliant constant-force mechanism behavior from both a stress

and force viewpoint. This work then examines different ways of comparing constant-force

mechanisms and then use these comparison methods to define mechanisms with improved

performance. Finally, this work attempts to outline a design method that can be used inde-

pendent of the pseudo-rigid-body model. In parallel with this theoretical work, an attempt

to incorporate constant-force behavior into electrical contacts is made.

Before new work is done on compliant constant-force mechanisms, general back-

ground information is given on constant-force mechanisms and compliant mechanisms.

Additionally, a literature review in these areas is presented. Next, an entire chapter is

devoted to a review of the work on compliant constant-force mechanisms done prior to

this research. This includes the behavioral model developed for these mechanisms and

other important background information. After the review, the new research of this thesis

is presented, after which conclusions and recommendations are given.

1.2 Background

1.2.1 Constant-Force Mechanisms

Constant-force mechanisms (CFMs) can be rigid-body mechanisms with linear

and/or torsional springs or they can be compliant mechanisms. In general, they use the

principles of mechanical advantage and stored strain energy to produce a near-constant

output force over a large range of input displacement. This is accomplished by determin-

ing specific geometric ratios that allow for equal increases in stored strain energy and

2
mechanical advantage. In this way, the output remains constant throughout the displace-

ment.

1.2.2 Compliant Mechanisms

A compliant mechanism is one in which the mechanism's motion comes from

deflection of one or more of its members. Compliant mechanisms offer several advantages

over rigid-body mechanisms. The deflection characteristics of compliant mechanisms

allow energy storage directly within a flexible member, eliminating the need for additional

energy storage devices (i.e. springs) found in rigid-body mechanisms. The member deflec-

tion also allows for the replacement of pin joints with small-length flexural pivots, or liv-

ing hinges, thereby reducing part count and assembly time. In fact, one of the most

significant advantages of compliant mechanisms is their ability to be fabricated from

fewer pieces of material providing savings in both production time and manufacturing

cost. This increase in performance with lower maintenance makes them better suited for

harsh environments. Due to these advantages, compliant mechanisms are replacing many

rigid-body mechanisms.

1.2.3 The Pseudo-Rigid-Body Model (PRBM)

The pseudo-rigid-body model is used to help model and design compliant mecha-

nisms. With this design technique, compliant mechanisms can be converted into function-

ally equivalent, rigid-link mechanisms on which standard kinematics and force-deflection

analysis can be performed. Once designed and analyzed, the resulting rigid mechanism

can then be easily converted back into a compliant mechanism.

3
 (a) (b)
Figure 1.1 (a) A compliant parallel mechanism and (b) its PRBM counter part

The conversion between rigid-body and compliant mechanisms is done by repre-

senting compliant members as rigid links with torsional springs at the pin joints to account

for the moments at the pin joints due to compliant member deflection. An example of this

can be seen in Figure 1.1. The compliant parallel mechanism in Figure 1.1a has the same

motion and force characteristics as the rigid mechanism in Figure 1.1b. The PRBM works

well for both small and large deflections as well as with a variety of compliant member

types (i.e. small length flexural pivots, living hinges, and fixed guided beams). For more

information on the pseudo-rigid-body model see Appendix A.

1.3 Literature Review

1.3.1 Constant-Force Systems

For many years, there has been a search for reliable mechanical methods that pro-

duce a constant force. The first real success in this endeavor was the development of con-

stant-force tension springs. These springs, also known as “Neg’ator” springs, consist of a

4
coil of flat spring material which has been given a heavy forming operation. When

unstressed, the material tends to form a tight coil. These springs exhibit little change in

load with deflection (Wahl, 1963). Constant-force tension springs have been around for

many years and can be found in many common applications such as inertia reel seat belts,

tape measures, and pull starts (Williman, 1995). They have even been used in creating

constant-torque spring motors which are capable of producing 50 revolutions on one

winding (Wahl, 1963).

Much work has also been given to develop drive units that produce a constant

force. These include electrical, hydraulic, and pneumatic systems (Nathan, 1985). Many

of these drive systems use complex algorithms and feed-back loops to achieve the desired

goal. Bossert et al. (1996) developed a complex algorithm for following unknown surfaces

with a robotic arm. As part of the method, the robot kept a constant normal force on the

surface. In other work (Chang and Fu, 1997), a complex deburring model was used to pro-

duce a drive system that maintained a constant normal force on the workpiece while fol-

lowing a prescribed path. Successful drive systems have been developed and

demonstrated.

1.3.2 Constant-Force Mechanisms

Recently, much effort has been made to design mechanisms that produce a con-

stant output force. Nathan (1985) proposed a rigid-link constant-force generator. His work

resulted in the creation of a hinged lever that produces a constant unidirectional force for

any position. This work was extended resulting in a chain of parallel mechanisms that

5
 Supported Mass

Figure 1.2 Two element chain of constant-force generator mechanisms developed by Nathan
(1985)

would support a mass when moved to any position. A diagram of this mechanism can be

seen in Figure 1.2. This mechanism can be seen in applications such as desk lamp stands

(Nathan, 1985). Jenuwine and Midha (1994) have proposed a rigid-link CFM. This mech-

anism, as seen in Figure 1.3, uses rigid-links and linear springs to achieve a constant-force

and has been successfully implemented in concrete testing equipment.

Compression slider-crank compliant CFMs have been proposed (Murphy et al.,

1994, Howell et al., 1994, Midha et al., 1995). Millar et al. (1996) developed non-dimen-

sionalized parameters to facilitate their design and tested several mechanisms. Murphy et

al. (1994) used type synthesis on the compression CFM to develop 28 configurations

while Howell et al. (1994) performed dimensional synthesis of several of these configura-

tions. Most recently, Evans and Howell (1999) implemented the compliant CFM into a

6
 r4

r3 r5
r8
springs rigid link

F
r7
r2 r6

r1 spring end
attached
to ground
Figure 1.3 Rigid-body CFM developed by Jenuwine and Midha (1994)
robot end-effector that successfully demonstrated constant-force behavior while cutting

glass.

Parkinson et al. (1997) used a parametric optimization approach to develop com-

pliant mechanisms. In one study, they examined a fully compliant constant-force mecha-

nism that was developed through optimization techniques.

Herder and Tuijthof (2000), have developed 4 and 6 degrees-of-freedom spatial

gravity equilibrators. These mechanisms are similar to the work done by Nathan (1985),

who developed the constant-force generator commonly found in desk lamps, but have a

larger range of motion. Additionally, Herder and Berg (2000) developed a statically bal-

anced compliant mechanism. This system consisted of a compliant gripper on the output

end and a balancing mechanism on the input end. In this fashion, the force required by the

user to deflect the gripper is offset by the balance mechanism, and the user only feels the

force generated at the output.

7
 Chapter 2 reviews in detail the work done on the compliant slider-crank CFMs.

The chapter provides valuable information and a foundation for the proposed research.

The notation developed, equations derived, and the optimization problem used are pre-

sented and discussed.

1.3.3 Compliant Mechanisms

Compliant mechanisms get their motion and energy from the deflection of their

members. The PRBM uses links and springs to model motion and compliance (Howell,

2001).

The PRBM allows for easy design and synthesis of compliant mechanisms. Com-

pliant mechanism synthesis can be divided into rigid-body replacement synthesis and syn-

thesis for compliance. Rigid-body replacement synthesis deals only with the motion and

path of the mechanisms, while synthesis for compliance takes into account both the

motion and the force/torque characteristics (Howell and Midha, 1996).

To determine the force/torque characteristics, several different methods can be

used. Conventional Newtonian methods require free-body diagrams of each link and result

in forces for the entire mechanism. A second method, the principle of virtual work, also

works well with the PRBM. This method looks at the whole mechanism and accounts eas-

ily for the springs (Howell and Midha, 1994).

The PRBM also allows for the determination of the degrees of freedom of a com-

pliant mechanism. While traditional methods predict many compliant mechanisms are

structures, consideration must be made for the movement made possible by the compliant

8
sections. Methods have been developed that take this into consideration allowing for accu-

rate calculation of the degrees of freedom (Howell and Midha, 1995).

9
10
CHAPTER 2 BEHAVIORAL MODEL
DEVELOPMENT AND
PREVIOUS RESULTS

Work was done prior to this thesis on the development of a behavioral model for

compliant constant-force mechanisms (CFMs). This behavioral model is used extensively

in this work and is used as the basis for further development. All other equations devel-

oped in this thesis are derived from this behavioral model or the PRBM and thus have the

same accuracy as these two models.

This chapter summarizes the derivation of the behavioral model, the extend of its

development, and the validity of the model. The following is summarized from Howell

(2001) unless otherwise noted.

2.1 Constant-Force Behavioral Model

The compliant constant-force behavioral model is developed from a compliant

slider-crank model using the PRBM and the principal of virtual work. Several non-dimen-

sional parameters can be developed and the model simplified. This next section discusses

in detail each of these aspects of the behavioral model.

11
 flexible
segments flexible
(small-length segment
flexural pivots) (small-length
flexural pivot) slider
(rigid segment)
rigid segments F

θ'2
(a)

θ3
k2

r3
r2 slider
deflection
∆x
k3
θ2 F

k1
r1

(b)
Figure 2.1 Compliant and rigid-body slider crank model and parameters

2.1.1 Slider-Crank Model

The original behavioral model is based upon a simple compliant slider crank

mechanism. The PRBM and standard kinematic equations are used to solve for the posi-

tion of the slider crank given a deflection. The variables used in the equations and the

mechanism orientation is shown in Figure 2.1b. The known variables for the problem are

r 2 , r 3 , and ∆x . The angles θ2 and θ3 and length r 1 can be determined from

2 2 2
r1 + r2 – r3
θ 2 = acos -------------------------- (2.1)
2r 1 r 2

12
 – r 2 sin θ 2
θ 3 = asin --------------------- (2.2)
r3

r 1 = r 2 cos θ2 + r 3 cos θ 3 (2.3)

These equations allow for all unknown variables to be determined.

Figure 2.1a shows one configuration of the compliant version of the slider crank.

The appropriate lengths of the flexible segments can be determined using the PRBM as

discussed in Appendix A.

2.1.2 Principle of Virtual Work

The principle of virtual work and the PRBM can be used to determine the static

force for a given deflection. It can be assumed that all force references throughout this

work refer to the static force unless otherwise noted.

To determine the static force for a given deflection, equations must be developed

relating displacement, compliant member deflection, and static input force. Using the

principle of virtual work and the PRBM, a fictitious or virtual displacement ( δz ) can be

made from which the virtual work ( δW ) can be calculated from

δW = F ⋅ δz (2.4)

Similarly, virtual work due to a moment can be calculated from

δW = M ⋅ δθ (2.5)

13
where δW is the virtual work due to the moment, M , and virtual angular displacement,

δθ . A good equation for conservative forces is found by taking the derivative of potential

energy, ( V ), with respect to the generalized coordinate, ( q ). This results in

dV
δW = – ------- δq (2.6)
dq

Summing the virtual works in Equation (2.4) to Equation (2.6) results in

∑ F ⋅ δz + ∑ M ⋅ δθ – ∑ --------
dVk
δW = i i
- δq
j j k (2.7)
dq k
i j

Having established equations for virtual work, the principle of virtual work can be

applied. The principle of virtual work can be stated as (Paul, 1979):

The net virtual work of all active forces is zero if and only if an
ideal mechanical system is in equilibrium.

This principle allows equation (2.7) to be set equal to zero. If all virtual displacements are

written in terms of the generalized coordinate, equation (2.7) reduces to

∑ F ⋅ A + ∑ M ⋅ B – ∑ --------
 dVk
 i j- ( δq ) = 0  k (2.8)
 dq k
i j k

where A and B are vectors that change the linear and angular displacements into terms of

the generalized coordinate. If δq k is assumed to be zero (hence the fictitious displace-

ment), then the remaining equation can be solved for the unknown force or moment.

The method of virtual work was applied to the slider crank. The variable θ2 was

chosen to be the generalized coordinate. Equations for the virtual work associated with

14
each torsional spring were developed. A fourth equation was developed relating an

unknown static input force applied to the slider in the horizontal direction. These equa-

tions were summed, and the principle of virtual work was applied. The force, F , was

solved for resulting in

r 3 cos θ 3 [ k 1 θ2 + k 2 ( 2π + θ 2 – θ 3 ) ] + r 2 cos θ 2 [ k 2 ( 2π + θ 2 – θ 3 ) + k 3 ( 2π – θ 3 ) ]
F = ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (2.9)
r 2 r 3 ( sin θ 2 cos θ 3 – sin θ3 cos θ 2 )

This equation tells how the force, F , is related to the link lengths, spring constants,

and angles of the mechanism as defined in Figure 2.1b.

2.1.3 Non-Dimmensionalization

Inspection of the model shows that it relies on many independent variables. It is

beneficial to generalize the model to simplify its use. One method to do this is to try and

remove all the independent variables replacing them with dimensionless parameters. In

the complimentary work done by Millar et al. (1996), three non-dimensionalized parame-

ters were chosen. They were

r
R = ----3 (2.10)
r2

k2
K 1 = ----- (2.11)
k1

K3
2 = ------ (2.12)
k1

15
These parameters where substituted into equation (2.9). Furthermore, the trigonometric

identity sin ( α – β ) = sin α cos β – cos α sin β was used to simplify the denominator of

equation (2.9). This results in

k
F = ----1- Φ (2.13)
r2

where

( R cos θ 3 [ θ 2 + K 1 ( 2π + θ 2 – θ 3 ) ] + cos θ 2 [ K 1 ( 2π + θ2 – θ 3 ) + K 2 ( 2π – θ 3 ) ] )
Φ = ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- (2.14)
R sin ( θ 2 – θ 3 )

Close examination shows that equation (2.14) is dimensionless. Therefore, F

depends only on the non-dimensional parameter Φ and the spring constant k 1 and link

length r 2 . The spring constant is considered to be the stiffness parameter, while the link

length is known as the geometric parameter. Thus, the creation of non-dimmensionalized

parameters reduces the number of independent variables in the model, making the model

easier to use.

2.2 Type Synthesis

Murphy et al. (1994) performed type synthesis on the slider-crank model. This

work resulted in the development of 28 configurations for the CFM. The 28 configurations

consist of different arrangements of pin joints and flexible segments. These 28 configura-

tions were reduced to 15 viable configurations and are divided into 5 classifications based

16
 Class 1A

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Class 1B

(e)

(f) (g)
Class 2A

(h) (i)

Class 2B

(j) (k)

(l) (m)
Class 3A

(n) (o)

Figure 2.2 Fifteen original configurations

on the number of flexible segments and their location in each configuration. These classi-

fications and configurations can be seen in Figure 2.2.

2.3 Original Optimization Problem

The objective of the original project was to find combinations of the non-dimme-

nionalized parameters that allow the slider-crank mechanism to experience a constant-

force over the entire displacement. To determine these combinations of parameters, an

optimization problem must be established and solved.

17
2.3.1 Displacement Vector

To perform the optimization, a vector r 1 such that

r 1 = ( r 2 + r 3 ) – ∆x (2.15)

where

d
0 ≤ ∆x < --------- ( r 2 + r 3 ) (2.16)
100

was created where d is the deflection parameter and the vector ∆x contains 50 points (an

arbitrary number). For example, if the mechanism is 10 inches long and d is 40, then the

total ∆x would be 4 inches. Originally, two deflection parameters, d, were chosen, 16

(16%) and 40 (40%) deflection.

The vector r 1 was then used to calculate the angles θ2 and θ3 for the 50 positions

using equations (2.1) and (2.2). Subsequently, these values were then used to calculate the

force from equation (2.13). The result of this process is a force vector, F which corre-

sponds to the vector r 1 .

2.3.2 Objective Function

An objective function was needed for the optimization routine. This was accom-

plished by developing a parameter Ξ such that

max ( F )
Ξ = ------------------- (2.17)
min ( F )

18
This parameter shows how constant the static force is for the mechanism throughout the

slider displacement. As defined, a perfectly constant-force mechanism would have a level

of constant-force equal to 1. Due to the definition in (2.17), Ξ is always greater than or

equal to 1. Therefore, the optimization objective can be stated

Minimize Ξ (2.18)

2.3.3 Other Variables

The design variables for this problem vary depending upon the configuration. The

design variables are taken from the non-dimensionalized parameters R , K 1 , and K 2 . The

parameter R is always included as a design variable while K 1 and K 2 are added when

there is a k 2 and k 3 respectively. The analysis variables are the displacement vectors, k 1 ,

r 2 , and the angles θ2 and θ3.

2.4 Original Results

Each of the five classes of configuration found in Figure 2.2 were run through the

optimization code to find ideal values for the parameters R, K1, and K2. The values for K1

and K2 were set to zero for configurations in which pin joints were present at the respec-

tive joints. The results of the original work are summarized in Table 2.1

This table shows that a set of viable non-dimensionalized parameters were found

for all 5 CFM classifications with deflections (d) of both 16 and 40. These configurations

have a percent constant-force close to one. However, these solutions are not the only set of

19
unique solutions to the problems, but represent what was felt to be the best combinations

that provided the minimum Ξ value.

2.5 Model Verification

The validity of the behavioral model was verified through prototyping and testing

of mechanisms from each of the classes of CFMs. Millar et al. (1996) describe some of

these tests and their results. Mechanisms from different classifications were prototyped

from various materials and tested using a compression testing machine. The mechanisms

displayed a constant output force for a large range of deflection. However, it was noted

that the initial deflection of the mechanism resulted in a large force spike. This was attrib-

uted to internal friction (for partially compliant mechanisms) and polymer re-alignment.

However, after the initial deflection, the results were very reliable.

Table 2.1 Original results

Class d R K1 K2 Ξ Φ
1A 16 0.8274 - - 1.0030 0.4537
40 0.8853 - - 1.0241 0.4773
1B 16 1.0000 1.0000 - 1.0564 2.0563
40 1.0000 1.0000 - 1.1576 2.1513
2A 16 0.3945 0.1906 - 1.0015 0.9575
40 0.4323 0.2237 - 1.0058 1.0466
2B 16 0.7591 - 0.1208 1.0029 0.5230
40 0.8441 - 0.1208 1.0235 0.5438
3A 16 2.6633 1.0000 12.6704 1.0002 3.4016
40 2.0821 1.0000 9.3816 1.0049 3.6286

20
2.6 Model Exceptions

Close examination of previous work reveals some exceptions and alterations to the

behavioral model. These exceptions are important to the general understanding of past

work and will be re-examined in future work. For this purpose, they are briefly explained

at this point.

2.6.1 Eccentricity

Close examination of the slider-crank in Figure 2.1 on page 12 reveals that when

the model is fully extended, the mechanism is horizontal. This shows that eccentricity, or

an offset from the slider in the vertical direction, is omitted. In fact, eccentricity is omitted

from all equations in the behavioral model.

2.6.2 Class 1B Mechanisms

The PRBM of the class 1B mechanism consists of a torsional spring in the center

of the mechanisms with pin joints on either side. This requires that k1 equal 0. However,

according to equation (2.13), this results in F equal to 0 while K 1 and K 2 would go to

infinity. To solve this problem, K 1 is set equal to 1, which allows k 1 to equal k 2 . Since k 3

equals 0, K 2 becomes 0. However, as a result of k 1 not being equal to zero, Equation

(2.14) must be modified to

( R cos θ 3 [ K 1 ( 2π + θ 2 – θ 3 ) ] + cos θ2 [ K 1 ( 2π + θ2 – θ 3 ) + K 2 ( 2π – θ 3 ) ] )
Φ′ = ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (2.19)
R sin ( θ 2 – θ 3 )

21
It should be noted that Equation (2.19) is used exclusively with the Class 1B mechanisms.

With these modifications, the force equation becomes

k2
Fin = ----- Φ′ (2.20)
r2

This configuration was then run through the optimization routine and the results can be

found in Table 2.1.

2.7 Outstanding Issues

The work summarized above develops several non-dimmensionalized equations

and a classification system for CFMs. Although these equations and classification system

work, there are several challenges to using them in the exploration and design of CFMs.

First, the equations developed rely heavily upon the PRBM making the design of

CFMs difficult for engineers with little experience with the PRBM. Additionally, although

the equations are non-dimensionalized, they require that a full model be developed for

each configuration to determine the stresses in the flexible segments and the mechanism

output force.

Second, the classification system developed identifies only large groups of mecha-

nisms and provides no way of identifying smaller groups of mechanisms or specific mech-

anisms.

22
 Third, the prior work used only one method for comparing mechanisms, the

parameter Ξ . No attempt was made to determine other methods of comparison or other

areas in which improved performance could be achieved.

Finally, a methodical approach to design was not developed. The basic design

steps and issues are not discussed and the advantages and disadvantages of each configu-

ration of mechanisms are not known, making the selection of an appropriate configuration

for a given application difficult. The following chapters address these issues.

23
24
CHAPTER 3 CLASSIFICATION
REFINEMENT

To improve the performance of CFMs and better understand how to design them, it

becomes necessary to look more closely at specific mechanisms. This will allow for com-

parison and differentiation between the mechanisms, and eventually lead to an ability to

design CFMs for a wide variety of situations.

The original classification system, presented in Section 2.2, does not differentiate

between specific, single mechanisms. For this reason, the rest of this chapter is devoted to

the presentation of a refined classification system based upon the original system. With

this refined classification, groups of mechanisms or individual mechanism can be referred

to quickly and easily.

3.1 Original Classification

The original classification system developed by Millar et al., 1996, is first pre-

sented in Section 2.2. The system, seen in Figure 3.1, is based first upon the number of

25
 Class 1A

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Class 1B

(e)

(f) (g)
Class 2A

(h) (i)

Class 2B

(j) (k)

(l) (m)
Class 3A

(n) (o)

Figure 3.1 Fifteen original configurations

flexible members in each mechanism, and then upon the arrangements of those flexible

segments. It can be seen that mechanisms that have one flexible segment located at the

first pivot fall into Class 1A while mechanisms with three flexible segments fall into Class

3A. Additionally, specific constant-force parameters ( R , K 1 , K 2 , Φ , and Ξ ) are associated

with each class of mechanism. These parameters are valid for every mechanism in that

class.

Therefore, the original classification refers not only to the physical arrangement of

flexible segments and pin-joints, but also to the specific parameter set.
26
3.2 Classification Refinement

The original classification system is simple and easy to use. Therefore, the new

system simply adds a method to distinguish between mechanisms within a class that have

the same pseudo-rigid-body model (PRBM) but have different constant-force parameters

and/or flexible segment types. This refinement allows for various levels of classification.

Each level corresponds to various sets of parameters and groups of mechanisms. At the

most refined level, a specific mechanism can be identified along with a specific set of

parameters associated with it.

3.2.1 Flexible Segment Configuration

The first refinement to the original classification system is a method to distinguish

between possible flexible segment configurations within each class. This configuration is

denoted by a string of letters representing the order and type of pivots used. The letter “s”

will be used for small-length flexural pivots, the letter “l” will be used for long flexible

segments, and the letter “p” will be used for pin joints. Figure 3.2 shows the refined classi-

fication system using the original classes. For each mechanism, a flexible segment config-

uration has been added and can be seen under the corresponding mechanism.

When writing the classification, the configuration is added after the class. For

example, a Class 2A-ssp is a mechanism that has two small-length flexural pivots located

at the first and second pivot points, and a pin joint at the third pivot point. A Class 1A-lpp

is a mechanism that has a single fixed-pinned beam at the first pivot, and pin joints at the

27
 Class 1A

(spp) (pps')

(lpp) (ppl')

Class 1B

(psp)

(plp) (plp’)

Class 2A

(ssp) (pss')

(slp) (psl')

Class 2B

(sps) (sps')

(lps) (spl’)
Class 3A

(sss) (sss')

Figure 3.2 Refined classification system which identifies flexible segment configurations

last two pivots. However, notice that the specific set of parameters to be used with the

mechanisms has not yet been identified.

3.2.2 Sub-Classes

Sub-classes will be used to distinguish between different sets of constant-force

parameters within a given class and configuration. Each sub-class within a given class will

28
have the same PRBM, but will lead to different CFMs. These new sub-classes will be

denoted using a string of lower case letters and numbers. The first letter will denote the

maximum percent deflection for which the sub-class was designed. The other letters and

numbers will be explained later in this work as other parameters are developed and new

mechanisms are defined.

The original work performed actually resulted in different sub-classes even though

they were not thought of in this manner. These sub-classes were distinguished by the per-

centage of deflection for which they worked. They are commonly referred to as 16% and

40% deflection mechanisms. In the new classification system, these sub-classes will be

distinguished as sub-class “a” for the 16% deflection mechanisms and sub-class “b” for

the 40% deflection mechanisms.

When specifying a specific sub-class, the identifying string of letters and numbers

is added after the configuration. For example, if a new Class 2B-lps mechanism is defined

with a maximum deflection of 25% and a unique set of parameters, then the new classifi-

cation will be Class 2B-lps-c.

3.2.3 Classification Summary

A classification consists of a mechanism class, configuration, and sub-class. Each

class refers to a group of mechanisms that share a common PRBM, each configuration

refers to a mechanism with specific flexible segment types, and each sub-class identifies a

specific set of parameters. The naming scheme is summarized in Figure 3.3.

29
 A configuration contains all of the following:

3A-sss-b
Level Class Configuration Sub-Class
Common Flexible
PRBM Parameters
Elements Segments
Group of Family of Specific
Applicable Mechanisms Mechanisms Mechanism
Figure 3.3 Summary of classification scheme

3.2.4 Mechanism Inversions

In some cases, mechanisms are simply inversions of other mechanisms. The slider

is fixed, while the fixed end is allowed to slide. These mechanisms are easily accounted

for. In Figure 3.2, these inversions are shown next to their counterparts and have the same

flexible segment arrangement followed by a prime. It should be noted that all parameter

values that have been given are valid for both mechanisms. It is only necessary to apply

the nomenclature in the same way in either instance. For example, in a 1A-spp, the link

length r 2 is always associated with the link with the flexible segment and k 1 is always

associated with the flexible segment regardless of which end of the mechanism is

grounded.

30
CHAPTER 4 STRESS AND FORCE
FEASIBILITIES

To overcome the challenges associated with CFM design and analysis, it is desir-

able to develop a method that would allow for the quick and simple determination of the

stress and force feasibility for a particular application. This would greatly reduce the

amount of work required to determine which, if any, of the CFM configurations is viable

for a given application. Additionally, a method is needed that will be simple to use and

require only a limited understanding of the PRBM. Finally, the new method should aid in

the comparison of different configurations revealing strengths and weaknesses of each.

This chapter adds to the work presented in Chapter 2. It begins by deriving several

new parameters which can be used to help analyze the stress and force feasibilities. These

derivations and design techniques are based upon the pseudo-rigid-body model and the

behavioral model. The steps to the derivation are outlined, the end parameters are defined

and further developed, and parameter values are summarized for the sub-classes and con-

figurations of the original results as presented in Chapter 2. The derivations and results are

then followed up with examples that show how the derivation works and its usefulness.

31
 The parameters and methods established in this chapter will be used later in this

work to make comparisons between different configurations, helping to develop a better

understanding of their strengths and weaknesses. Additionally, values for the parameters

developed in this chapter will be summarized and tabulated for new configurations devel-

oped as part of this work.

4.1 Stress Feasibility

4.1.1 Stress Derivation

To analyze the stresses in the CFMs, it is necessary to first look at the stress in one

of the links of the mechanisms. The critical stress, σ c , in a flexible beam under bending

can be determined from

Mc
σ c = -------- (4.1)
I

where M is the bending moment in the flexible segment, c is the distance from the neutral

plane to the top/bottom plane, and I is the moment of inertia of the cross section of the

flexible segment. Using the pseudo-rigid-body model, the bending moment M is found to

be

M = K∆θ (4.2)

where K is the PRBM spring constant and ∆θ is the actual angle of deflection of the

beam. The values for ∆θ for each pivot in the slider-crank are defined in Figure 4.1.

32
 ∆θ=θ3ο+θ2-θ3-θ2o

r2 r3
∆x

∆θ=θ2-θ2o ∆θ=θ3ο-θ3 F

r1
Figure 4.1 Values of ∆θ for each pivot point

The general spring constant K is

EI
K = γK θ ------ (4.3)
l

where γ is the PRBM characteristic radius factor, K θ is the stiffness coefficient, E is the

material’s modulus of elasticity, I is the moment of inertia, and l is the length of the flex-

ible segment.

Constant-force mechanism configurations use two different types of flexible seg-

ments, small-length flexural pivots, and fixed-pinned beams. There are some assumptions

associated with each of these flexible beams.

For fixed-pinned beams, the assumptions are:

1. The length of the flexible segment, l , is

r
l = ---i (4.4)
γ

33
where γ is the PRBM characteristic radius factor and r i is an effective link length associ-

ated with the flexible segment. For fixed-pinned beams, r i can be either r 2 or r 3 .

2. γ is typically assumed to be 0.85 .

3. K θ is approximated as 2.65

For small-length flexural pivots, the following assumptions are made:

1. The flexural pivot length ( l ) is much smaller than the corresponding PRBM

link length. Mathematically,

l = µr i (4.5)

where µ is the ratio of l over r i and r i will be either one of the two PRBM link lengths,

or an average link length, r ave , defined below.

2. Commonly, the value for µ is 0.10. This value will be used unless stated other-

wise.

3. The values for K θ and γ in Equation (4.3) are 1. This is consistent with the

PRBM.

4. The link length r i used for k 2 (middle pivot) is taken to be the average ( r ave )

of r 2 and r 3 . Thus, r i used to find l in Equation (4.5) for k 2 is

r2 + r3
r i = r ave = ---------------
- (4.6)
2

34
 Equations (4.4) and (4.5) can be generalized to

l = ρr (4.7)

1
where ρ is either --- for fixed-pinned beams or µ for small-length flexural pivots.
γ

Furthermore, the link length or average link length, r i , depends upon the configu-

ration of the mechanism. With this in mind, a new parameter, ζ , can be developed where

r tot
ζ = ------- (4.8)
ri

and

r tot = r 2 + r 3 (4.9)

This new parameter defines the ratio between the total PRBM length r tot of the

CFM and the link length of interest. The values for ζ for the different link lengths encoun-

tered in a CFM are:

r2 … ζ = R+1 (4.10)

1
r3 … ζ = --- + 1 (4.11)
R

r ave … ζ = 2 (4.12)

Rearranging Equation (4.8) and substituting Equations (4.2), (4.3), (4.7), and (4.8)

into equation (4.1) yields

γζK θ E∆θc
σ c = --------------------------- (4.13)
ρr tot

35
 Equation (4.13) gives the stress in a flexible beam according to the PRBM. The

values for γ , K θ , and ρ depend upon the assumptions for each type of flexible beam used,

ζ depends on the configuration, E depends on the material selected, ∆θ is based upon the

deflection and the sub-class as defined in Figure 4.1, and c and r tot depend on the geom-

etry of the flexible segment.

The stress can be related to the safety factor, SF, and the yield strength, S y , as

σ c ⋅ SF = S y (4.14)

Substituting equation (4.13) into equation (4.14) and rearranging, results in

γζK θ ∆θc S 1
- = ----y- ⋅ ------
---------------------- - (4.15)
ρr tot E SF

Equation (4.15) can then be separated into a non-dimensionalized stress factor, α ,

a geometric parameter, A , and a material parameter, Ω , where

γζK θ ∆θ
α = -------------------
- (4.16)
ρ

c
A = ------- (4.17)
r tot

Sy
Ω = ----- (4.18)
E

and equation (4.15) becomes

Ω
αA = ------- (4.19)
SF

36
 The parameter α is determined by the configuration and sub-class, A is based

upon the geometry, Ω is determined by the material, and SF is a design parameter. The

following section will develop and refine these parameters so that they are easy to use.

4.1.2 Stress Parameters Development

Inspection of the parameter α , or stress parameter, shows that it is a direct mea-

sure of the stress in the specified flexible segment at a given deflection. It is dependent

upon the type of flexible segment, the amount of deflection, and the constant-force param-

eter R. The actual size and material of the flexible segment have no affect on this parame-

ter.

Using Equation (4.16) and the assumptions for each flexible segment as stated in

Section 4.1.1, for a small-length flexural pivot,

α = 10ζ∆θ (4.20)

while for a fixed-pinned beam, the parameter α is

α = 1.91ζ∆θ (4.21)

Equations (4.20) and (4.21) show that small-length flexible pivots have an α

approximately 5 times larger than fixed-pinned beams if ζ∆θ is held constant. According

to the relationship defined in equation (4.19), small-length flexural pivots are much higher

in stress than long flexible segments. This is consistent with what would be expected.

The change in angular deflection, ∆θ , in equation (4.16) does not depend upon the

flexible segment type. It depends on the mechanism displacement and the parameter R .

37
 The second parameter, A , is a geometric parameter. This parameter depends upon

the distance c , and the PRBM length of the mechanism.

In determining the stress feasibility of a mechanism, it is necessary to look only at

the flexible segment that has the highest stress, or the primary pivot. Table 4.1 shows the

primary pivot for each configuration. This table holds true provided the inequality

c o ≤ Cc p (4.22)

remains true where c p is the value for c for the primary pivot, c o is the value(s) for the

other flexible segment in the mechanism, and C is a parameter that is mechanism depen-

dent. In the case of the fully compliant mechanism (sss configuration), two C values are

given. The first one is for the second pivot, the second value is for the third pivot.

As an example, take a Class 2A-ssp-a mechanism. The second flexible segment

has the highest stress and therefore, the c value for this flexible segment is c p . Addition-

Table 4.1 Primary pivot and parameter C for each configuration

Primary C
Configuration
Pivot sub-class a sub-class b
Class 1A-spp 1 - -
Class 1A-lpp 1 - -
Class 1B-psp 2 - -
Class 1B-pl p 2 - -
Class 2A-ssp 2 5.090 4.647
Class 2A-slp 2 1.721 1.474
Class 2B-sps 3 1.739 1.405
Class 2B-lps 3 9.081 7.339
Class 3A-sss 1 1.384 8.258 1.043 4.359

38
ally, the c value for the first flexible pivot is c o . If c p is 0.2, then c o must satisfy Equation

(4.22). Therefore,

c o < 1.739c p (4.23)

or

c o < 0.3478 (4.24)

Equation (4.24) indicates that if c o becomes larger than this value, then the flexible seg-

ment with the highest stress changes and a new value for α must be calculated. Values for

C for each configuration and sub-class can also be found in Table 4.1.

Once the primary pivot has been identified, α can be calculated for each classifi-

cation for a percent deflection, d. Figure 4.2 shows a graph of α vs. d for the 1A-spp-a

mechanism. Additionally, the curve has been fitted with a power function. This allows α

to be quickly calculated using

α = Md n (4.25)

where M is the multiplier of the power function and n is the exponent.

This procedure was repeated for all of the configurations in both sub-classes and

similar functions were determined. The values for the parameters M and n in the α power

function for each configuration and sub-class are listed in Table 4.2. This table also

restates the information from Table 4.1. From this table, a value for α can be quickly cal-

culated for each classification at any displacement. It should be remembered that the val-

39
 α vs d
10
8
Stress Parameter,

CFM 1A-spp-a

6 Power (CFM 1A-

spp-a)
4 0.5004
y = 2.351x
2 2
R =1

0
0 10 20
Percent Deflection, d

Figure 4.2 Graph of α vs. d for Class 1A-spp-a

ues for α are good for all deflection percentages, d , up to the maximum percent

deflection of the sub-class. The α value, along with other known parameters, can then be

used with Equations (4.17) to (4.19) to validate the stress feasibility of a design given cer-

Table 4.2 Power function values for all classifications

Primary Sub-class a Sub-class b

Configuration C C
Pivot M n αmax M n αmax
Class 1A-spp 1 - 2.351 0.500 9.414 - 2.504 0.503 16.004
Class 1A-lpp 1 - 0.450 0.500 1.802 - 0.479 0.503 3.065
Class 1B-psp 2 - 5.645 0.505 22.889 - 5.588 0.511 36.806
Class 1B-pl p 2 - 1.081 0.505 4.382 - 1.070 0.511 7.047
Class 2A-ssp 2 5.090 6.250 0.510 25.718 4.647 5.984 0.524 41.352
Class 2A-slp 2 1.721 2.113 0.510 8.692 1.474 1.898 0.524 13.116
Class 2B-sps 3 1.739 3.743 0.511 15.420 1.405 3.280 0.521 22.422
Class 2B-lps 3 9.081 3.743 0.511 15.420 7.339 3.280 0.521 22.422
Class 3A-sss 1 1.384 8.258 8.356 0.525 35.784 1.043 4.359 5.892 0.553 45.280

40
tain parameters. The next section demonstrates the usefulness and practicality of this

method.

4.1.3 Stress Feasibility Example

Suppose that a CFM is needed in an application where the overall PRBM length

can not be larger than 5 inches and a deflection of 0.6 inches is needed. The mechanism is

to be made with a single rectangular cross section ( c = h ⁄ 2 ) under the constraints that

h ≥ 0.001 inches . The mechanism must use the Class 2B-lps-a configuration, and must be

made from either 1010 Steel ( Sy ⁄ E = 0.00087 ) or Beryllium Copper ( Sy ⁄ E = 0.0092 ).

Assume SF = 1.5 . Using the information in Table 4.2, determine if the mechanism is

feasible from a stress stand point.

This problem calls for the use of the Class 2B-lps-a mechanism. This mechanism

consists of a long flexible beam at the first pivot, a pin joint at the second, and a small-

length flexural pivot at the third. Table 4.2 indicates that the third pivot has the highest

stress. To solve this problem, it is necessary to determine the value of the parameter α .

First, the percent deflection or d of the problem is determined. This is done by dividing the

desired displacement by the overall length and multiplying by 100, or

0.6
d = ------- ( 100 ) = 12 (4.26)
5

41
 Therefore, the percent deflection or d for this problem is 12. From Table 4.2, M

and n are found to be

M = 3.743 (4.27)

n = 0.511 (4.28)

The parameter α can be calculated using equation (4.25) and is

α = 3.743 ( 12 0.511 ) = 13.31 (4.29)

Using the value of c = h ⁄ 2 for a rectangular cross section, the maximum thick-

ness, h max , can be calculated by combining and rearranging Equations (4.17) and (4.19)

2Ωr tot
h max < ---------------- (4.30)
αSF
For 1010 Steel, Equation (4.30) becomes

2 ( 0.00087 )5
h max < ------------------------------- (4.31)
13.31 ( 1.5 )

or

h max < 0.00043 inches (4.32)

and for Beryllium Copper

2 ( 0.0092 )5
hmax < ---------------------------- (4.33)
13.31 ( 1.5 )

or

h max < 0.0046 inches (4.34)

42
 Equation (4.32) shows that the thickness for the flexible segment at the third pivot

must be less than 0.00043 inches when using 1010 Steel to keep the stress below the max-

imum level. This thickness is below the minimum thickness value defined in the problem,

and therefore, 1010 Steel can not be used for this situation. However, Equation (4.34)

shows that using Beryllium Copper up to a thickness of 0.0046 inches will satisfy the

stress requirements for the problem. Therefore, the flexible segment can have any thick-

ness between 0.001 inches and 0.0046 inches, and still satisfy the requirements.

Also, using Equation (4.22), it is possible to determine the maximum thickness for

the flexible segment on the first pivot in the configuration. From Table 4.2, the value for

C for this configuration is 9.08 . Using the value for C , the equation c = h ⁄ 2 , and the

value for h max in Equation (4.34), Equation (4.22) becomes

h 1 < 9.08 ( 0.0046 ) = 0.0418 (4.35)

This indicates that the width of the first flexible pivot must be less than 0.0418 when the

thickness 0.0046 inches is used for the flexible segment of the third pivot. Any value

above 0.0418 will cause the stress parameter equation to become invalid as the flexible

segment with the maximum stress shifts from one segment to the other. At this point, new

values for the exponential relationship for α would have to be generated.

4.2 Force Feasibility

The force feasibility equations are similar in purpose to the stress feasibility equa-

tions developed above. These equations contain a set of unique parameters that help in

43
determining if a given mechanism can meet the force demands of a given situation while

still satisfying all the constraints. In many cases, the information used and determined in

the stress feasibility calculations can be applied to the force feasibility calculations.

The derivation for the force feasibility will be presented, results for the original

configurations will be shown, and the example started above will be continued.

4.2.1 Force Derivation

The static force equation for the CFMs is given in equation (2.13) as

k1
F = ----- Φ (4.36)
r2

where k 1 is the PRBM spring constant for the first pivot, r 2 is a PRBM link length, and

Φ is one of the non-dimensionalized CFM parameters.

The equation for the PRBM spring constant is

EI1
k 1 = γK θ -------- (4.37)
l

where the parameters are the same as defined in the above sections.

Following the assumptions explained in Section 4.1.1 for l , and substituting equa-

tion (4.7) into equation (4.37), results in

EI1
k 1 = γK θ -------- (4.38)
ρr 2

44
 In turn, this is combined with equation (4.36) to give

γK θ EI 1 Φ
F = ----------------------
- (4.39)
ρr 22

Using the parameter ζ presented in Equation (4.8), Equation (4.39) can be further

generalized to

γζ 2 K θ EI 1 Φ
F = ----------------------------
- (4.40)
ρr tot2

where

ζ = R+1 (4.41)

for r 2 . Therefore, substituting Equation (4.41) into Equation (4.40) results in

γK θ EI 1 Φ ( R + 1 ) 2
F = -------------------------------------------
- (4.42)
ρr tot 2

4.2.2 Force Parameter Development

In Equation (4.42), γ , K θ , Φ , R , and ρ are dependent upon the configuration and

sub-class, E depends upon the material, and r tot and I 1 depend upon the geometry. The

variables that are dependent upon configuration and sub-class can be combined to form a

nondimensionalized parameter β such that

γK θ ( R + 1 ) 2 Φ
β = ----------------------------------
- (4.43)
ρ

45
and

βEI 1
F = -----------
2
- (4.44)
r tot

The first moment of inertia, I1 , is associated with the flexible segment of the first

pivot ( k 1 ). The parameter β is easily calculated for each specific configuration (with an

exception for Class 1B, discussed in Section 4.2.4). The results of these calculations can

be found in Table 4.3. Equation (4.44) is used to determine if a specific configuration,

material, length, and cross sectional geometry are suitable to achieve a desired force. This

equation can be readily used without a complex model to run a simple feasibility check or

to determine an unknown parameter.

4.2.3 Relating Moments of Inertia

In order to use the force equation with the stress equation, it becomes important to

relate the moment of inertia of the first flexible segment, I1 , with the moment of inertia of

the flexible segment with the maximum stress. This moment of inertia will be denoted as

Table 4.3 β for each configuration and sub-class

sub-class a sub-class b
Configuration
Φ β Φ β
Class 1A-spp 0.4537 15.1508 0.4773 16.9649
Class 1A-lpp 0.4537 2.9008 0.4773 3.2482
Class 1B-psp 2.0563 82.2520 2.1500 86.0000
Class 1B-pl p 2.0563 15.7482 2.1500 16.4658
Class 2A-ssp 0.9575 18.6332 1.0466 21.4708
Class 2A-slp 0.9575 18.6332 1.0466 21.4708
Class 2B-sps 1.2259 37.9347 1.2154 41.3322
Class 2B-lps 1.2259 7.2631 1.2154 7.9136
Class 3A-sss 3.4016 456.4868 3.6286 344.6931

46
I x where x is the primary pivot as defined in Table 4.1. To relate the moments of inertia,

the general spring constant equation

γK θ EI
k = --------------- (4.45)
l

will be used. Rearranging this equation and substituting values according to the methods

above, Equation (4.45) becomes

γζK θ EI
k = ------------------- (4.46)
ρr tot

The constant-force parameters K 1 and K 2 , where

k2
K 1 = ----- (4.47)
k1

k3
K 2 = ----- (4.48)
k1

can now be used to relate the spring constants for the first flexible pivot and any other

flexible pivot. If i is used to represent any of the flexible segments, then the spring con-

stant of any flexible segment can be related to I1 through Equation (4.47) and (4.48). Gen-

eralizing, these equations become

Ki – 1 γ 1 ζ1 Kθ E 1 I 1 γi ζi Kθ E i I i
------------------------------------------- = -------------------------
1 i
(4.49)
ρ 1 r tot ρ i r tot

47
 If it is assumed that the flexible segments are made from the same material and

that r tot is the same for each, then the equation reduces to

Ki – 1 γ 1 ζ 1 Kθ I 1 γi ζ i K θ I i
------------------------------------ = -------------------
1 i
- (4.50)
ρ1 ρi

At this point, a new parameter, κ , is introduced where

γi ζ i Kθ
κ i = ---------------- i
(4.51)
ρi

This parameter depends upon the sub-class and the configuration. Table 4.4 gives the val-

ues for κ i for each flexible segment in each configuration. Substituting Equation (4.51)

into Equation (4.50) and rearranging for I1 , the equation of interest becomes

κiIi
I 1 = -----------------
- (4.52)
κ1 Ki – 1

This equation relates the two moments of inertia together allowing quick calculations of

any moment of inertia within the mechanism and can be used in connection with the force

and stress equations developed to determine feasibilities.

Table 4.4 Values for Kx-1 and κx for each sub-class and configuration

Primary Sub-class a Sub-class b

Configuration
Pivot K1 K2 κ1 κ2 κ3 K1 K2 κ1 κ2 κ3
Class 1A-spp 1 0 0 18.274 - - 0 0 18.853 - -
Class 1A-lpp 1 0 0 3.499 - - 0 0 3.610 - -
Class 1B-psp 2 1.000 0 - 20.000 - 1.000 0 - 20.000 -
Class 1B-pl p 2 1.000 0 - 3.829 - 1.000 0 - 3.829 -
Class 2A-ssp 2 0.191 0 13.950 20.000 - 0.224 0 14.323 20.000 -
Class 2A-slp 2 0.191 0 13.950 6.762 - 0.224 0 14.323 6.344 -
Class 2B-sps 3 0 1.003 17.591 - 23.173 0 1.024 18.441 - 21.847
Class 2B-lps 3 0 1.003 3.368 - 23.173 0 1.024 4.183 - 21.847
Class 3A-sss 1 1.000 12.670 36.633 20.000 13.755 1.000 9.382 30.821 20.000 14.803

48
4.2.4 Exceptions in the Force Parameter β

In the above derivation, Equations (4.41) and (4.42) are true for all configurations

except the Class 1B mechanisms. From Chapter 2, the force equation for Class 1B mecha-

nisms is defined as

k
F = ----2- Φ (4.53)
r2

where

EI2
k 2 = γK θ -------- (4.54)
l

In this case, k 2 depends upon the length of the flexible segment which is no longer

guaranteed to be related to r 2 . Therefore, the value for ζ is different depending upon the

specific mechanism used and the equation for the parameter β becomes

γK θ ( R + 1 )ζΦ
β = ----------------------------------- (4.55)
ρ

where ζ has the values as defined by Equations (4.10) to (4.12) and Equation (4.53)

becomes

βEI 2
F = -----------
2
- (4.56)
r tot

where I 2 is the first moment of inertia of the flexible segment associated with pivot two

( k 2 ) and β is found from Table 4.3.

49
4.2.5 Force Feasibility Example

This example is a continuation of the example found in Section 4.1.3. The mecha-

nism is required to have a force of 0.1 pounds and the width of the flexible segments can

be no more than 1.0 inch. If Beryllium Copper is chosen as the material (E=18.5 Mpsi), is

the mechanism feasible? The stress feasibility calculations were performed in a previous

example.

We know that the stress is feasible when Beryllium Copper is used. Therefore, the

question is whether or not the mechanism can generate the required force with the limita-

tions on the width of the material.

First, β must be determined for the mechanism. This is accomplished my looking

at Table 4.3. The value for β on a Class 2B-lps-a mechanism with k 1 coming from a

small-length flexural pivot is

β = 7.263 (4.57)

Now, the moments of inertia between the third flexible segment and the first must

be related. This is done by using Equation (4.52) and looking up the values for each

parameter in Table 4.4. The equation becomes

23.17
I1 = -------------------------------- I 3 = 6.86I 3 (4.58)
3.368 ( 1.003 )

50
 Substituting the formula for a rectangular cross section and Equation (4.58) into

Equation (4.56) and rearranging for b results in

12Fr tot 2
b = -----------------------
- (4.59)
6.86βEh 3

If the original thickness restriction of h > 0.001 inches is used, then the minimum

width ( b min ) can be found from

12Fr tot 2
b min > -----------------------
- (4.60)
6.86βEh 3

Plugging values into Equation (4.60) results in

12 ( 0.1 )5 2
bmin > ------------------------------------------------------------------3- (4.61)
6.86 ( 7.263 ) ( 18.5e6 )0.001

or

b min > 32.54 inches (4.62)

This exceeds the acceptable width and therefore is not an acceptable design. How-

ever, if the maximum value for h max (0.0046) given in equation (4.34) is used, then b min

becomes

12 ( 0.1 )5 2
b min > ------------------------------------------------------------------------3- (4.63)
6.86 ( 3.0987 ) ( 18.5e6 )0.0046

or

b min > 0.334 inches (4.64)

51
 The stress feasibility equation indicates that this combination of b and h allows

for the mechanism to meet the force requirement without violating the width require-

ments. It should also be noted that there are several combinations of h and b that will sat-

isfy both the hmax and b min inequalities. Assuming that the maximum b (1.0 in) is used,

then the h to be used with it for the third flexible pivot becomes 0.0032. This combination

will also give an acceptable value as will any values between these two sets.

The final part of the design process is to find the width and thickness of the first

flexible segment. Depending upon the constraints, it is an easy matter to use Equation

(4.58) and pick a value for one of the dimensions while solving for the other. In this man-

ner, the complete geometry of all of the flexible segments can be found while still satisfy-

ing the constraints of the problem. This example demonstrates the usefulness and ease

with which force feasibility checks can be performed.

52
CHAPTER 5 MECHANISM
COMPARISONS

To effectively use the CFMs, it is necessary to understand the advantages and dis-

advantages of each configuration. One way to understand this is to compare the mecha-

nisms with each other to determine which ones are best suited under given circumstances.

This chapter presents several different comparisons that can be made to help better under-

stand each configuration including comparisons of:

• Actual lengths

• Maximum stiffness

• Percent constant-force

• Manufacturing orientations

• Normal displacement

53
5.1 Length Comparison

The equations developed in Chapter 4 are in terms of the total PRBM length r tot .

However, it is often desirable to express the equations for CFMs in terms of the actual

length of the mechanism, l tot . This can be done by using the following equation:

l tot = λr tot (5.1)

where λ is a length parameter. A value for λ for each mechanism can be found by exam-

ining them individually. The calculation of the value for the parameter λ for the class 1A-

lpp mechanism is presented as an example. Following which, the general equations and

values for λ of all configurations will be presented.

5.1.1 Length Parameter for class 1A-lpp

The total length of the mechanism is found by adding the actual length of each link

as expressed in

ltot = l2 + l 3 (5.2)

where l 2 and l 3 are the actual link lengths. In this configuration, the first link is a long

flexible beam. The length of the beam is found by dividing the PRBM link length by γ or

r2
l 2 = ---- (5.3)
γ

The second beam is a rigid link with two pin joints and its length is expressed as

l 3 = r3 (5.4)

54
 Combination of Equations (5.2) to (5.4) results in

r2
l tot = ---- + r 3 (5.5)
γ

To find the value for the parameter L , Equation (5.5) can be substituted into Equation

(5.1) and solved for λ . This results in

r2
---- + r 3
γ
λ = ---------------- (5.6)
r tot

where

r tot = r 2 + r 3 (5.7)

Once again, Equation (4.8) can be used to express the PRBM link lengths in terms

of the overall PRBM length. Substituting Equation (4.8) and the corresponding ζ values

into Equation (5.6) and rearranging results in

Rγ + 1
λ = -------------------- (5.8)
( R + 1 )γ

Equation (5.8) expresses λ in terms of R and γ . Substituting the values for R and

γ that correspond to the class 1Aa-lpp mechanism results in

0.8274 ( 0.85 ) + 1
λ = ----------------------------------------- = 1.027 (5.9)
( 0.8274 + 1 )0.85

This indicates that the actual length of the mechanism is 1.027 times longer than the

PRBM length of the mechanism.

55
 The length parameter is valuable in that it allows any equations that are expressed

in terms of r tot to be easily expressed in terms of l tot . This is done by substituting Equa-

tion (5.1) into the equation and using the appropriate λ value. This allows the actual

mechanism length to be used throughout the design process. This parameter also allows

for comparisons of the actual lengths of mechanisms that have the same PRBM length.

5.1.2 General λ values

The technique described above can be used for all of the different configurations

and corresponding λ values can be found. Table 5.1 presents the general equation and

value of λ for each mechanism. Two mechanisms can be compared by comparing λ val-

ues. The mechanism with the higher λ value will have a larger actual length assuming that

the mechanisms have identical PRBM lengths.

5.2 Stiffness Comparisons

A valuable comparison between the configurations can be made by examining the

stiffness of each configuration under identical sets of circumstances. By making this com-

parison, the mechanisms that provide the most force are identified, allowing them to be

used in design situations to achieve the desired forces.

5.2.1 Stiffness Comparison Issues

The stiffness referred to in this work is a measure of the maximum force that can

be generated for a given mechanism size and stress level. To make this comparison, it is

56
necessary to derive a method to hold conditions such as size and stress constant while

comparing the output force. The force equation, Equation (4.44), is

βEI 1
F = -----------
2
- (5.10)
r tot

where β is configuration dependent, I1 and r tot

2 are geometry dependent, and E is mate-

rial dependent. Equation (5.10) can be written in terms of l tot by using Equation (5.1),

resulting in

βEL 2 I1
F = -----------------
2
- (5.11)
ltot

Table 5.1 Length parameter formulas and values

λ Value
Configuration λ Formula
sub-class a sub-class b
R + 1.05
Class 1A-spp -------------------- 1.027 1.027
R+1

Rγ + 1
Class 1A-lpp -------------------- 1.097 1.094
γ(R + 1 )

Class 1B-psp 1 1.0 1.0

Rγ + 1
Class 1B-plp -------------------- 1.088 1.088
γ(R + 1 )

R + 1.05
Class 2A-ssp -------------------- 1.036 1.035
R+1

R + 1.05γ
Class 2A-slp ----------------------- 1.086 1.088
γ(R + 1)

1.05R + 1.05
Class 2B-sps ------------------------------- 1.050 1.050
(R + 1)

1.05Rγ + 1
Class 2B-lps -------------------------- 1.122 1.119
γ(R + 1)

1.05R + 1.05
Class 3A-sss ------------------------------- 1.050 1.050
(R + 1)

57
 A method could be pursued that would fix I 1 , l tot , and E to form a common set of

parameters. This would allow for comparison of the configuration based on F , which

would be directly proportional to β . Although this method would be valid, there are some

underlying issues that have not been addressed.

By making the assumptions listed above, the amount of stress found in each con-

figuration at the total displacement has not been taken into account. By holding I1 con-

stant, the maximum stress in each mechanism is not equivalent with the maximum stress

in the other mechanisms. Therefore, it would be ideal to compare the forces of each con-

figuration at the same stress value. This can be done by holding E , l tot , and the width b

constant for each mechanism while adjusting the height of the flexible segments until a

predetermined stress level is reached.

5.2.2 Comparison Derivation

To equate the stress levels it is necessary to change the focus of the force equation

from the first flexible segment to the primary pivot, after which, the stresses can be

equated.

Equation (4.52) from Chapter 4 is

κiIi
I 1 = ------------------ (5.12)
κ1 Ki – 1

58
Substituting Equation (5.12) into Equation (5.11), and setting i to the primary pivot, the

force equation becomes

βL 2 Eκ p Ip
F = --------------------------
- (5.13)
κ 1 K p – 1 ltot 2

where κ p , κ 1 , and K p – 1 are configuration dependent, and Ip is geometry dependent.

The stress parameter developed in Chapter 4 can be used to equate the stress in

each mechanism to some maximum allowable stress value. The basic stress equation

found in Chapter 4 is

Ω
αA ≤ ------- (5.14)
SF
To make the comparison, the right hand side of the side of Equation (5.14) is set

equal to 1 and the inequality is removed. This results in

αA = 1 (5.15)

Equation (5.15) assumes that the same material and safety factor are used for each

mechanism and that the stress level in each mechanism is the same. Furthermore,

cL hL
A = ------- = ---------- (5.16)
l tot 2l tot

To equate the stresses, either h or l tot can be adjusted to give the maximum stress.

However, if ltot is assumed to be constant as described above, then the comparison of the

maximum stresses in two configurations, i and j, can be expressed as

α i h i L i = α j h j Lj (5.17)

59
 Equation (5.17) can be used to maximize the stress in each configuration. Using

the general equation for a rectangular cross section, rearranging Equation (5.17), and sub-

stituting it into Equation (5.13) gives

α j λj  3
β i Eκ p λ i2 b i  --------- -h
i α i λ i j
F i = --------------------------------------------------
2
(5.18)
12κ 1 K ( p – 1 ) l tot
i i

Equation (5.18) gives the force in configuration i at a stress level equal to the

stress in configuration j given identical material properties ( Ω ), safety factor (SF), overall

length ( l tot ), and width (b).

Equation (5.18) can be used to make comparisons between two configurations.

Ultimately, comparisons between all of the configurations, not just two, are to be made.

This is accomplished by setting all of the configuration b parameters, as well as E, l tot ,

and ba to 1, and removing the 12. This results in a stiffness intensity parameter ψ where

1 3
βκ p  ---
α
ψ = ----------------------- (5.19)
λκ 1 K p – 1

Equation (5.19) no longer results in a force value, but is a dimensionless parameter

that describes the stiffness of the mechanism related to stress. This parameter can be used

to compare all of the configurations assuming identical lengths, materials, widths, and

stresses.

60
 ψ Values given Equivalent Stress

2.500
Mech 1A-spp-b
2.000 Mech 1A-lpp-b
Mech 1B-psp-b
ψ value
1.500 Mech 1B-plp-b
Mech 2A-ssp-b
1.000
Mech 2A-slp-b
Mech 2B-sps-b
0.500
Mech 2B-lps-b
0.000 Mech 3A-sss-b
0 20 40 60

Percent Deflection (d )

Figure 5.1 Ψ values for sub-class b

5.2.3 Stiffness Comparisons Results

Examination of Equation (5.19) shows that for a given configuration, ψ varies only

as a function of α , which varies as a function of displacement. Values for ψ as a function

of displacement have been calculated for all of the configurations and sub-classes as intro-

duced in Chapter 3. Figure 5.1 shows a graph of the ψ values for the mechanisms in sub-

class b versus the percent displacement. This graph shows that the Mech 1A-lpp-b has the

highest value for the parameter ψ. The graph also shows how the available force decreases

as percent deflection increases. This is consistent with expectations. As deflections

increase, stresses will increase, limiting the height of the flexible segment. This in turn

decreases the moment of inertia, the corresponding spring constant, and ultimately, the

output force.

61
 Normalized Ψ Values given Equivalent Stress

25
Mech 1A-spp-b
Normalized Ψ Values

20 Mech 1A-lpp-b
Mech 1B-psp-b
15
Mech 1B-plp-b
Mech 2A-ssp-b
10
Mech 2A-slp-b
Mech 2B-sps-b
5
Mech 2B-lps-b
Mech 3A-sss-b
0
0 20 40 60
Percent Deflection (d )
Figure 5.2 Normalized Ψ values for sub-class b

The data in Figure 5.1 can be normalized using the maximum value at maximum

deflection, ψ c . That is, a normalized parameter value Ψ is expressed as

ψ
Ψ = ------ (5.20)
ψc

Figure 5.2 shows a graph of the same data, but in normalized form. This graph

shows the values as percentages of the maximum value at full displacement, giving a bet-

ter understanding of the force behavior. For example, the graph shows that the force out-

put rises from a value of 1 at 16% deflection to 22 at 2% deflection, an increase of 2200%.

This information helps show the trade off between deflection and stiffness of the mecha-

nisms, helping to indicate in which deflection ranges a mechanism must operate to obtain

a desired force. Additionally, Figure 5.2 shows the relationship between mechanisms. For

62
 Normalized Ψ Values given Equivalent Stress
Mech 1A-spp-a
25 Mech 1A-lpp-a
Mech 1B-psp-a
20
Values

Mech 1B-plp-a
15 Mech 2A-ssp-a
Normalized

Mech 2A-slp-a
10
Mech 2B-sps-a
5 Mech 2B-lps-a
Mech 3A-sss-a
0
0 5 10 15 20
Percent Deflection (d )

Figure 5.3 Normalized Ψ values for sub-class a

example, mechanism 1B-plp-b has only 40% of the force or stiffness of mechanism 1A-

lpp-b when stress levels and deflections are equivalent.

The same procedures were followed for the mechanisms in sub-class a. The nor-

malized results can be found in Figure 5.3. Comparison of Figure 5.2 and Figure 5.3

shows that the order of the mechanisms is the same for both sub-classes.

To illustrate the importance of equating the stresses, normalized Ψ values when

stresses are not equated are graphed in Figure 5.4. This graph shows that when the stresses

are not equated, mechanism 3A-sss-b is the stiffest mechanism, while mech 1A-lpp-b is

not even in the top three. It also indicates that the maximum stiffness is not a function of

63
 Normalized Stress (Percent Non-Equivalent Stress

1.2
of Maximum Force)

1 Mech 1A-spp-b
Mech 1A-lpp-b
0.8
Mech 1B-psp-b
0.6 Mech 1B-plp-b
Mech 2A-ssp-b
0.4 Mech 2A-slp-b
Mech 2B-sps-b
0.2
Mech 2B-lps-b
0 Mech 3A-sss-b

0 20 40 60
Percent Deflection (d )
Figure 5.4 Normalized Ψ values for sub-class b without stress equalization

maximum deflection. However, this information is misleading because the stresses in the

mechanism are not considered.

5.2.4 Stiffness Comparison Conclusions

Based on the results from above, the stiffness of each mechanism can be deter-

mined relative to all of the other mechanisms. The results indicate that the three stiffest

mechanisms are, in descending order, 1A-lpp, 1B-plp, and 2A-slp. When large output

forces are needed, these mechanisms should be the first ones considered. The rest of the

mechanisms are similar to one another in stiffness.

The parameter Ψ also adds a valuable tool in looking for new classes of mecha-

nisms. With the parameter, optimization routines can be designed to look only for mecha-

64
nisms that are stiffer than the mechanisms currently defined. The parameter Ψ also makes

it quick to determine if a mechanism is stiffer than another.

The parameter Ψ is also beneficial because, when values are standardized, the

effect of percent deflection on the force can be determined quickly. This aids in design by

indicating what deflection range must be used to obtain a desired force.

5.3 Percent Constant-Force Comparison

A second parameter that can be used for comparing configurations is the percent

constant-force parameter, Ξ . However, to ensure that this parameter is beneficial, several

issues must first be discussed.

5.3.1 Percent Constant-Force Inversion

In Chapter 2, the parameter that measures percent constant-force was introduced as

max ( F )
Ξ = ------------------- (5.21)
min ( F )
To help this parameter be more intuitive, it can be inverted and multiplied by 100,

resulting in

min ( F )
Ξ' = 100 ------------------- (5.22)
max ( F )
Multiplying this parameter by a hundred gives the percent constant-force as a per-

centage with 100% being perfectly constant. Redefining this parameter make it more intu-

65
itive and easier to understand. It measures the amount of variation between the minimum

and maximum output force of a CFM.

5.3.2 Percent Constant-Force Comparison

To use this parameter, it is important to ensure that the values are used in a consis-

tent manner. The maximum force, as defined in Equation (5.21), is taken to be the maxi-

mum force throughout the percent displacement specified for the sub-class. Due to the

nature of CFMs, this force is usually located at the maximum deflection. The minimum

force is defined similarly to the maximum force, and can generally be found at the small-

est deflection.

One way to help guarantee a good comparison is to calculate an extrapolated Ξ'

across the full range of displacement of the mechanism. This value will be termed Ξ' ex

and is

F0
Ξ' ex = ----------- (5.23)
Fmax

where F0 is the force at zero deflection.

Often, Ξ' ex can not be calculated directly due to limitations in the models. These

limitations may include inflection points at zero displacement or limitations in step size.

For example, in a finite-element model (FEA), it may only be feasible to calculate the

force at five points along the deflection. In this case, d min may be some distance from the

zero displacement. Additionally, results from experimental testing often have a small

66
range at the beginning in which friction and other factors distort the output force. In these

cases, to ensure comparability, Ξ' ex must be determined through another method.

A value for Ξ' ex can be determined by curve fitting a line through the maximum

force at the total displacement and the minimum force at the smallest known deflection.

The y-intercept of this line can be used as the force at zero deflection ( F 0 ).

Using the basic slope-intercept equation of a line, the maximum force is found to

be

F max – F min
F max = d max  ----------------------------
- + F0 (5.24)
d max – d min 

67
 Fmax

Force (F)
Fmin
F0

Sample Curve
Curve Fit

dmin dmax
Percent deflection (d)
Figure 5.5 Parameters for Ξ'abs calculation

where F max is the force calculated at displacement d max (percent or actual displacement)

and F min is the force at the displacement d min . Figure 5.5 shows the parameters used to

calculated Ξ' ex . Rearranging for F0 and factoring d max out of the denominator gives

 
 F max – F min
F 0 = Fmax –  ----------------------------- (5.25)
 d min 
 1–d
----------- 
max

Factoring F max from the numerator and collecting terms results in

  Fmin  
  1 – -----------  
F max  
F0 = Fmax  1 –  --------------------
- (5.26)
 d min  
  1 – -----------  
  d max  

68
Finally, dividing F0 by F max gives

 Fmin 
 1 – -----------
F0 Fmax 
 --------------------
Ξ' ex = 100 ⋅ ----------- = 1– - (5.27)
F max  d min 
 1 – ----------- 
 d max 

This equation gives a level of constant-force for the entire deflection of the mecha-

nism. If the minimum force ( F min ) is already on the y-axis, then Equation (5.27) reduces

to Equation (5.22).

5.3.3 Percent Constant-Force Results

For the configurations presented in Chapter 2, the slider-crank model is very

robust. It is assumed

F min ≅ F0 (5.28)

and therefore, it is reasonable to suggest

Ξ' ≅ Ξ' ex (5.29)

The original values for Ξ from Chapter 2 are shown in Table 5.2. These values

were calculated using the method illustrated in Equation (5.21). The values for the new

method, the inverse of the original, can be seen next to the old values. Examination of

these values show that the percent constant-force can now be referred to in a more intui-

tive way as 99% constant rather than the value 1.0030.

From Table 5.2, it can be seen that the class 1B mechanisms have a smaller percent

constant-force than the other mechanisms. This indicates that these mechanisms will have

69
a greater variation in force than the other mechanisms. This knowledge will allow design-

ers to pick a mechanism suitable for the application. Additionally, as new sub-classes are

found, a method has been established to help identify which mechanisms exhibit a higher

percentage of constant-force.

The parameter Ξ' ex is useful in establishing a consistent manner to measure per-

cent constant-force. For the new mechanisms presented in this work, Ξ' is calculated and

presented as Ξ' ex since it can be assumed that inequality in Equation (5.29) is satisfied. In

the cases in which this inequality does not hold true, the extrapolated percent constant-

force Ξ'ex will be presented. This will help ensure the comparability of this parameter,

allowing for useful and accurate conclusions to be drawn. Additionally, the further useful-

ness of this parameter to determine the percent constant-force from experimental data will

be exhibited as testing results are explored.

Table 5.2 Percent constant-force values for the original mechanisms.

Sub-Class Class Ξ Ξ' ex

1A 1.0030 99.70
1B 1.0564 94.66
a 2A 1.0015 99.85
2B 1.0721 93.27
3A 1.0002 99.98
1A 1.0241 97.65
1B 1.1576 86.39
b 2A 1.0058 99.42
2B 1.1914 83.93
3A 1.0049 99.51

70
 (a) (b)

Figure 5.6 (a) In-plane and (b) out-of-plane manufacturing orientations

5.4 Manufacturing Orientations

CFMs can be fabricated in many ways. The special case orientations are discussed

in this section.

5.4.1 In-plane Orientation

The first special case CFM orientation is an in-plane orientation. In this orienta-

tion, all motion takes place in the plane of manufacturing. To simplify the manufacturing

of CFMs in an in-plane orientation, the widths of the flexible segments must be equal to

one another and to the thickness of the work material. This is shown graphically in Figure

5.6a.

5.4.2 Out-of-plane Orientation

The second orientation is the out-of-plane orientation–the orientation in which part

of the mechanism displaces normal to the manufacturing plane, as illustrated in Figure

5.6b. In this case, to simplify manufacturing, the thicknesses of the flexible segments must

be equal to one another and to the thickness of the material. This allows the mechanism to

71
be fabricated from a uniform piece of material with either simple milling or stamping type

operations.

5.4.3 Orientation Comparison

Different mechanisms can be compared based on suitable fabrication orientations.

A mechanism that is suitable for both types of fabrication orientations may be preferable

over a mechanism that is not suitable for either one of these fabrication orientations, all

other things being equal.

5.5 Flexible Segment Design Space Comparison

When comparing different CFMs, the design space surrounding the flexible seg-

ments in the mechanisms should be compared. The moment of inertia value is set by the

spring constants requirements and can not be changed. However, there are many different

combinations of flexible segment thicknesses and widths that can give the correct moment

of inertia. It is advantageous to have combinations of thicknesses and widths that meet the

design requirements and manufacturing limitations faced by designers. Therefore compar-

ison of these flexible segment design spaces is essential.

5.5.1 Thickness Limits

The thicknesses of the primary pivot is limited by the stress constraint. However,

as presented in Chapter 4, if the primary pivot is used during design, the other flexible seg-

ments in the mechanism must be limited to values that will maintain a stress level equal to

or lower than the stress in the primary pivot.

72
 The relationship above is defined mathematically in Equation (4.22) as

c i ≤ C'c p (5.30)

where c p is half the thickness of the primary pivot, c i is half the thickness of the other

pivots in the mechanism, and C' is a parameter for each specific mechanism.

The parameter C' varies with displacement. For simplicity, and to ensure that the

inequality in Equation (5.30) is always satisfied, only the minimum values for C' are pre-

sented in this work. These minimum values, C , can be determined as

αp Mp d n Mp
p

C = minimum of -----
- = minimum of -------------n- = ------- d ( n p – no ) (5.31)
αo Mo d Mo
o

By selecting the minimum values, the inequality in Equation (5.30) will be satis-

fied at any displacement, ensuring that the primary pivot will always have the maximum

stress. The values for C for each mechanism are repeated in Table 5.3.

The other limitation on the design space for the thicknesses of the flexible seg-

ments is the minimum thickness of the mechanism. This limitation is defined by the limi-

tations of the manufacturing process and materials.

Table 5.3 Maximum thickness and minimum width constants

Primary D equal D min D equal D min

Configuration C C
Pivot
Class 1A-spp 1 - - - - - -
Class 1A-lpp 1 - - - - - -
Class 1B-psp 2 - - - - - -
Class 1B-pl p 2 - - - - - -
Class 2A-ssp 2 5.090 7.522 0.057 4.647 6.242 0.062
Class 2A-slp 2 1.721 2.543 0.499 1.474 1.980 0.618
Class 2B-sps 3 1.739 1.314 0.250 1.405 1.157 0.417
Class 2B-lps 3 9.081 6.861 0.009 7.339 5.103 0.013
Class 3A-sss 1 1.384 8.258 1.832 33.745 0.691 0.060 1.043 4.359 1.541 19.533 1.359 0.236

73
5.5.2 Width Limits

The limitations on the width of the flexible segments are also important in deter-

mining the design space of a flexible segment. According to the first moment of inertia,

the width of the beam is inversely related to the thickness of the flexible segment where

b o h o3
I o = ----------- (5.32)
12

for rectangular cross-sections. As for the thicknesses, the moment of inertia of any given

flexible pivot is related to the moment of inertia of the primary pivot. Generalizing Equa-

tion (4.52), this relationship can be defined as

Ki – 1κp
I i = ------------------ I p (5.33)
K p – 1 κi

Furthermore, using Equation (5.32), Equation (5.33) can be expanded to

Ki – 1κp
b i h i3 = -----------------
-b h3 (5.34)
K p – 1 κi p p

Equation (5.34) shows that the combinations of thickness and width are defined by

the geometry of the primary pivot. The maximum thickness for any pivot is limited first by

the minimum thickness, and second by the design constraints of the problem. Because

general manufacturing limitations for thicknesses vary for different processes, the upper

limit for widths is difficult to define. However, it is known that the limit can be relatively

large.

The minimum width is also controlled by limitations on the thicknesses and, in

some cases, perhaps even design constraints. There are two important width ratios limits

74
that limit the width of a flexible segment and the width of the primary pivot. The first is

the minimum ratio, Dmin, which occurs when the thicknesses of the flexible segments are

set at their highest value. The second is the width ratio that occurs when the thicknesses

are all equal, Dequal.

The minimum width ratio can be calculated by combining the equality portion of

Equation (5.30) and Equation (5.34) and solving for b i ⁄ b p . This results in

b Ki – 1 κ p
-----i = ------------------------
- = D min (5.35)
bp Kp – 1 κi C3

Values for the parameter Dmin are tabulated in Table 5.3. These values represent

the lowest possible ratio between the width of a flexible segment and the width of the pri-

mary flexible segment.

The second ratio, Dequal, is important in cases when the mechanism needs to be

manufactured using an out-of-plane orientation. This ratio is similar to the one above and

is derived from Equation (5.34). Setting the thicknesses equal and solving for the ratio of

the thicknesses, Equation (5.34) becomes

b Ki – 1 κp
-----i = -----------------
- = D equal (5.36)
bp Kp – 1 κi

This ratio indicates what ratio the widths of the flexible segments must be when

the thicknesses are equal for all flexible segments.

75
 C

1
Dmin
Feasible Design Space
bx
bp Limited by Manufacturing Process

Limited by Mechanism
Direction to move for Improved Design Area

hx 1
hp

Figure 5.7 Graphical representation of flexible segment design area

5.5.3 Flexible Segment Design Area

The design area for the flexible segments that are not the primary pivot are par-

tially defined by the parameters C and Dmin. The rest of the area is defined by manufactur-

ing limitations. A graphical representation of this design area can be seen in Figure 5.7.

The design area is bounded on the upper left corner by manufacturing limitations.

The limitations on the lower and right side are due to stress limitations. The mechanism

with the largest area, assuming the same limitations in manufacturing, will have the most

valid combinations of thickness and width.

To improve the design area, the constants C and Dmin must move according to the

arrows in Figure 5.7. This provides for more suitable combinations of widths and thick-

nesses.

76
5.5.4 Determining Fabrication Orientations

The width and thickness ratios can also be used to determine suitable fabrication

orientations. For in-plane orientation, the parameter Dmin must be less than or equal to 1.

This ensures that the flexible segments can have the same width as the material, a neces-

sary trait for in-plane orientation. The magnitude of C in this case is not significant.

For out-of-plane orientation, is necessary that the parameter C be greater than or

equal to 1 while Dequal is greater than or equal to 0.5 and less than or equal to 2. This

allows the thicknesses to be the same width as the material while the ratio between the dif-

ferent widths is not larger than double. The magnitude of Dmin is not significant in this ori-

entation.

In some cases, mechanisms may be suitable for out-of-plane orientation in terms of

thickness (C≥1), but the width ratio is smaller than 0.5 or larger than 2. In these cases, if

Dequal is greater than 0.10 and less than 10, the mechanism is considered possibly suitable

for out-of-plane orientation. The final decision is left to the designer.

The different types of fabrication orientations mentioned above, along with the

required values for the thickness and width ratios, are summarized in Table 5.4.

Table 5.4 Summary of manufacturing orientation possibilities

Orientation C Dequal Dmin

In-plane NA NA ≤1
Out-of-plane ≥1 ≤ 2 (0.5) NA
Possibly out-of-plane ≥1 > 2 (0.5), ≤ 10 (0.1) NA

77
 3
k2

r3
normal r2 slider
deflection ∆y deflection
∆x
k3
F
2
k1
r1
Figure 5.8 Normal displacement definition

5.6 Normal Displacement Comparison

In many applications, it is necessary to maintain a minimum normal displacement.

This indicates that a method is needed to compare the normal displacement of different

configurations.

5.6.1 Normal Displacement Derivation

The normal deflection, ∆y , can be defined as the deflection normal to the input

deflection resulting from the outward deflection of one slider-crank mechanism. Figure

5.8 shows a graphical definition of this deflection. The normal displacement, dN , is the

ratio between the normal deflection ( ∆y ) at displacement d and the total undeflected

length ( r tot ) of the mechanism. More precisely,

∆y
dN = 100 ⋅ ------- (5.37)
r tot

Multiplying by 100 changes the ratio to a percentage.

78
 It is important to calculate d N at a displacement corresponding to the sub-class

maximum deflection percentage (16 for sub-class a, 40 for sub-class b). This value is

known as d Nmax . To determine d Nmax it is first necessary to develop an equation that will

determine the normal displacement d N in terms of r tot and d. First, the normal deflection

can be described in terms of θ 2 as

∆y = r 2 sin θ 2 (5.38)

where, by using the law of cosines,

r 12 + r 22 – r 32
θ 2 = acos  --------------------------
- (5.39)
 2r 1 r 2 

Using Equations (4.8), (4.10), and (4.11), r 2 and r 3 can be related to r tot by

r tot
r 2 = ------------
- (5.40)
R+1

r tot
r 3 = ------------- (5.41)
1
1 + ---
R

Furthermore, r 1 can be written in terms of r tot by

d
r 1 = r tot  1 – --------- (5.42)
 100

where d is the displacement percentage.

79
 Substituting Equations (5.40), (5.41), and (5.42) into Equation (5.39), and rear-

ranging, results in

1 d 2 R – 200dR – 200d + 20000 + d 2

θ 2 = acos   – ---------  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------  (5.43)
200 d – 100

where r tot drops out of the equation. Substituting Equations (5.40) and (5.43) into Equa-

tion (5.38) gives

r tot 1 d 2 R – 200dR – 200d + 20000 + d 2

∆y = ------------- sin  acos   – ---------  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------   (5.44)
R+1 200 d – 100

Finally, Equation (5.44) can be substituted into Equation (5.37) resulting in

1 1 d 2 R – 200dR – 200d + 20000 + d 2

dN = 100 ------------- sin  acos   – ---------  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------   (5.45)
R+1    200  d – 100  

Equation (5.45) gives the normal displacement as a percentage of the total dis-

placement and in terms of R and d. This equation will allow a comparison of the normal

displacement of each of the mechanisms. As mentioned before, not only will this parame-

ter help compare different mechanisms, but it can be used during optimization to look for

better mechanisms.

5.6.2 Normal Displacement Results

The R values for the original mechanisms were used to calculate the normal dis-

placement at the sub-class maximum displacement percentage. The values calculated for

d Nmax are summarized in Table 5.5. These values represent the percent of the total length

that the mechanisms will displace at the maximum sub-class displacement. These values

80
can be used to help determine the space required for a particular design using a single

CFM. If the total displacement for a sub-class is not utilized, the normal displacement d N

for any d can be found using Equation (5.45).

5.6.3 Normal Displacement Behavior

By observing a general slider crank, it can be seen that the normal deflection ∆y

can never be larger than the smallest link, either r 2 or r 3 . Since the smallest link can

never be larger than 50% of the mechanism, the normal displacement can never be greater

than 50%.

Table 5.5 Summary of dNmax values

sub-class a sub-class b
Mechanism
R d Nmax R d Nmax
1a 0.8853 26.96 0.8853 39.79
1b 1.0000 27.13 1.0000 40.00
2a 0.4323 23.23 0.4323 30.03
2b 0.8441 26.77 0.8441 39.60
3a 2.0821 22.82 2.0821 32.44

81
82
CHAPTER 6 MODEL AND
OPTIMIZATION

The development and improvement of CFMs is partially based upon the ability to

model the mechanisms and optimize for the correct parameters. It is through the model

and optimization that new sub-classes of constant-force parameters can be found. This

chapter describes the key features and important issues of the modeling and optimization

of CFMs connected with this research.

6.1 CFM Model

There are several directions from which to approach the construction of the CFM

model to be linked with the optimization software. Since the optimization will alter key

parameters rather than the mechanism geometries, which is opposite of a design approach,

the model to be used at this point in this research will be constructed differently from a

model used principally for design.

83
 Although the model has the ability to produce valid designs, it was not developed

for primary design of CFMs. Modeling methods and tips for use in design are presented in

Chapter 8.

The CFM model is based on the behavioral model presented in Chapter 2, but has

been adapted to include more general modeling abilities and the parameters developed in

previous chapters.

6.1.1 General Model

The modeling methods presented in Chapter 2 are used as a starting point for the

modeling of CFMs in this research. However, some generalization of the model was made

to improve the capabilities of the model.

The model was programmed in Matlab, a mathematical software package. This

software allows for easy use, quick alterations, data file manipulation, and linking with the

optimization software. Detailed information and a copy of the code used in Matlab can be

found APPENDIX B.

The model is based around the non-dimensionalized constant-force equation,

Equation (2.13) (or Equation (2.20) for Class 1B). It is

k
F = ----1- Φ (6.1)
r2

84
where

( R cos θ 3 [ θ2 + K 1 ( 2π + θ 2 – θ 3 ) ] + cos θ 2 [ K 1 ( 2π + θ 2 – θ 3 ) + K 2 ( 2π – θ3 ) ] )
Φ = ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- (6.2)
R sin ( θ 2 – θ 3 )

or

k
F = ----2- Φ′ (6.3)
r2

where

( R cos θ 3 [ K 1 ( 2π + θ 2 – θ 3 ) ] + cos θ2 [ K 1 ( 2π + θ 2 – θ 3 ) + K 2 ( 2π – θ 3 ) ] )
Φ′ = ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (6.4)
R sin ( θ 2 – θ 3 )

for Class 1B mechanisms.

As before, a displacement vector is generated from zero displacement to the maxi-

mum deflection, dr tot .

6.1.2 Model Inputs

The inputs for the CFM were selected specifically to aid in the search for new sub-

classes. Some of the input parameters allow the optimization routine to alter the parame-

ters that most directly affect the sub-classes. The other input parameters are parameters

that have no direct impact on sub-classes, and in fact are often set at arbitrary values such

as 1. They are included merely to allow the model to be used for calculations.

The inputs that directly affect the configurations are:

• Constant-Force Parameters: R, K1, K2

85
 • Flexible pivot types: pin, small-length, or long flexible

• Percent deflection: d

• Associated link for Class 1-B mechanisms

The inputs that have no direct affect on the configurations, but are required to ana-

lyze actual designs are:

• Material Properties: E, Sy

• Spring Constant for the first flexible pivot: k1

• Total Length: ltot

• Width of Flexible segments: b

These inputs allow the optimization software to have the best access to modifying

the mechanism and also allow the model to be used to generate real designs.

6.1.3 Model Outputs

The CFM model determines all the important parameters needed to define a new

configuration. For a couple of these parameters, values are calculated at each point of the

deflection, but only the average value of the parameter is reported - as is done with the

parameter Φ in the prior work.

Actual parameter values returned:

• Link Lengths: r2, r3

• Stress Parameters: A, C, M, n,κ

• Comparison Parameters: λ, D

• Stiffness Parameter: Ψ
86
 • Primary Pivot

• Normal Displacement Parameter: dN

• Level of Constant-Force, Ξ'

Average parameter values returned:

• Θ

• Force Parameter: β

6.1.4 Model Verification

The original constant-force parameters were used to develop a simple design

spread sheet, which in turn was used to verify the output of the model. All 6 classes of

mechanisms were used at both sub-classes a and b. In all 12 cases, the model agreed with

the spread sheet and correctly calculated the parameter values presented in Chapters 4 and

5.

6.2 Optimization

The optimization is performed to determine the best combination of constant-force

parameters that provides the most desirable CFM performance. The performance is mea-

sured based on the comparison methods described in Chapter 5.

6.2.1 Objective Functions

The prior work was concerned with finding mechanisms that have the highest per-

cent constant-force. For this research, several different objectives are possible depending

87
on the desired output. Different optimization problems are defined below, at which point

the objective functions are clearly stated.

In several cases, dual objective functions could be used. However, the use of dual

objective functions complicates the optimization process. Where possible, dual objective

functions are reduced to a single objective function with the other objective function

becoming a constraint.

6.2.2 Variables

The analytical variables for the optimization are all of the model inputs described

above. In the search for new configurations, all comparisons are made so that material

properties and mechanism size are not important. Therefore, these variables are set equal

to 1. The variables that control the mechanism type and sub-class are set to the respective

values for the desired mechanism.

The only variables that are used as design variables are the constant-force parame-

ters. These parameters allow the optimization to modify the link length ratio, R, and the

spring constant ratios, K, in search of mechanisms with more desirable performance.

6.2.3 Functions

The analytical functions for the optimization problem include all of the model out-

puts described above. The selection of analytical functions as design functions depends

upon the objective of the optimization problem. For each optimization problem described

below, the design functions are clearly outlined.

88
6.2.4 Optimization Problem - Stiffer Mechanisms

To develop mechanisms that are stiffer, thus allowing for higher forces with the

same stress limits, it is important to maximize the stiffness parameter Ψ . In this case, to

eliminate the dual objective functions, the parameter Ξ' can be established as a design

function and constrained above a certain value.

Formally, this optimization problem is written as:

Maximize Ψ (6.5)

subject to

Ξ' > Ξ' c (6.6)

6.2.5 Optimization Problem - Smaller Normal Displacement

The optimization program can look for mechanisms that have a smaller normal

displacement by minimizing the normal displacement parameter. Once again, the percent

constant-force parameter becomes a design function. Formally, the problem is written:

Minimize dN (6.7)

subject to

Ξ' > Ξ' c (6.8)

6.2.6 Optimization Problem - In-plane/Out-of-plane

To determine the best configurations that are suitable for in-plane and out-of-plane

manufacturing orientations, it is necessary that the width and thickness ratios satisfy the

89
criteria defined in Section 5.5.4 and tabulated in Table 5.4. Formally, the optimization

problem is written as:

Maximize Ξ' (6.9)

subject to

C≥1 and/or D min ≤ 1 (6.10)

0.5 ≤ D equeal ≤ 2
(6.11)

6.2.7 Combinations of Optimization Problems

The optimization problems described above are summarized in Table 6.1. Not all

of the possible optimization problems that can be examined for improvements in CFMs

are represented in the table. In fact, the problems presented above can be combined in

many different ways. One such way is shown in Table 6.1 under the title “Best Method”.

This problem defines an optimization problem that searches for the stiffest mechanism

that is suitable for in-plane and out-of-plane orientation, as well as a certain percent con-

stant-force value.

Table 6.1 Summary of different possible optimization problems

Normal
Objective Stiffness Stamping Milling Best Overall
Displacement
Objective Function Maximize Ψ Minimize d N Maximize Ξ' Maximize Ξ' Maximize Ψ
Design Functions Ξ' ≥ Ξ'c Ξ' ≥ Ξ'c C ≥ 1 D min ≤ 2 Ξ' ≥ Ξ'c
D equal ≤ 2 C≥ 1
D equal ≤ 2
D min ≤ 1

90
 The optimization problems presented in the chapter are presented as examples and

guidelines. The optimization problems used may not be suitable for all mechanism types,

thereby requiring some alterations in the problems. The next chapter, Chapter 7, will iden-

tify the particular problems used in the search for better mechanisms within each configu-

ration, as well as the results achieved.

91
92
CHAPTER 7 NEW MECHANISMS

This chapter presents the results of the optimization, including explore plots and

optimum plots, increases in stiffness, and summarization of parameters.

7.1 New Mechanisms

One of the main objectives of this research is to find new and improved CFMs,

principally CFMs stiffer than the original mechanisms. To accomplish this, each configu-

ration was examined through optimization for new mechanisms which were evaluated by

the criteria outlined in Chapter 5.

Two main objectives existed for the optimization: find the stiffest mechanisms for

three different levels of constant-force (90, 95, and 99 percent constant-force), and find

the stiffest mechanisms for the same four levels of constant-force that are suitable for fab-

rication in in-plane and out-of-plane orientations.

In many cases, suitable mechanisms could not be found for several of these objec-

tives, and the objectives were altered.

93
7.1.1 Sub-class Expansion

Further definitions to the sub-class nomenclature presented earlier must be added

to help distinguish between new mechanisms defined through optimization.

Two new additions to the sub-class definition are needed. First, the limit for the

level of constant-force used in the optimization is added after the percent displacement let-

ter. This number identifies the mechanism and the constraint used. The number does not

give the actual percent constant-force value of the mechanism, only the constraint value

used.

The second addition identifies the mechanism as suitable for fabrication in an in-

plane orientation, “I”, an out-of-plane orientation, “O”, and/or possibly suitable for out-of-

plane orientation, “o”. These letters, when added after the percent deflection letter and

percent constant-force limit, identify the mechanism as suitable for these orientations,

allowing the designer to know the options available.

As an example, if a new Class 2A-ssp-a mechanism were identified using a percent

constant-force limit of 90 and could be oriented either in-plane or possibly out-of-plane,

the classification for the mechanism would be Class 2A-ssp-a90Io. This name summarizes

important information and provides a unique naming method for the mechanisms.

7.2 Class 1A

Class 1A was the first class of mechanisms examined. This class consists of both

the lpp and spp mechanisms.

94
7.2.1 Optimization Details

The mechanisms that make up this class only have one flexible segment, thus

making it the primary pivot. Additionally, with only one pivot, the mechanism is suitable

for both the in-plane and out-of-plane orientations.

The constant-force parameters K1 and K2 are both zero, leaving only the parameter

R to be a design variable. This makes the optimization very straightforward. Optimization

was performed to find the stiffest mechanisms for each of the three new sub-classes with

Ψ being the objective function.

7.2.2 Optimization Observations

An explore plot with R as the variable was generated for both configurations and

deflection ranges. The constant-force parameter R was allowed to vary from 0.5 to 3.0.

Once the explore plot was generated, graphs of the relationship of Ξ' ex and Ψ with respect

to R were generated. These plots are shown in Figure 7.1a. In both configurations, Ξ' ex

peaks where R is about 0.8 while Ψ decreases as R increases.

A visual representation of these relationships helps to understand where to focus

the optimization and shows that the highest percent constant-force occurs around an R

value of 0.8. This is consistent with the findings of the prior work. The graphs in Figure

7.1 also shows that in order to increase Ψ, R must be decreased, sacrificing the level of

constant-force.

95
 .0777
1.96

99.3

99.3
.0629
1.59

93.9

93.9
1 1

.0482
1.22

88.6

88.6
2-psi

2-psi
1-Xi

1-Xi
.0335
.848

83.2

83.2
1 1

2 2

.0188
.477

77.8

77.8
1 1
2 2

.00403
.107

72.4

72.4
2 2
.500 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 .500 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00
R R

(a) (b)

Figure 7.1 Explore plot of R versus Ξ'ex and Ψ for (a) Class 1A-lpp-a and (b) Class 1A-spp-a

7.2.3 Optimization Results

The optimization was able to improve the stiffness of both configurations within

Class 1A for both deflection ranges. The results of the optimization are given in Table 7.1.

The Class 1A-lpp-a and Class 1A-spp-a mechanisms both showed a 50% increase in stiff-

Table 7.1 Optimization results

Configuration Sub-Class Ξ'ex Ψ R %∆Ψ %∆Ξ'ex

lpp a 99.7 1.000 0.8274 - -
a99 99 1.046 0.8018 4.6% -0.7%
a95 95 1.239 0.7106 23.9% -4.7%
a90 90 1.490 0.6185 49.0% -9.7%
lpp b 97.6 1.000 0.8853 - -
b99 N/A N/A N/A
b95 95 1.052 0.8595 5.2% -4.7%
b90 90 1.129 0.8226 12.9% -9.7%
spp a 99.7 0.039 0.8274 - -
a99 99 0.041 0.8018 4.9% -0.7%
a95 95 0.049 0.7104 24.9% -4.7%
a90 90 0.059 0.6187 50.8% -9.7%
spp b 97.6 0.039 0.8853 - -
b99 N/A N/A N/A
b95 95 0.041 0.8595 5.1% -2.7%
b90 90 0.044 0.8226 13.0% -7.8%

96
 .0996
95.3

2.51

95.3
.0810
78.5

2.04

78.5
1
2

.0624
61.8

1.58

61.8
1-Xi'
2-Psi
1-psi
2-Xi

2 1

.0438
45.1

1.11

45.1
2 1

.0251
28.4

.640

28.4
1
2

.00651
1 2
11.6

.172

11.6
1 2
.500 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 .500 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00
R R

(a) (b)

Figure 7.2 Explore plot for (a) Class 1A-lpp-b and (b) Class 1A-spp-b

ness when Ξ' ex was allowed to drop to 90. However, the spp-a configuration still only has

about 4% of the total stiffness of the lpp-a.

The Class 1A-lpp-b and Class 1A-spp-b mechanisms had similar trends as the sub-

class a mechanisms. However, at 90% constant, these mechanisms only showed a 13%

increase in stiffness. Additionally, no feasible mechanism was found for both configura-

tions at 99 percent constant-force. This is supported by the explore graph generated for

these mechanisms. As seen in Figure 7.2, the highest Ξ' ex value is around 95, the same as

the prior work.

The optimization has defined stiffer mechanisms for three new sub-classes with

16% deflection and two new sub-classes with 40% deflection. If the design does not pre-

vent the level of constant-force from being sacrificed, these new sub-classes can be used

to obtain a higher stiffness in the mechanism. Table 7.2 summarizes the important design

parameters for the Class 1A CFMs which can be used, in correlation with the equations

97
developed earlier, to quickly design any new mechanism. The width and thickness ratios

are not applicable for these configurations and are emitted from the table.

7.3 Class 1B

This class of CFMs consists of the psp and plp configurations.

7.3.1 Optimization Details

The optimization of these configurations was similar to the Class 1A configura-

tions. These configurations also only contain one flexible pivot, the second pivot, indicat-

ing that this pivot is the primary pivot and all configurations are suitable for both in-plane

and out-of-plane orientations.

For the optimization, K1 must be set equal to 1, while K2 is set equal to 0. Again,

this leaves only R to be used as a design variable. The optimization is not complicated and

new mechanisms for the three new sub-classes are easily defined.

Table 7.2 Parameter summary for new mechanisms in Class 1A.

Configuration Sub-Class Primary Pivot Ξ'ex R K1 K2 κ1 κ2 κ3 Φ β Ψ λ M n d Nmax
lpp a 99.7 0.8274 3.50 0.4537 2.901 1.000 1.097 0.4501 0.5004 26.96
a99 99.0 0.8018 3.45 0.4439 2.759 1.046 1.098 0.4373 0.4994 26.90
1 0 -
a95 95.0 0.7106 3.28 0.4067 2.279 1.239 1.103 0.3923 0.4952 26.57
a90 90.0 0.6185 3.10 0.3653 1.832 1.492 1.109 0.3479 0.4898 26.04
lpp b 97.6 0.8853 3.61 0.4773 3.248 1.002 1.094 0.4788 0.5033 39.79
b99
1 0 -
b95 95.0 0.8595 3.56 0.4630 3.065 1.052 1.095 0.4683 0.5000 39.68
b90 90.0 0.8226 3.49 0.4421 2.812 1.129 1.097 0.4535 0.4949 39.47
spp a 99.7 0.8274 18.27 0.4537 15.152 0.039 1.027 2.3511 0.5004 26.96
a99 99.0 0.8018 18.02 0.4439 14.412 0.041 1.028 2.2841 0.4994 26.90
1 0 -
a95 95.0 0.7104 17.10 0.4066 11.895 0.049 1.029 2.0482 0.4951 26.57
a90 90.0 0.6187 16.19 0.3654 9.576 0.059 1.031 1.8177 0.4898 26.04
spp b 97.6 0.8853 18.85 0.4773 16.964 0.039 1.027 2.5006 0.5033 39.79
b99
1 0 -
b95 95.0 0.8595 18.60 0.4630 16.010 0.041 1.027 2.4460 0.5000 39.68
b90 90.0 0.8226 18.23 0.4421 14.686 0.044 1.027 2.3687 0.4949 39.47

98
 .0151

.0373
94.6

86.2
12

.0146

.0328
92.9

82.5
1
1
2
.0142

.0283
91.2

78.8
2
2-Psi

2-Psi
1-Xi

1-Xi
.0137

.0238
89.4

75.2
1
2
.0132

.0193
87.7

71.5
2
1

1
.0128

.0148
2
85.9

67.8
.500 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00
R R

(a) (b)
Figure 7.3 Explore plots for (a) Class 1B-psp-a (b) Class 1B-psp-b

7.3.2 Optimization Observations

Four explore plots were generated, one each for every combination of configura-

tion and displacement percentage. Figure 7.3 shows the explore plots for the psp configu-

ration. The peaks in the parameter Ξ' ex are clearly visible and correspond to the values

found in the original works. Additionally, according to Figure 7.3a, Ψ peaks at the same

point as Ξ' ex for the Class 1B-psp-a mechanism, thus indicating that no improvements are

possible. Examination of Ψ in Figure 7.3b shows that increases in Ψ occur only once Ξ' ex

has decreased below 75. This indicates that stiffer mechanisms for the three new sub-

classes cannot be determined for Class 1B-psp-b.

The explore plots for the plp configurations in Figure 7.4 appear similar to the

explore plots in Figure 7.3. In fact, within the same percent deflection and between the

two configurations, the curves for Ξ' ex are identical. The differences are in the Ψ curves.

99
 .710

94.6

86.2

1.80
1
.574

90.3

82.5

1.47
2
1
.439

86.0

78.8

1.13
2-Psi

1-Psi
1-Xi

2-Xi
.303

81.6

75.2

.788
1
2
.167

77.3

71.5

.449
2
2 1
2
.0312

73.0

67.8

.110
2 1 1
1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00
R R

(a) (b)
Figure 7.4 Explore plots for (a) Class 1B-plp-a (b) Class 1B-plp-b

This is consistent with expectations as Ξ' ex is based on the PRBM which does not change

between configurations within a certain class, while Ψ is based on the actual configuration

of flexible segments.

Once again the peaks in Ξ' ex correspond with the original work, indicating no

improvement in Ξ' ex . However, the peaks in the Ψ curves do not correspond to the peaks

in the Ξ' ex curve as they did with the psp configurations. This offset between the Ξ' ex and

Ψ curves provides an opportunity for trade-offs between stiffness and percent constant-

force.

7.3.3 Optimization Results

The results of the optimization are summarized in Table 7.3. As expected, no feasi-

ble mechanisms for the psp with either percent deflection were found that offered a higher

stiffness while keeping percent constant-force above 90.

100
 For the Class 1B-plp-a mechanisms, feasible mechanisms for percent constant-

force values of 95 and 99 could not be found. Therefore, stiffer mechanisms were searched

for at percent constant-force levels of 80, 85, and 90. The Class 1B-plp-a90 mechanism

showed an increase of 70% while the Class 1B-plp-a80 mechanism increased in stiffness

by 88%.

Improved mechanisms for Class 1B-plp-b were found for 80 and 85 percent con-

stant-force values. These mechanisms showed an increase of 22% and 45% in stiffness

from the original mechanism. The summary of the parameters for the Class 1B mecha-

nisms is found in Table 7.4

Table 7.3 Optimization results for Class 1B configurations

Configuration Sub-class Ξ'ex Ψ R %∆Ψ %∆Ξ'ex

psp a 94.6 0.015 1.0000 - -
a99 N/A
a95 N/A
a90 N/A
psp b 86.3 0.016 1.0000 - -
b99 N/A N/A N/A
b95 N/A N/A N/A
b90 N/A N/A N/A
pl p a 94.6 0.378 1.0000 - -
a99 N/A N/A N/A
a95 N/A N/A N/A
a90 90 0.644 0.4388 70.4% -4.9%
a85 85 0.698 0.3170 84.7% -10.2%
a80 80 0.710 0.2530 87.8% -15.5%
pl p b 86.3 0.409 1.0000 - -
b99 N/A
b95 N/A
b90 N/A
b85 85 0.500 0.7919 22.1% -1.5%
b80 80 0.596 0.6043 45.5% -7.3%

101
7.4 Class 2A

The Class 2A mechanisms consist of the slp and ssp configurations. These mecha-

nisms are combinations of the Class 1A-spp and Class 1B-psp and pl3p configurations.

7.4.1 Optimization Details

These configurations presented more difficulty to the optimization and in deter-

mining which mechanisms to include in this work. This difficulty comes from the intro-

duction of a second design variable because of the use of two flexible segments.

Additionally, the ratios between the thickness and width of these two flexible segments are

important and must be considered during optimization.

The parameters R and K1 are the two design variables for the optimization, while

the thickness and width ratios for the first two pivots are added as design functions. Multi-

ple starting points were used to find different local minimums.

Table 7.4 Parameter summary for new mechanisms of Class 1B

Configuration Sub-Class Primary Pivot Ξ'ex R K1 K2 κ1 κ2 κ3 Φ β Ψ λ M n d Nmax

psp a 2 94.6 1 1 0 - 20.00 - 2.0560 82.242 0.015 1.000 5.6291 0.5062 27.13
psp b 2 86.3 1 1 0 - 20.00 - 2.1500 86.000 0.016 1.000 5.4974 0.5164 40.00
pl p a 94.6 1 3.83 2.0561 15.747 0.378 1.088 1.0777 0.5062 27.13
a90 90.0 0.4387 2.75 3.4511 13.677 0.644 1.123 0.8380 0.5115 24.03
2 1 0 - -
a85 85.0 0.3170 2.52 4.4878 14.904 0.698 1.134 0.8214 0.5176 21.34
a80 80.0 0.2529 2.40 5.4987 16.527 0.710 1.141 0.8272 0.5239 19.11
pl p b 86.3 1 3.83 2.1501 16.466 0.409 1.088 1.0525 0.5164 40.00
b85 2 85.0 0.7919 1 0 - 3.43 - 2.4473 15.046 0.500 1.098 0.9468 0.5178 39.24
b80 80.0 0.6043 3.07 2.9399 14.487 0.596 1.110 0.8593 0.5233 36.46

102
 .00991
.0458
.0962
.140
.233

.341

.420

.420
.341
.264
.233

.153
.140
80.1
86.4
91.1
93.3

94.5

94.5

94.0
93.3

92.2

91.1
90.1

88.0

86.4
20.0

20.0
16.0

16.0
.0962
12.0

12.0
K1

K1
.0578
8.00

8.00
.0458

84.3
4.00

4.00
80.1 .00991
.500 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 .500 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00
R R

(a) (b)
Figure 7.5 2-D explore plots for slp-a of R and K1 with contours of (a) Ξ'ex and (b) Ψ

7.4.2 Optimization Observations

The slp-a configuration was considered first. Two 2-D explore plots were gener-

ated for this mechanism and are shown in Figure 7.5 with R and K1 on the horizontal and

vertical axes. These plots show contours of Ξ' ex in Figure 7.5a and Ψ in Figure 7.5b.

Examination of these plots show that Ξ' ex is fairly independent of K1 but highly depen-

dent on R. Additionally, K1 has very little effect on Ψ for values of R below 1, but a large

effect on Ψ for larger values of R. The parameter R also affects Ψ .

These observations are valuable and give insight into the mechanism. The value

for K1, since it has little effect on Ξ' ex , should be made as large as possible. However, by

increasing K1, the ratio of the spring constants is increased, affecting the width and thick-

103
 .0122
.0135
.0145
.0148

.0148

.0145

.0140

.0135

.0128

.0122

.0118
69.7
75.4
85.4
85.4

80.1
75.4

69.7

68.4

67.6

67.1
12.0

12.0
66.6
8.00

8.00
K1

K1
.0118
65.6
.00973
4.00

4.00
62.4

1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00
R R

(a) (b)

Figure 7.6 2-D explore plots for ssp-a with R vs. K1 and contours of (a) Ξ' ex and (b) Ψ

ness ratios. Ultimately, K1 can only be increased so much before fabricating the mecha-

nism becomes infeasible.

The 2-D explore plots for slp-b showed similar relationships among the parame-

ters. These plots can be found in Appendix C under Figure C.1.

The ssp-a and ssp-b configurations were examined in the same way as the slp con-

figurations. The 2-D explore plots for the ssp-a configurations can be found in Figure 7.6.

These plots show that the contours of Ξ'ex are similar to those found in Figure 7.5a. How-

ever, the contours for Ψ are different. In this mechanism, the area in which Ψ is the high-

est corresponds to the area with the highest Ξ' ex . Additionally, in this area, as K1

decreases, Ψ increases, indicating that K1 should be minimized.

104
 The ssp-b explore plots, shown in Figure C.2 in Appendix C, display the same

trends as those found in the ssp-a configuration.

7.4.3 Optimization Results

The optimization of the Class 2A mechanisms resulted in the identification of

stiffer mechanisms and the definition of mechanisms suitable for in-plane and out-of-

plane fabrication orientations. These improvements are summarized in Table 7.5.

The original slp-a sub-class was suitable for in-plane orientations, and possibly

suitable for out-of-plane orientations. A new sub-class was found that had the same level

of constant-force, was suitable for both in-plane and out-of-plane orientations, and had a

50% increase in stiffness. Another sub-class was found for this configuration that allowed

the level of constant-force to decrease to 90, but increased the stiffness by 268%. This rep-

Table 7.5 Optimization results for Class 2A

Configuration Sub-Class Ξ'ex Ψ R K1 %∆Ψ %∆Ξ'ex

slp asI 99.8 0.145 0.3950 0.1906 - -
a99IO 99 0.219 0.5057 0.2640 51.4% -0.8%
a95Io 95 0.338 0.8237 1.6370 133.6% -4.8%
a90I 93 0.534 1.5278 15.0000 268.7% -6.8%
a90IO 97.7 0.233 0.5437 0.3521 61.0% -2.1%
slp bIO 99.8 0.181 0.4323 0.2237 - -
b99 N/A N/A N/A N/A
b95IO 96 0.294 0.6248 0.3924 62.9% -3.8%
b90Io 90 0.331 0.7267 0.8283 83.4% -9.8%
ssp asI 99.8 0.017 0.3950 0.1906 - -
a99I 99 0.042 0.7864 0.1000 141.4% -0.8%
a95I 96.2 0.048 0.9182 0.1000 176.9% -3.6%
a95IO 95 0.022 0.9563 0.5113 24.3% -4.8%
a90IO 90 0.028 1.4688 0.4050 59.5% -9.8%
ssp bsI 99.4 0.019 0.4323 0.2237 - -
b99 N/A N/A N/A N/A
b94I 94 0.030 0.3000 0.1000 54.5% -5.4%
b90IO 90 0.022 0.8714 0.5343 14.7% -9.5%
b90o 91.2 0.052 0.9325 0.1000 170.8% -8.2%

105
resents a fairly large increase in stiffness, with only a marginal decrease in percent con-

stant-force. The other new sub-classes for slp-a are shown in Table 7.5.

In the slp-b configuration, the original sub-class was the best mechanism that

could be found for the given value of Ξ' ex . However, a decrease of 10 in Ξ' ex provided an

increase of 83% in stiffness.

The original ssp-a configuration was improved by 141% without changing Ξ' ex .

However, the original sub-class was possibly suitable for out-of-plane orientation, while

the new sub-class was not suitable for out-of-plane orientation. When the out-of-plane ori-

entation constraints were removed from the optimization, the stiffest mechanism that

could be found with Ξ' ex values between 90 and 100 was the a95M sub-class. This sub-

class has a Ξ' ex value of 96.2 and a 176.9% increase in stiffness over the original sub-

class. However, forcing the optimization to look for sub-classes suitable for in-plane and

out-of-plane orientations resulted in improvements of 24% for 95 percent constant-force

and 60% increase for 90 percent constant-force.

The final configuration in this class of CFMs is the ssp-b. As with the slp-b, the

original sub-class was the stiffest mechanism that could be found for 99 percent constant-

force. However, a sub-class, not suitable for in-plane orientation and only possibly suit-

able for out-of-plane fabrication orientation, was found for 90 percent constant-force with

a 170% increase in stiffness.

106
 In all, the results of the optimization are promising. Many new sub-classes are pre-

sented in Table 7.5. The important design parameters for these new sub-classes are sum-

marized in Table 7.6 while the thickness and width ratios determined from the

optimization are summarized in Table 7.7.

Table 7.6 Summary of Class 2A parameters

Configuration Sub-Class Primary Pivot Ξ'ex R K1 K2 κ1 κ2 κ3 Φ β Ψ λ M n d Nmax

slp aIo 2 99.8 0.3950 0.1906 0 13.95 6.76 - 0.9573 18.628 0.145 1.086 2.0988 0.5132 23.23
a99IO 2 99.0 0.5057 0.2640 0 15.06 5.70 - 1.1290 25.595 0.219 1.092 1.6933 0.5097 24.97
a95Io 1 95.0 0.8237 1.6370 0 18.24 4.24 - 4.1829 139.117 0.338 1.107 2.3414 0.5002 26.95
a90I 1 93.3 1.5278 15.0000 0 25.28 3.17 - 26.3159 1681.489 0.534 1.126 4.3532 0.5175 26.28
a90IO 2 97.7 0.5437 0.3521 0 15.44 5.44 - 1.3688 32.622 0.233 1.095 1.5975 0.5090 25.39
slp bIO 2 99.4 0.4323 0.2237 0 14.32 6.34 - 1.0467 21.473 0.181 1.088 1.8373 0.5341 30.18
b99
b95IO 1 96.2 0.6248 0.3924 0 16.25 4.98 - 1.4438 38.116 0.294 1.099 1.9768 0.4578 36.92
b90Io 1 90.0 0.7267 0.8283 0 17.27 4.55 - 2.5248 75.281 0.331 1.103 2.1734 0.4794 38.58
ssp aIo 2 99.8 0.3950 0.1906 0 13.95 20.00 - 0.9573 18.628 0.017 1.036 6.2080 0.5132 23.23
a99I 2 99.0 0.7864 0.1000 0 17.86 20.00 - 0.6718 21.440 0.042 1.028 5.6676 0.5066 26.85
a95I 2 96.2 0.9182 0.1000 0 19.18 20.00 - 0.7015 25.810 0.048 1.026 5.6339 0.5062 27.09
a95IO 2 95.0 0.9563 0.5113 0 19.56 20.00 - 1.5750 60.277 0.022 1.026 5.6304 0.5062 27.12
a90IO 2 90.0 1.4688 0.4050 0 24.69 20.00 - 1.3429 81.851 0.028 1.020 5.7279 0.5073 26.43
ssp bIo 2 99.4 0.4323 0.2237 0 14.32 20.00 - 1.0467 21.473 0.019 1.035 5.7929 0.5341 30.18
b99
b94I 2 94.1 0.3000 0.1000 0 13.00 20.00 - 0.6423 10.854 0.030 1.038 6.3534 0.5372 23.08
b90IO 2 90.0 0.8714 0.5343 0 18.71 20.00 - 1.7057 59.736 0.022 1.027 5.5051 0.5168 39.74
b90o 2 91.2 0.9323 0.1000 0 19.32 20.00 - 0.7255 27.087 0.052 1.026 5.4994 0.5165 39.93

Table 7.7 Summary of Class 2A thickness and width ratios

Configuration Sub-Class Primary Pivot C1 C2 C3 D 1equal D 2equal D 3equal D 1min D 2min D 3min
slp aIo 2 1.71 1.00 - 2.54 1.00 - 0.51 1.00 -
a99IO 2 1.13 1.00 - 1.43 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 -
a95Io 1 1.00 1.92 - 1.00 7.04 - 1.00 1.00 -
a90I 1 1.00 4.82 - 1.00 119.69 - 1.00 1.07 -
a90IO 2 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 -
slp bIO 2 1.47 1.00 - 1.98 1.00 - 0.63 1.00 -
b99
b95IO 1 1.00 1.09 - 1.00 1.28 - 1.00 1.00 -
b90Io 1 1.00 1.47 - 1.00 3.14 - 1.00 1.00 -
ssp aIo 2 5.07 1.00 - 7.52 1.00 - 0.06 1.00 -
a99I 2 2.54 1.00 - 11.20 1.00 - 0.68 1.00 -
a95I 2 2.18 1.00 - 10.43 1.00 - 1.01 1.00 -
a95IO 2 2.09 1.00 - 2.00 1.00 - 0.22 1.00 -
a90IO 2 1.33 1.00 - 2.00 1.00 - 0.84 1.00 -
ssp bIo 2 4.63 1.00 - 6.24 1.00 - 0.06 1.00 -
b99
b94I 2 6.67 1.00 - 15.38 1.00 - 0.05 1.00 -
b90IO 2 2.30 1.00 - 2.00 1.00 - 0.17 1.00 -
b90o 2 2.15 1.00 - 10.35 1.00 - 1.05 1.00 -

107
7.5 Class 2B

The lps and sps configuration make up the 2B class of CFMs. The original config-

urations in this class of CFMs exhibit the lowest values for percent constant-force of all

the original mechanisms.

7.5.1 Optimization Details

The optimization of the Class 2B configurations was done similar to the Class 2A

configurations with the only difference being a broadening of focus from increasing stiff-

ness to increasing stiffness and increasing the percent constant-force.

7.5.2 Optimization Observations

The optimization of the lps found many different sub-classes that looked promis-

ing, making the task of selecting sub-classes to be presented in this work challenging. An

optimum plot was generated to help view the design area, and is shown in Figure 7.7. The

plot shows the values for Ξ' ex and Ψ , as well as the optimal value for K2, for any given R

value. Two peaks in Ξ' ex are present in the graph. The peak centered at an R value of 2.50

corresponds with higher values of Ξ' ex than the peak centered at 0.75. Therefore, mecha-

nisms within this area were considered. The optimum plot for the lps-b mechanism can be

found in Figure C.2 in Appendix C.

108
 14.1

.508

99.8
2

11.3

.411

97.9
8.52

.314

95.9
2-Psi
3-K2

1-Xi
2 2
1
5.72

.218

93.9
3
2.91

.121

92.0
1

3
.0246
.100

90.0

3 1
.500 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00
R

Figure 7.7 Optimum plot for lps-a which shows Ξ'ex, Ψ and optimal K2 for given R values

The change in the type of flexible segments from the lps to the sps greatly affects

the optimization problem and the associated results. Explore plots, similar to those gener-

ated for the Class 2A configurations were generated for the sps-a configuration. The high-

est Ξ' ex and Ψ values are located around an R value of 1 and a K2 value of 1, as seen in

Figure 7.8. It is in this area that the search was focused and new sub-classes were found.

Similar plots and results were found for the sps-b configuration and can be seen in Figure

C.4 in Appendix C.

7.5.3 Optimization Results

Large improvements in the Class 2B configurations were found. These improve-

ments are summarized in Figure 7.8. For the lps-a configuration, improvements ranged

from increases in stiffness of 565% to 1000%, depending on the level of constant-force

109
 .00837

.00551

.00387

.00284

.00216

.00169
.0119
.0180
.0270
.0418

.0418
.0270
.0180
.0119
10.0
84.2
90.9
95.2
98.5
98.5
97.0
95.2
93.7

93.7
95.2
97.0
98.5
98.5
97.0
95.2
93.7
90.9
87.6
84.2
80.8
10.0

8.00
8.00

76.2

6.00
6.00

K2
70.6
K2

4.00
4.00
2.00

2.00
.500 1.50 2.50 3.50 4.50
R .500 1.50 2.50 3.50 4.50
R

(a) (b)

Figure 7.8 2-D explore plots for sps-a with R vs. K2 and contours of (a) Ξ'ex and (b) Ψ

Table 7.8 Optimization results for Class 2B

Configuration Sub-Class Ξ'ex Ψ R K2 %∆Ψ %∆Ξ'ex

lps aIo 93.2 0.026 0.7591 1.0029
a99I 99 0.241 2.5750 6.4256 826.5% 6.2%
a95I 95 0.253 2.4050 4.3690 873.1% 1.9%
a90 90 0.286 2.0960 2.0313 1000.0% -3.4%
a99IO 99 0.173 2.1623 5.1740 565.4% 6.2%
a95IO 95 0.211 2.1623 3.6510 711.5% 1.9%
a90IO 90 0.278 2.1623 2.4156 968.5% -3.4%
lps bsI 83.7 0.035 0.8441 1.0230
b99IO 99 0.222 1.9335 4.9463 539.8% 18.3%
b95IO 95 0.235 1.9339 4.5230 576.4% 13.5%
b90IO 90 0.252 1.9290 3.9830 626.2% 7.5%
b95I 95 1.053 0.8561 0.0100 2934.2% 13.5%
b90I 90 1.137 0.8177 0.0100 3177.2% 7.5%
sps aIO 93.1 0.028 0.7591 1.0029
a99I 99 0.063 0.7328 0.1845 123.8% 6.7%
a90IO 95 0.057 1.0000 1.0022 104.6% 1.7%
sps bsI 84 0.037 0.8441 1.0235
b98Io 98 0.031 0.6528 0.2549 -17.2% 17.6%
b86IO 86 0.062 1.0000 1.0000 68.6% 3.2%

110
and manufacturing process constraints. In all, six new sub-classes were added for 16%

deflection, three suitable for both in-plane and out-of-plane orientations, and three uncon-

strained by manufacturing orientations.

The lps-b configurations had increases in stiffness from 539% to 3177%. This rep-

resents a significant improvement. In fact, the b95I and b90I sub-classes have higher stiff-

ness parameters than any of the original configurations and sub-classes. Additionally, the

level of constant-force was increased from the original value of 84 to a high of 99. In all,

five new sub-classes were added to this configuration.

The sps-a configuration showed moderate increases in stiffness of about 100%.

The level of constant-force was increased from 93 to 99 while stiffness for the same sub-

class was increased 123%. The a90IO sub-class was constrained to greater than or equal to

90 percent constant-force. However, the result was a sub-class suitable for out-of-plane

and in-plane orientation, 95 percent constant-force, and an increase of 104% in stiffness.

Very little increase in stiffness was found for the sps-b configuration. For the

b86IO sub-class, stiffness was increased by only 68%. However, a large increase from the

original value of 84 to a high of 98 percent constant-force was achieved with sub-class

b98Io . This is a substantial increase in the level of constant-force.

All of the important design parameters for the CFM Class 2B are summarized in

Figure 7.9, with the thickness and width ratios summarized in Figure 7.10.

111
7.6 Class 3A

The last class of CFMs is Class 3A, consisting of only the sss configuration.

7.6.1 Optimization Details

The optimization of the sss configuration requires that R, K1, and K2 be design

variables. Additionally, all of the width and thickness ratios must be added as design func-

Table 7.9 Summary of Class 2B parameters

Configuration Sub-Class Primary Pivot Ξ'ex R K1 K2 κ1 κ2 κ3 Φ β Ψ λ M n d Nmax

lps aIo 3 93.1 0.7591 0 1.0029 3.37 - 23.17 1.2248 7.257 0.026 1.122 3.7184 0.5137 26.77
a99I 3 99.0 2.5750 0 6.4256 6.84 - 13.88 1.4238 34.840 0.241 1.085 1.2616 0.4656 23.10
a95I 3 95.0 2.4052 0 4.3688 6.52 - 14.16 1.2692 28.177 0.253 1.087 1.3261 0.4699 23.63
a90 1 90.0 2.0960 0 2.0313 5.93 - 14.77 1.0408 19.101 0.287 1.091 1.1869 0.5256 24.60
a99IO 3 99.0 2.1623 0 5.1740 6.05 - 14.62 1.4476 27.717 0.173 1.090 1.4370 0.4761 24.39
a95IO 3 95.0 2.1623 0 3.6510 6.05 - 14.62 1.2475 23.885 0.211 1.090 1.4370 0.4761 24.39
a90IO 3 90.8 2.1623 0 2.4156 6.05 - 14.62 1.0851 20.776 0.278 1.090 1.4370 0.4761 24.39
lps bIo 3 83.7 0.8441 0 1.0230 3.53 - 21.85 1.2126 7.895 0.035 1.119 3.1623 0.5331 39.60
b99IO 3 99.0 1.9336 0 4.9463 5.62 - 15.17 1.5344 25.282 0.222 1.093 1.7882 0.4250 33.91
b95IO 3 95.0 1.9339 0 4.5230 5.62 - 15.17 1.4816 24.419 0.235 1.093 1.7881 0.4249 33.91
b90IO 3 90.0 1.9292 0 3.9830 5.61 - 15.18 1.4161 23.263 0.252 1.093 1.7902 0.4254 33.95
b95I 1 95.0 0.8561 0 0.0100 3.55 - 21.68 0.4683 3.089 1.053 1.118 0.4670 0.4995 39.66
b90I 1 90.0 0.8178 0 0.0100 3.48 - 22.23 0.4472 2.829 1.137 1.120 0.4516 0.4942 39.44
sps aIO 3 93.1 0.7591 0 1.0029 17.59 - 23.17 1.2248 37.901 0.028 1.050 3.7183 0.5137 26.77
a99I 1 99.3 0.7328 0 0.1845 17.33 - 23.65 0.5711 17.147 0.063 1.050 2.1056 0.4963 26.67
a90IO 3 94.6 1.0000 0 1.0022 20.00 - 20.00 1.0292 41.166 0.057 1.050 2.8145 0.5062 27.13
sps bIo 3 83.7 0.8441 0 1.0235 18.44 - 21.85 1.2129 41.247 0.037 1.050 3.1623 0.5331 39.60
b98Io 3 98.4 0.6528 0 0.2549 16.53 - 25.32 0.6380 17.429 0.031 1.050 3.9715 0.5572 37.47
b86IO 3 86.3 1.0000 0 1.0000 20.00 - 20.00 1.0750 43.001 0.062 1.050 2.7487 0.5164 40.00

Table 7.10 Summary of Class 2B thickness and width ratios

Configuration Sub-Class Primary Pivot C1 C2 C3 D 1equal D 2equal D 3equal D 1min D 2min D 3min
lps aIo 3 9.07 - 1.00 6.86 - 1.00 0.01 - 1.00
a99I 3 0.68 - 1.00 0.32 - 1.00 1.00 - 1.00
a95I 3 0.79 - 1.00 0.50 - 1.00 1.00 - 1.00
a90 1 1.00 - 0.84 1.00 - 0.82 1.00 - 1.37
a99IO 3 1.00 - 1.00 0.47 - 1.00 0.47 - 1.00
a95IO 3 1.00 - 1.00 0.66 - 1.00 0.66 - 1.00
a90IO 3 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 - 1.00
lps bIo 3 7.33 - 1.00 6.05 - 1.00 0.02 - 1.00
b99IO 3 0.99 - 1.00 0.55 - 1.00 0.56 - 1.00
b95IO 3 0.99 - 1.00 0.60 - 1.00 0.61 - 1.00
b90IO 3 1.00 - 1.00 0.68 - 1.00 0.68 - 1.00
b95I 1 1.00 - 0.13 1.00 - 0.00 1.00 - 0.73
b90I 1 1.00 - 0.12 1.00 - 0.00 1.00 - 0.98
sps aIO 3 1.74 - 1.00 1.31 - 1.00 0.25 - 1.00
a99I 1 1.00 - 0.52 1.00 - 0.14 1.00 - 0.98
a90IO 3 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 - 1.00
sps bIo 3 1.40 - 1.00 1.16 - 1.00 0.42 - 1.00
b98Io 3 2.35 - 1.00 6.01 - 1.00 0.46 - 1.00
b86IO 3 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 - 1.00

112
 .0865

99.9
2

.0697

97.9
.0529

95.9
1
2-Psi

1-Xi
.0362

94.0

2
.0194

92.0

2
.00257

90.0

1
.500 1.50 2.50 3.50 4.50
R

Figure 7.9 Optimum plot of design variables K1 and K2 versus R for sss-b with curves of Ξ'ex and
Ψ

tions. The increase in the number of design variables and design functions complicates the

optimization.

7.6.2 Optimization Observations

The addition of a third design variable limits the usefulness of 2-D explore plots.

Therefore, an optimum plot, shown in Figure 7.9, was generated with R as the independent

variable and K1 and K2 as design variables. This plot clearly shows the local optima, the

peaks of both Ξ' ex and Ψ , and their correlation. Both curves have peaks around an R

value of 1.5. It is in this area that the optimization was concentrated. The explore plot for

sss-b is similar to Figure 7.9 and can be found in Figure C.5 in Appendix C.

113
7.6.3 Optimization Results

Four new sub-classes are added for the sss-a configuration. The a99 sub-class has

the same level of constant-force, but shows an increase of 291% in stiffness. The a95IO

and the a90IO sub-classes are both suitable for in-plane and out-of-plane orientations. The

a95I sub-class is not suitable for out-of-plane orientation, but shows a 317% increase in

stiffness over the original sub-class. The results, plus the results for sss-b, are summarized

in Table 7.11.

For the sss-b configuration, three sub-classes are added. The b99 and b90I sub-

classes showed a 14% and 158% increase in stiffness respectively with the b90I sub-class

finding the stiffest mechanism to be 96 percent constant-force. The final sub-class, b88IO,

is the highest percent constant-force mechanism found suitable for in-plane and out-of-

plane fabrication orientations.

Once again, the important parameters have been summarized and can be found in

Table 7.12, with width and thickness ratios found in Table 7.13.

Table 7.11 Optimization results for Class 3A

Configuration Sub-Class Ξ'ex Ψ R K1 K2 %∆Ψ %∆Ξ'ex

sss a 99.97 0.020 0.3950 1.0000 12.6700
a99 99 0.079 1.4903 0.3497 8.3820 291.7% -1.0%
a95IO 95 0.021 1.3464 1.7047 2.9708 5.4% -5.0%
a95I 96 0.084 1.6573 0.4140 15.3420 317.8% -4.4%
a90IO 91 0.031 1.5518 0.3969 0.6459 52.5% -9.0%
sss b 99.5 0.029 2.0821 1.0000 9.3816
b99 99 0.033 1.8709 0.6930 7.1497 13.7% -0.5%
b90I 96 0.076 1.2420 0.3329 5.4511 157.8% -3.2%
b88IO 88 0.024 1.1990 1.8187 3.3349 -19.8% -11.3%

114
7.7 Optimization Results Summary

Many improvements in stiffness were made within each class of CFMs. In some

classes, increases in stiffness of as much as 3000% were made. However, the maximum

stiffness of CFMs did not see much increase. Originally, the Class 1A-lps-a mechanism

had the largest stiffness parameter with a value of 1.

Table 7.12 Summary of Class 3A parameters

Configuration Sub-Class Primary Pivot Ξ'ex R K1 K2 κ1 κ2 κ3 Φ β Ψ λ M n d Nmax

sss a 1 100.0 2.6633 1.0000 12.6700 36.63 20.00 13.75 3.4016 456.482 0.020 1.050 8.2162 0.5324 22.82
a99 1 99.4 1.4903 0.3497 8.3820 24.90 20.00 16.71 3.4388 213.264 0.079 1.050 4.2382 0.5168 26.37
a95IO 2 95.0 1.3464 1.7047 2.9708 23.46 20.00 17.43 4.6011 253.313 0.021 1.050 5.6882 0.5068 26.71
a95I 3 95.6 1.6573 0.4140 15.3423 26.57 20.00 16.03 4.6831 330.679 0.084 1.050 1.7796 0.4888 25.93
a90IO 2 91.1 1.5518 0.3970 0.6459 25.52 20.00 16.44 1.4903 97.043 0.031 1.050 5.7582 0.5076 26.21
sss b 1 99.5 2.0821 1.0000 9.3816 30.82 20.00 14.80 3.6285 344.684 0.029 1.050 5.2859 0.5883 32.44
b99 1 99.0 1.8709 0.6930 7.1497 28.71 20.00 15.34 3.0645 252.583 0.033 1.050 4.7814 0.5768 34.51
b90I 3 96.3 1.2420 0.3330 5.4510 22.42 20.00 18.05 3.1967 160.686 0.076 1.050 2.3326 0.4923 39.35
b88IO 2 88.4 1.1990 1.8187 3.3349 21.99 20.00 18.34 5.4789 264.926 0.024 1.050 5.5108 0.5172 39.54

Table 7.13 Summary of Class 3A thickness and width ratios

Configuration Sub-Class Primary Pivot C1 C2 C3 D 1equal D 2equal D 3equal D 1min D 2min D 3min
sss a 1 1.000 1.332 7.099 1.000 1.832 33.744 1.000 0.775 0.094
a99 1 1.000 0.745 2.222 1.000 0.435 12.492 1.000 1.052 1.139
a95IO 2 1.462 1.000 2.693 0.500 1.000 2.000 0.160 1.000 0.102
a95I 3 0.340 0.289 1.000 0.039 0.022 1.000 0.997 0.895 1.000
a90IO 2 1.260 1.000 3.104 1.974 1.000 1.979 0.986 1.000 0.066
sss b 1 1.000 1.041 4.338 1.000 1.541 19.533 1.000 1.365 0.239
b99 1 1.000 0.936 3.502 1.000 0.995 13.377 1.000 1.215 0.311
b90I 3 0.589 0.381 1.000 0.148 0.055 1.000 0.724 0.996 1.000
b88IO 2 1.610 1.000 2.398 0.500 1.000 2.000 0.120 1.000 0.145

Table 7.14 Largest stiffness parameters and percent increase

Configuration Sub-Class Ξ'ex Ψ R K2 %∆Ψ

lpp a 99.7 1.000 0.8274 - -
a99 99 1.046 0.8018 - 4.6%
a95 95 1.239 0.7106 - 23.9%
a90 90 1.490 0.6185 - 49.0%
lpp b 97.6 1.000 0.8853 - -
b95 95 1.052 0.8595 - 5.2%
b90 90 1.129 0.8226 - 12.9%
lps b95M 95 1.053 0.8561 0.0100 5.3%
b90M 90 1.137 0.8177 0.0100 13.7%

115
 Review of the optimization results indicates that three 16% deflection mechanisms

and four 40% deflection mechanisms have a stiffness parameter greater than 1. These

mechanisms are defined in Table 7.14, along with the percent increase in the stiffness

parameter. The largest increase of 49% occurred in Class 1A-lpp-a90. All three of the sub-

classes with 16% deflection belong to Class 1A-lpp. Two of the 40% deflection mecha-

nisms belong to Class 1A-lpp, while the other two belong to Class 2B-lps.

These increases in stiffness will provide designers with greater flexibility and addi-

tional options for design. The design space for the existing configurations has been

explored and the best mechanisms for a variety of circumstances have been defined.

116
CHAPTER 8 DESIGN APPROACH
AND METHODS

CFMs have the potential of being used in a wide variety of applications. To be

used in these applications, the CFMs must first be designed to meet all of the application’s

requirements. An understanding of a suitable approach to design is desired to simplify the

process used by designers. This chapter looks at the design aspect of CFMs including gen-

eral design procedures, infeasible mechanism elimination methods, secondary issues, and

trends between variables. The chapter ends by presenting different design example prob-

lems and solutions.

8.1 General Design Approach

Every CFM design problem can be approached with the same general method.

This allows designers to quickly become familiar with the process. The length of the pro-

cess varies depending upon the constraints and requirements of the problem. In some

cases, an immediate and direct solution can be found while in others, iteration must be

used until a satisfactory design is determined.

117
8.1.1 Background, Assumption, and Limitations

The design method outlined in this chapter utilizes the stress and force parameters,

along with other parameters, developed in earlier chapters. Since these parameters attempt

to remove PRBM details such as individual link lengths, knowledge of the PRBM is not

necessary to use the design method outlined in this chapter.

This design method builds upon the assumptions used throughout this work.

Although the general steps outline in this chapter can always be used, the tabulated param-

eters must be used in connection with the assumptions made earlier.

Additionally, since the parameters for each mechanism use estimated values for

the PRBM and other parameters, the accuracy of the designs that come from this design

method cannot be guaranteed. For the most accurate design, a complete CFM model must

be constructed and more accurate approximations based on the given design problem must

be utilized. Wittwer (2001) addressed some of these accuracy issues and methods to deter-

mine variability in the PRBM.

8.1.2 Principal Equations

There are three principal equations that are necessary in designing a CFM. These

equations are combinations and modifications of equations presented earlier in this work.

The first equation is a modified force feasibility equation. In Chapter 4, the force feasibil-

ity equation was introduced in Equation (4.44) as

βEI 1
F = -----------
2
- (8.1)
r tot

118
Substitution of Equation (4.52) (moment of inertia ratios), Equation (5.1) (length parame-

ter equation), and the equation for the moment of inertia for a rectangular cross-section

into Equation (8.1) results in

λ 2 κ p b p h p3 βE
F = --------------------------------
2 κ K
- (8.2)
12ltot 1 p–1

This equation will be referred to as the force design equation.

The only exception to Equation (8.2) is for Class 1B mechanisms. The force

design equation for this class of mechanisms is

βλ 2 EI 2
F = -----------------
2
- (8.3)
l tot

The second principal design equation is a modified form of the stress feasibility

equation introduced in Equation (4.19) in Chapter 4 as

Ω
αA = ------- (8.4)
SF

λh
Substitution of α = Md n and A = ---------- into Equation (8.4) results in
2l tot

Ω- h
------ = λMd n ---------- (8.5)
SF 2l tot

This equation will be referred to as the stress design equation.

119
 Isolated Variables Coupler Variables Classification Variables

Force Design Equation b F h E ltot λ β κp κ1 Kp-1

Displacement Equation disp ltot d λ

Stress Design Equation Sy SF h E ltot d λ M n

Figure 8.1 Interdependencies of coupled primary equations

The final principal equation is a combination of the percent deflection equation

found in Equation (2.16) and Equation (5.1), the length parameter equation. The third

equation is

dl tot
disp = ------------ (8.6)
100λ

This equation is an intermediate equation which helps to provide needed values for vari-

ables in both the force and stress design equations. It is referred to as the displacement

equation.

These three equations are coupled through different variables and must be solved

to determine a design. A graphical representation of the interdependencies of these equa-

tions are given in Figure 8.1.

8.1.3 Variable Types

The boxed variables in Figure 8.1 are isolated variables, or those variables that

occur only in one of the three equations. There are a total of five isolated variables in the

120
three equations, two in each of the force design equation and stress design equation, and

one in the deflection equation. For the system to be solvable, at least one of the two iso-

lated variables must be known in both the force design and stress design equations.

The circled variables in Figure 8.1 are shared between two or more of the principal

equations and are termed coupler variables. The number of coupler variables that must be

known to solve the system depends on which coupler variables are known and how many

isolated variables are known. No easy method, other than examining the missing variables

in Figure 8.1, has been determined for deciding how many coupler variables are needed.

The final type of variable in the principal equations are the classification variables.

These variables, outlined by a hexagon in Figure 8.1, can only be determined by choosing

a specific classification of mechanism and substituting the values for the variables into the

equations. If the classification is not known, then efforts must be made to reduce the num-

ber of possible classifications, and an iterative process may be required. Methods for elim-

inating infeasible mechanisms will be discussed later.

8.1.4 Variable Value Types

The three types of variables in the principal equations can have three types of val-

ues: known, constraint, or unknown. A known variable value is one that the designer must

specify to a certain value due to design requirements.

A constraint variable value is one that has no exact value given by the design

requirements, but is limited by constraints in the design requirements. Constraint values

121
can be used in the principal equations to help determine design feasibilities and an initial

design.

An unknown variable value is one that has no set value and is not constrained by

upper and lower bounds. These values can be solved for or chosen as free variables if

additional values are needed to solve the principal equations.

8.1.5 Basic Design Steps

As with any system of equations, enough variable values must be determined

before the equations can be solved. The following steps outline the order in which types of

variables and methods should be used.

1. Identify a suitable mechanism. If the design does not specify a specific mecha-

nism, then one must be chosen. It is ideal to choose the classification that is

best suited for the design problem. The following points should be considered

when choosing a mechanism.

• Stress and Force Feasibility (Section 8.2)

• Percent constant-force (Section 8.3.1)

• Flexible segment configuration (Section 8.3.2)

• Manufacturing orientations such as in-plane and out-of-plane (Section

8.3.3)

• Normal Displacement (Section 8.3.4)

These points can be used to reduce the number of mechanisms by eliminating any

mechanism that is not feasible, greatly simplifying the selection process.

122
 2. Fill in all the known values. Start by identifying all of the known values and

their location in the principal design equations. Figure 8.1 is useful for this pur-

pose.

3. Add constraint values, starting with the most important ones, until the equa-

tions can be solved. From Figure 8.1, determine how many more variables are

required to solve the equations. Use the constraint values of the design problem

to fill in the needed number of variables. The constraint value chosen depends

on the needs of the design objectives. Section 8.4 can be used to identify the

direction in which the constraint value should be adjusted to achieve the

desired performance. At this point, the process will become iterative until a

suitable design is chosen.

4. Use unknown variables as free variables if needed. If, after adding all con-

straint variables, there are still not enough variable values to solve the equa-

tions, use reasonable assumptions for unknown values until there are enough to

solve the system.

5. Remove variables if system is over-constrained. If, at any point, the system is

over-constrained, remove the least important values first.

These steps, along with the steps in the following sections, are summarized in the

flow chart in Figure 8.2. This flow chart, along with the diagram in Figure 8.1, will help

solve the system of equations for basic design cases. Examples of how to use these tools

will be given in Section 8.5.

123
 Suitable Yes Add constraint values Use unknown
Identify a suitable Fill in all known
mechanism (start with the most variables as free
mechanism values
known important ones) variables if needed

No

Use stress feasible or

force feasible methods Principal Design Yes
to identify suitable Equations
configurations Over-constrained

No

Remove variables
Solve principal
if system is
design equations
over-constrained

Determine other
flexible segment
geometries

Determine the final

segment lengths

Figure 8.2 Flow chart of CFM design steps

8.1.6 Other Flexible Segments

The principal equations listed above identify only the geometry of the primary

pivot. The following equations can be used after the basic design of the mechanism is

complete to determine, and if needed, verify the feasibility of the other flexible segments’

geometries. Of course, for the Class 1A and 1B mechanisms, this is not necessary.

The important equation for the design of the other flexible segments is

Ki – 1 κ p I
Ii = ----------------------p- (8.7)
Kp – 1 κi

This equation relates the moment of inertia of the primary pivot with the moment of iner-

tia of any other flexible segment.

124
 The limits on the other flexible segments can be determined quickly by using the

width and thickness ratios. The equation for determining the thickness limitation is

c i ≤ Cc p (8.8)

The minimum thickness of any of the other flexible segments is found by using

b i ≥ D min b p (8.9)

If an out-of-plane orientation is used, then the width of the other flexible segments

is found to be

b i = D equal b p (8.10)

Equation (8.7) can be used to quickly calculate the geometry of the other flexible

segments in the mechanism. The ratio values and Equations (8.8) and (8.9) can be used to

verify the geometries of the other flexible segments if neither an out-of-plane (equal thick-

nesses) or in-plane (equal widths) orientation is used. However, if either one of these ori-

entations, including the perhaps out-of-plane orientation are used, then the geometries of

the flexible segments do not need to be verified. They are guaranteed to have acceptable

stress levels and satisfy Equations (8.8) and (8.9).

8.1.7 Final Segment Lengths

The final step in the design is to determine the length of the flexible and rigid seg-

ments of each link. The following steps, along with the definitions in Figure 8.3, can be

used to lengths of the individual segments:

125
 f2

f1
f3
slider
(rigid segment)
r2
F

r3

Figure 8.3 Definition of flexible and rigid segment lengths

1. Calculate r tot using the length parameter

2. Calculate r 2 , r 3 , and r ave where (from Equations (4.8) to (4.12))

r tot
r i = ------- (8.11)
ζ

and for

r2 … ζ = R+1 (8.12)

1
r3 … ζ = --- + 1 (8.13)
R

r ave … ζ = 2 (8.14)

3. Use Table 8.1 to calculate the flexible segment lengths

4. Use the relations in Table 8.1 to calculate the lengths of the rigid sections

5. Replace flexible segments of length zero with pin-joints

126
8.2 Feasible Configurations

In some cases the configuration to be used is not specified, requiring a suitable

mechanism to be chosen. The following two methods can be used to identify mechanisms

that are suitable for a given design problem based on either stress or force feasibility.

These methods utilize the classification variables and design constraints to eliminate

mechanisms that are infeasible, leaving only those mechanisms that can provide the

needed deflection or force without violating the constraints.

Table 8.1 Needed values to calculate flexible and rigid segment lengths

To get: f1 f2 f3 r2' r3'

Multiply rave by Subtract from Subtract from

Do Multiply r2 by Multiply r3 by
(except where noted) r2 r3

spp 0.1 0 0 f1/2 0

1-
lpp --------- 0 0 r2 0
0.85
psp 0 0.1 0 f2/2 f2/2

1-
plp 0 --------- (times r2) 0 r2 0.15*f2
0.85
ssp 0.1 0.1 0 f1/2+f2/2 f2/2

1-
slp 0.1 --------- (times r3) 0 f1/2+0.15*f2 r3
0.85
sps 0.1 0 0.1 f1/2 f3/2

1-
lps --------- 0 0.1 r2 f3/2
0.85
sss 0.1 0.1 0.1 f1/2+f2/2 f2/2+f3/2

127
 Since all 3 principal equations contain classification variables, some approxima-

tions must be made. For this reason, the results of these methods are only as accurate as

the approximations and must be verified.

8.2.1 Method 1 - Stress Feasibility

This method uses the α curve fit parameter M and the stress design equation to

identify stress feasible mechanisms. The mechanisms identified are capable of producing

the desired deflection without violating any of the stress and geometry constraints.

Although these mechanisms are stress feasibly, they are not guaranteed to be able to pro-

duce the desired force.

There are two types of stress feasible mechanisms. The first type, guaranteed stress

feasible mechanisms, are those mechanisms with an M value less than Mmin, the minimum

M value calculated for the worst of the design constraints. These mechanisms are guaran-

teed to be stress feasible anywhere within the constrained design space.

The second set of mechanisms are simply referred to as the stress feasible mecha-

nisms and can be identified using the maximum value of M, Mmax, calculated using the

conservative constraints. These mechanisms with M values less than Mmax, but greater

than Mmin, are stress feasible for only part of the constrained design space. At certain

points in the constrained design space, these mechanisms will not be able to achieve the

desired deflection without violating the given constraints.

128
 Stress Infeasible

Mechanism M value
Mmax

Stress Feasible
Mmin

Guaranteed
Stress Feasible

Figure 8.4 Summary of M value requirements for different types of identified mechanisms

Any mechanisms that have an M value greater than Mmax can not obtain the

desired deflection without violating the design constraints. A graphical summary of the

required values for M for each type of mechanism is shown in Figure 8.6.

In most cases, it is most beneficial to identify and use the guaranteed stress feasible

mechanisms. However, at times, guaranteed stress feasible mechanisms may not exist or it

may only be necessary to identify stress feasible mechanisms.

To use this method, the following must be satisfied:

• In the deflection equation, 2 out of the 3 isolated and coupler variables

must have known or constraint values.

• All of the isolated and coupler variables in the stress design equation
must have known or constraint values.

This method consists of the following :

129
 1. Solve the displacement equation. If a specific type of configuration is desired,

use the highest λ value for Mmin and lowest value for Mmax. Otherwise, use

λ = 1.12 for Mmin and λ = 1 for Mmax.

2. Calculate the desired M value. Calculate the M value that corresponds with the

type of mechanism to be identified. Table 8.2 defines which constraint values

to use to calculate the different M values.

3. Eliminate mechanisms. Any sub-classes with a value for M larger than the M

value calculated can be eliminated from the group of mechanisms being identi-

fied. Table D.3 in Appendix D contains all of the mechanisms and their param-

eters sorted by M.

Table 8.2 Summary of stress and force feasibility methods

Variable Stress Feasiblity - Method 1 Force Feasibility - Method 2

Values M min M max Ψmin (lpp -a/lpp -b)
F - - Calculated
Sy minimum maximum minimum
E maximum minimum maximum
l tot minimum maximum minimum
disp maximum minimum maximum
b - - maximum
h maximum minimum Maximum for lpp configuration
SF minimum minimum minimum
β - - 2.901/3.248
M Calculated Calculated 0.4501/0.4788
maximum for desired type minimum for desired type of
n of configurtaion or 0.5256 configuration or .4699
0.5004/0.5033

maximum for desired type minimum for desired type of

λ of configuration or 1.12 configuration or 1.00
1.09

Mechanisms that can undergo deflection without Mechanisms that can produce the desired force and
Identifies
violating design constraints deflection without violating design constraints

Full Constrained Design Partial Constrained Design

Domain Full Constrained Design Space
Space Space
Unkown If Force is feasible If thickness satisfies constraints

130
 4. Choose mechanism and verify. It should be noted that those mechanisms that

have an M value close to Mmin and Mmax may or may not be suitable due to the

approximations made during the calculations. After choosing a mechanism, the

actual n, M, and λ values should, together with the stress design equation, be

used to verify that the constraints have not been violated.

5. Finish the design. Once mechanisms have been eliminated, a mechanism must

be chosen and the design process continued.

8.2.2 Method 2 - Force Feasibility

This method uses the corresponding percent deflection lpp configuration and the

parameter Ψ to identify mechanisms that are force feasible, those mechanisms capable of

delivering the required force without violating the stress, width, and length design con-

straints. Even though these mechanisms can produce the desired force, due to the nature of

the method, it can not be guaranteed that the thicknesses of the flexible segments will fall

within the design constraints.

This method requires that the following be satisfied:

• In the deflection equation, 2 out of the 3 isolated and coupler variables

must have known or constraint values.

• All of the isolated and coupler variables in the stress and force design
equations must have known or constraint values, except for h.

Method 2 consists of the following steps.

131
 1. Calculate maximum h. The stress design equation can be used to calculate the

maximum h value for the lpp-a or lpp-b mechanisms. Use the classification

variable values that correspond to the lpp configuration.

2. Calculate maximum force. Calculate the maximum force possible for the lpp-a

or lpp-b sub-classes using the maximum h value and the other variables in the

force design equation. Use the classification variable values that correspond to

the lpp configuration.

3. Divide forces. Divide the needed force by the maximum force found in step 2.

This gives Ψ min , the minimum Ψ value that can be used to achieve this force.

4. Eliminate mechanisms. Any sub-class with the same deflection percentage

used in step 1 and a Ψ value greater than Ψmin is capable of producing the

required force without violating design constraints given the same length,

stress, and flexible segment widths used in step 1. All other mechanisms can be

eliminated from consideration. Table D.5 in Appendix D contains all of the

mechanisms and their parameters sorted by Ψ.

5. Determine thickness. The actual thickness, which will be different than the

thickness in step 1, must be determine. This can be accomplished by using the

classification variable values that correspond to the chosen mechanism in the

force design equation.

Once a mechanism is chosen, there is no need to re-solve the stress design equation

as long as all parameters, except the thickness, remain the same. However, if any con-

132
 Guaranteed
Guaranteed Stress and Force
Stress Force Feasible
Feasible Feasible Method 2
Method 1
Methods 1&2

Figure 8.5 Overlap of guaranteed stress and force feasible mechanisms

straint values are modified, it becomes necessary to re-check all of the principal equations.

Table 8.2 contains a summary of force feasible method, including the variable values

required to calculate Ψmin .

8.2.3 Combined Stress and Force Feasibilities

Either of the two methods can be used to identify feasible mechanisms for a given

problem depending upon the objective and needs of the design problem. In some cases, it

is advantageous to use both methods on the same problem. This, in a sense, overlaps the

two types of feasible regions to generate a region in which both types of feasibilities exist,

as graphically demonstrated in Figure 8.5. The mechanisms within this region are those

mechanisms that have been identified as guaranteed stress and force feasible. All of these

mechanisms will satisfy all of the constraints in all circumstances (assuming approxima-

tions are close). This makes the selection process very simple, allowing the designer to

pick any one of the mechanisms for the design problem.

133
8.3 Other Mechanism Considerations

The methods discussed in Section 8.2 identify those mechanisms that are stress

and force feasible. This section discusses other aspects of CFMs that must be considered

when choosing and designing a CFM.

8.3.1 Percent Constant-Force

The percent constant-force must be considered when defining the design problem

and choosing a mechanism. When selecting a mechanism, it is generally best to choose the

lowest percent constant-force value possible. These mechanisms tend to have a higher

stiffness than the mechanisms with a higher percent constant-force allowing them to

achieve higher forces for the same relative stress. If a minimum percent constant-force

value is specified, it can be used to eliminate infeasible mechanisms.

8.3.2 Flexible Segment Configuration

The requirements for the flexible segment configuration can also be used to elimi-

nate infeasible mechanisms. If the design problem consists of constraints that limit the use

of certain types of flexible pivots or pin-joints, then those configurations that are not suit-

able can be eliminated.

8.3.3 Manufacturing

The types of manufacturing processes that can be used to make a given mechanism

are summarized in the sub-class name. If a certain process is to be used, a configuration

suitable for this process must be identified and used.

134
8.3.4 Normal Displacement

The normal displacement of the mechanism can be used to eliminate mechanisms

or verify a design if the design problem contains normal displacement constraints. The

normal displacement can be calculated quickly using the equations developed in Chapter

5. Solving Equation (5.37) for ∆y and using d Nmax and the length parameter equation

results in

d Nmax l tot
∆y max = ---------------------
- (8.15)
100λ
Equation (8.15) can be used to calculate the maximum normal deflection when the

mechanism is deflected the maximum deflection percentage for the sub-class (16 for sub-

class a, 40 for sub-class b). For deflection percentages below the maximum value, Equa-

tion (5.45) can be used.

For design purposes, the normal displacement information can be used to deter-

mine the upper limits on the length and/or deflection percentage when a maximum normal

displacement is specified. The normal displacement equation can be used at any time dur-

ing the basic design. The location of their use in the basic design steps depends on the type

of variable values that result from Equation (8.15).

8.4 Variable Manipulation

During the iterative process found at times in CFM design, it is valuable to have an

understanding of the relations between variables so that beneficial manipulations can be

made.

135
 Variable Increased E Sy SF b h ltot disp d M Ψ β λ

3 2 - 2
Effect on Force -
L L L

Effect on Stress - - -
L L

Key
n n Decrease, Increase in Magnitude
by power n (default is 1)

L L Decrease, Increase in Magnitude Limit

Figure 8.6 Summary of variable effects on force and stress magnitudes for an increase in variable
magnitudes

8.4.1 Variable Relationships

The variables in Equations (8.2), (8.5), and (8.6) affect the force and/or stress mag-

nitudes of a CFM. Some of these variables have a direct effect on the magnitude of the

force or stress, while others affect the limits of the force or stress magnitude. The effect of

an increase in magnitude of these variables on force and stress are summarized in Figure

8.6.

This figure can be used to determine which directions the variables should move to

affect the stress, force, or other variables. Figure 8.6 can also be used to decide whether

the lower or upper limit of a constraint value should be used in the principal equations.

136
8.4.2 General Guidelines

Several general guidelines can be established from the trends illustrated in Figure

8.6. These guidelines provide insights into the response of CFMs to changes in the vari-

ables.

1. Adjust width to change force. For deflection loads, the width increases the

force by a 1:1 ratio, but has no affect on the stress.

2. Length verses thickness. Length and thickness both have a 1:1 ratio with the

stress design equation. However, any changes in thickness are cubed and any

changes in length are squared in the force design equation. Therefore, the fol-

lowing can be concluded:

• Adjust thickness to change the force while minimizing the change in

stress

• Adjust length to change stress while minimizing the change in force

3. Maximize the length of the mechanism. Most design problems tend to have

have more difficulty satisfying the stress design equation rather than the force

design equation. Therefore, generally, it is best to maximize the length of the

mechanism for the reasons stated directly above

4. Minimize safety factor. Use the smallest possible value rather for the safety fac-

tor. This allows for the largest design space.

5. Increase the yield strength. Increasing the yield strength is not always an

option, but it is very useful. Changes in yield strength affect only the limit on

the stress, and not the stress or force itself.

137
 6. Change the type of mechanism to affect force. By moving to a mechanism with

a higher Ψ , a larger force can be achieved for the same given stress level.

However, the flexible segments thicknesses will adjust and the usefulness of

this method depends upon the constraints of the system. Generally, increases in

Ψ can be achieved without switching flexible segment configurations. How-

ever, a decrease in Ξ' may be necessary.

In some design cases, the force may be too high, and manufacturing limits on the

widths or thicknesses may be preventing the force from being lowered. In this case, most

of the rules listed above can be reversed to help decrease the magnitude of the force.

8.5 Design Examples

8.5.1 Example 1 - Basic Design Case

A steel Class 1A-lpp mechanism is needed that produces 25 lbs of force and dis-

places 4 inches. The mechanism should also be as high of level of constant-force possible.

The length must be between 12 and 15 inches and the width must be between 3 and 5

inches. The material comes in sizes ranging from 0.04 to 0.07 inches thick with a range of

50 to 200 Kpsi yield strength, with the material becoming more expensive as yield

strength increases. Even though cost needs to be minimized, a safety factor of at least 1.2

is required. Design a mechanism that satisfies the criteria summarized in Table 8.3.

1. Choose a mechanism

138
 The configuration of the mechanism has been specified, but the sub-class has not.

However, Table D.1 indicates that sub-classes a and b have the highest percent constant-

force for the lpp configuration. Additionally, solving the deflection equation for the maxi-

mum and minimum mechanism lengths gives the high and low values of d as 36.6 and

29.3. This leads to the conclusion that the lpp-b mechanism must be used.

2. Fill in known values

This example has four known values for the three principal equations. Examina-

tion of Figure 8.1 indicates that more variable values are needed.

3. Fill in constraint values

The constraint values are chosen based on the objective of the problem. In this

example, the cost (yield strength) needs to be minimized. According to Figure 8.6, the

required yield strength can be decreased by decreasing the stress. Figure 8.6 also indicates

that increasing the length and decreasing the thickness will decrease the stress. Therefore,

the maximum length, and the minimum thickness should be used in the principal equa-

Table 8.3 Example 1 design requirements

Variable Units Required Low High

F lbs 25 - -
Sy Kpsi - 50 200
E Kpsi 30000 - -
l tot in - 12 15
disp in 7.5 - -
b in - 3.0 5.0
h in - 0.04 0.07
SF - 1.2 - -
Ξ'ex - Highest
Orientation - NA - -

139
tions. Using the maximum length results in a value for d of 29.3. This value can also be

added to the design equations.

Examination of the force design equation shows that it can now be solved for b

without adding additional constraint values. To achieve the desired force, b must be 8.99

inches, which exceeds the upper constraint. This now indicates that b must be a constraint

value and that one of the previous constraint values must be removed from the system.

According to the Figure 8.6 and the general guidelines, h should be used rather than l tot to

change the force while minimizing the affect on stress (yield strength).

By removing the constraint value for h and adding the maximum b value, the force

design equation can now be solved for the need h to achieve the desired force. This results

in a value for h of 0.049 inches. The final step is to resolve the stress design equation for

the needed value of Sy for the given geometries. This results in a final value for Sy of 167

Kpsi. This is the smallest yield strength that can be used to achieve the desired force using

the geometry and mechanism constraints.

140
 In this example, a suitable design, summarized in Table 8.4, was defined. By using

Figures 8.1 and 8.6, as well as the general design steps and guidelines presented in this

chapter, a suitable design was quickly discovered without the need for large numbers of

iterations or optimization methods.

8.5.2 Example 2 - Mechanism Elimination - Method 1

A mechanism is to be stamped in an in-plane orientation from a sheet of Phosphor

Bronze. A force of 3 mN is required from a mechanism that has a length of 150 mm and a

displacement of 7.5 mm. The thicknesses of the flexible segments must be between 1.5

and 2.0 mm thick. It is also necessary that the mechanism is at least 90 percent constant

and has a safety factor of 1.1 or greater. A summary of all of the requirements can be

found in Table 8.5.

Question: Is it possible to use a fully compliant configuration for the above design

problem?

1. Start with the basic design steps

Table 8.4 Final design values

Variable Units Value

F lbs 25
Sy Kpsi 167
E Kpsi 30000
l tot in 15
disp in 7.5
b in 5
h in 0.049
SF - 1.2
Ξ'ex - 97.6
Orientation - NA

141
 The first basic design step is to choose a configuration. In this particular problem,

a specific mechanism can not be chosen. Therefore, it is necessary to eliminate as many

mechanisms as possible using one of the two methods described in Section 8.2.

2. Determine which elimination method can and should be used

The deflection equation is missing one of the coupler variables and the classifica-

tion variable, which satisfies the first requirement for both methods. Examination of the

stress design equation shows that all of the isolated and coupler variables have either

known or constraint values, while the force design equation is missing values for the vari-

able b. This indicates that only method 1 can be used for this problem.

3. Calculate the percent displacement

In this case, we are looking for a fully compliant mechanism. All of these mecha-

nisms have a λ value of 1.05. Using this value and Equation (8.6) results in

disp ( λ ) 0.0075 ( 1.05 )

d = 100 ------------------- = 100 -------------------------------- = 5.25 (8.16)
l tot 0.15
4. Calculate Mmax to identify feasible mechanisms

Table 8.5 Summary of example 2 design requirements

Variable Units Required Low High

Force mN 3 - -
Sy Pa 5.52E+08 - -
E Pa 1.10E+11 - -
r tot mm 150 - -
disp mm 7.5 - -
b mm - - -
h mm - 1.5 2.0
SF - 1.1 - -
Ξ'ex - - 90
Orientation - In-plane - -

142
 Since the only objective is to determine if a fully compliant CFM can be used, only

the stress feasible mechanisms need to be identified using method 1 and Mmax. This value

can be found by using a form of Equation (8.5) and the appropriate values given above.

2Ωl totmax ( 2 )5.02 × 10 –3 ( 0.15 ) -

- = -----------------------------------------------------------------
Mmax = ------------------------------------------ = 0.3792 (8.17)
SFmin λh min d n 1.1 ( 1.05 ) ( 0.0015 ) ( 5.25 0.5 )
a p p ro x

5. Use Table D.3 to eliminate configurations

Examination of Table D.3 shows that the smallest M value for any sss configura-

tion that is suitable for an in-plane orientation is the sss-a95I mechanism with an M value

of 1.7796, well above the maximum M value calculated above. This leads to the conclu-

sion that the fully compliant mechanism can not be used for these design constraints.

Question: What length of mechanism is needed to be able to use the fully compli-

ant mechanism without changing any of the other design constraints?

1. Choose a mechanism

The sss configuration with he lowest M value was identified above. This mecha-

nism also has the highest Ψ value of all of the sss-a mechanisms. Therefore, this mecha-

nism, the sss-a95I, will be used.

2. Calculate the needed length

A non-linear method must be used to calculate the needed length due to the inter-

dependencies between the stress design equation and displacement equation. Performing

the calculation with the appropriate values for M (1.7796) and n (.4888) for the sss-a95I

143
mechanism, as well as the other known values results in a length of 418.4 mm. This is

more than double the initial length value.

Question: What thickness would be required to be able to use a fully compliant

mechanism and all of the original design constraints?

1. Choose a mechanism

The sss-a95I mechanism will be used for the same reasons listed above.

2. Calculate the maximum thickness for the primary pivot

Using the appropriate values for M (1.7796) and n (.4888) and Equation (8.5), the

maximum thickness can be calculated as

2Ωl tot 5.02 × 10 –3 ( 0.15 )

h max = --------------------- = 2 -------------------------------------------------------------------
- = 0.326 mm (8.18)
λMd n SF ( 1.05 )1.7796 ( 5.25 0.4888 )1.1

This leads to the conclusion that the sss-a95I mechanism can be used for the given

length and deflection if the primary pivots thickness is no larger than 0.326 mm.

Question: Assuming that the thickness above is suitable, what width of material

would be required to achieve the desired force?

1. Calculate the required width to achieve the force using the force design equa-

tion, Equation (8.2)

The equation is

2 κ K
12Fl tot 1 p–1 12 ( 0.003 )0.15 2 ( 26.57 )15.3423
bp = ------------------------------------
- = --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- = 2.15 mm (8.19)
λ 2 κ p h p3 βE 1.05 2 ( 16.03 ) ( 0.000326 3 )2.279 ( 1.1 × 10 11 )

144
 Equation (8.19) indicates that the width of the flexible segments must be 2.15 mm

wide.

Question: What are the required thicknesses for the other flexible segments?

Equation (8.7), together with the equation for the moment of inertia for a rectangu-

lar cross section can be used to calculate the thicknesses of the other beams. These thick-

ness are 0.111 mm and 0.091 mm for the first and second flexible segments respectively.

Question: Is the above design feasible?

The only thing that has not been verified are the stresses in the other flexible seg-

ments. However, this is not necessary. The highest stress in the mechanism is found in the

primary pivot assuming that the other flexible segments satisfy the inequality in Equation

(8.8), and because all of the flexible segments have the same width and this mechanism is

suitable for in-plane orientation, this inequality must be satisfied.

8.5.3 Example 3 - Feasible Mechanisms Only

A CFM is needed that produces 100 lbs of force over 6 inches of deflection and

with 10% or less variation in the force magnitude. The mechanism must be exactly 2 feet

long and 5 inches wide. The mechanism is to be made out of spring steel with a yield

strength of 200 Kpsi and a thickness between 0.01 and 0.035 inches. Identify all of the

configurations that satisfy all of the design requirements as summarized in Table 8.6.

1. Choose a mechanism.

145
 The mechanism was not identified in the problem. However, the value for d, using

a λ value of 1, is found to be 25. This indicates that a 40% mechanism (b sub-classes)

must be used. To identify all of the possible mechanisms, both the stress and force feasi-

bilities must be used.

2. Use force feasibility method to elimination mechanisms

Using the design constraints and the stress design equation, a maximum value for

the thickness of the lpp-b sub-class can be calculated. This turns out to be 0.116 inches.

This value can now be used in the force design equation to determine the maximum force

the lpp-b configuration can generate given the design constraints. The maximum force is

130.3 lbs.

Dividing the needed force of 100 lbs by the maximum force of 130.3 results in a

Ψ min of 0.767. Any mechanism with a value of Ψ greater than Ψ min will be able to gen-

erate the needed force without violating the design constraints (assuming the same width

and lengths are used).

Table 8.6 Design problem summary for example 3

Variable Units Required Low High

F lbs 100 - -
Sy Kpsi 2.00E+02 - -
E Kpsi 30000 - -
l tot in 24 - -
disp in 6 - -
b in 5 - -
h in - 0.01 0.035
SF - 1 - -
Ξ'ex - NA
Orientation - NA - -

146
 The application of this method reduces the number of sub-class b mechanisms

down to 5 mechanisms, 3 lpp configurations and 2 lps configurations.

3. Use method 1 to identify guaranteed mechanisms

Using Equation (8.5), and the maximum thickness constraint together with the

other constraints results in a M min value of 1.83. Using this value and Table D.3 in

Appendix D, 11 guaranteed mechanisms can be identified.

4. Determine overlap of two methods

Method 1 resulted in 11 guaranteed mechanisms being identified, 5 of which were

identified also using method 2. Therefore, any one of these 5 mechanisms (lps-b90I, lpp-

b90, lps-b95I, lpp-b95, and lpp-b) can be used to satisfy the design requirements of this

example.

147
148
CHAPTER 9 CONSTANT-FORCE
ELECTRICAL CONTACT

The objective of this chapter is to demonstrate the potential benefits and viability

of applying constant-force mechanism technology to electrical contact design. The suc-

cessful development of a CFEC that meets all of the requirements of an electrical contact

will lay a ground work for further exploration and introduction of CFEC’s into industry

applications.

The chapter begins by discussing current electrical contact industry practices and

standards. It then presents a discussion of constant-force mechanism technology. Different

configurations are explored to discover one suitable for application as a CFEC in a pre-

sented case study. (The CFEC case study presented in this chapter is focused on limita-

tions and common industry practices associated with Personal Digital Assistants (PDA)

docks, but the principles are applicable to a wide range of connector applications.) The

chapter finishes by describing the modeling, optimization, and verification of a CFEC that

meets the requirements of the case study.

149
9.1 Introduction

The reliability of high-cycle electrical connectors is of great concern to designers,

and methods to improve this reliability are always being evaluated. According to Desh-

pande and Subbarayan (2000), the reliability of high-cycle electrical connectors is related

to electrical signal propagation, and mechanical performance and stability. To achieve this

reliability in practice, the connector contacts must transmit the electrical signal with mini-

mal contact resistance under all types of use conditions and accommodate expected geo-

metric variations in manufacture and assembly.

The factor that contributes most significantly to the reliability of electrical contacts

is the contact-surface mating conditions. Two physical parameters that greatly affect mat-

ing conditions are contact surface finish, and contact normal force at mating. When con-

tact surface finish remains corrosion free, either by being corrosion resistant or by being

self-cleaning, greater reliability is achieved. When contact normal force is maintained

above a certain level, greater reliability is also achieved (Harper, 1997). Contact normal

forces must be small enough to minimize plating damage over the life of the contact, yet

large enough to overcome co-planarity differences from adjacent contacts and other geo-

metric variations. Thus a desirable contact system would maintain an optimal contact

force regardless of variations in assembly or use.

In addition to achieving high levels of reliability, the electrical contact industry is

being driven to produce innovative products that have faster speeds, smaller packages, and

150
higher contact density. To remain competitive, performance gains must be achieved with

designs that can be produced at low cost (Brush Wellman, 1999).

The recent introduction and advancements in design of simple constant-force

mechanisms, have created the potential for small-scale, low-cost, constant-force electrical

contacts (CFECs). CFECs differ from traditional contacts and springs by the separation or

disassociation of contact normal force and contact deflection. Traditional mechanics

describe force (F) and deflection (d) of springs as = kd where k is the spring constant

that represents the stiffness of the connector.

A CFEC uses constant-force technology to separate the contact normal force and

the contact deflection, resulting in a relationship where force is relatively independent of

deflection. By removing the traditional constraints imposed by forces and deflections that

are dependent on each other, the addition of new types of electrical connectors previously

dismissed or undiscovered can be explored.

The disassociation of contact normal force and contact deflection could lead to

three advantages. First, current electrical contacts require tight manufacturing and assem-

bly tolerances to ensure that the contact deflection is within acceptable limits. The decou-

pling of the force and deflection may allow the tolerances to be loosened, while still

having acceptable performance. This can help to reduce the cost and difficulty of manu-

facturing and assembly.

The second advantage may be in applications were the user interacts with the elec-

trical contacts, such as docking stations. In this case, the decoupling of the force and

151
 Undeflected Contact Deflected Contact
Undeflected Contact

Housing Housing

Springs
Solder Point Deflected Contact

Printed Circuit Board Printed Circuit Board

(a) (b)
Figure 9.1 (a) Pogo type connector and (b) cantilever type connector

deflection helps prevent any variation introduced by the user, such as different docking

methods, from affecting the performance of the electrical contacts.

The third advantage that may be seen from decoupling is in applications where the

output force needs to remain relatively constant to ensure performance, but the deflection

does not remain constant due to movement and/or vibrations of the contacts due to the sys-

tem environment. Examples of this include connectors in aircraft, vehicles, and machin-

ery.

9.2 Electrical Contacts

Traditionally, electrical contacts for use in PDA docks have consisted of linear

spring assemblies or an arrangement of cantilever beams (See Figure 9.1). These configu-

rations usually require large deflections to obtain the desired force and must be long to

keep stresses to an acceptable level.

9.2.1 Electrical Contact Industry Practice and Standards

The electrical contact industry has several practices and standards that constitute

essential performance characteristics for electrical contacts. The most basic and important

152
of these are divided into subgroups for presentation here, but it is not intended to be an

exhaustive list of all design issues.

The first standard is that electrical continuity must be continuous. The electrical

path created by an electrical contact can not be interrupted or contain high resistive areas.

Additionally, this path should consist of few parts (preferably one piece) which are easily

assembled.

Electrical contacts can be fabricated from any conductive material, but current

industry practice is to use alloys that contain copper. Phosphor bronze is a common alloy

that is easy to use and readily available. Beryllium copper and titanium copper are com-

monly used to achieve higher yield strengths. Unfortunately, they are more difficult to use

and more expensive than phosphor bronze.

Manufacturability is an important aspect of electrical contact design. Electrical

contacts are being produced in ever increasing volumes at lower costs. Current industry

practice is to use progressive stamping techniques to shape the metallic beams. Generally,

the contacts are stamped at the desired pitch distance and are left attached to the flashing.

This allows for easier material handling and assembly, but limits the shape and design of

the contact. Some of the limitations imposed on designs due to this manufacturing process

are:

• Minimum Material Thickness - There is a minimum material thickness

that is suitable for stamping.

• Minimum Bend Radius - There is a minimum bend radius allowed dur-

ing stamping operations. A general rule used is 4 times the thickness of
the material.

153
 Many industry practices are associated with assembly of the electrical contacts. In

this case, assembly deals with packaging the electrical contacts into a housing that is suit-

able for use. Design for assembly is vital to achieve a low cost and reliable part. Some of

the practices associated with assembly are:

• Mount type - Through-hole mounts are generally easier to use and most
commonly used. Surface mounts usually are more difficult to do, but
take up less room on the board (one side only).

• Single Assembly - Assembly of all of the contacts into the housing at

one time is the standard method. This greatly simplifies the process.

• Housing - The plastic housing that holds the contacts generally is one
or two pieces. This part holds the contacts into place.

The design of electrical contacts is well defined and understood. However, exami-

nation of traditional contacts shows that they are not suitable for use as constant-force

mechanisms, requiring that a new configuration be developed for the CFEC.

9.3 Constant-Force Mechanisms as Electrical Contacts

Traditional CFM configurations such as the one shown in Figure 9.2 are not suit-

able for use as electrical contacts for several different reasons which include:

• Manufacturability - The stamping of the necessary geometry would be

difficult.

• Material - The deflections and size constraints would cause extremely

high stresses compared to the strengths of common electrical contact
materials.

• Assembly - The assembly of pin-joints makes the use of traditional

slider-crank configurations in electrical contacts unlikely.

154
 Displacement

Figure 9.2 Typical compression slider-crank constant-force configuration

• Electrical Continuity - Pin joints would introduce gaps and areas of

high resistance in the electrical path making the contact inefficient and
unreliable.

Evaluation of the latest configurations shows that pin-joints and small-length flex-

ural pivot can not be used in electrical contacts, indicating that different configurations

that combine the benefits of both electrical contacts and CFMs must be developed for use

as a CFEC.

9.4 CFEC Configurations

The development of configurations for use as a CFEC is required. Although tradi-

tional electrical contacts and current constant-force mechanisms are not acceptable for use

as electrical contacts, they provide a starting point in the search for new configurations

suitable for CFECs.

155
 Displacement

Simulated Pin Joint

Rigid Link Path

Cam

Figure 9.3 Simulation of pin joints with a circular cam

9.4.1 Simulated Pin Joints.

The slider-crank constraints can be greatly simplified by using a method that simu-

lates the function and motion of a fixed-pinned flexible segment and a rigid link joined by

a pin joint. In this method a circular cam is used to represent the rigid-link. If the simu-

lated joint remains in compression, then the flexible link will follow the cam profile - the

exact path of the replaced rigid body link - as shown in Figure 9.3.

However, there are limitations to the simulated pin joint method. It must be in

compression to ensure that the tip of the beam remains in contact with the cam (See Figure

9.4c). It is also important to ensure that the simulated pin joint has minimal friction so that

there is smooth motion around the cam. This can be partially accomplished by rounding

over the tip of the beam and providing smooth surface finishes on the cam as shown in

Figure 9.4d.

156
 If the flexible beam is loaded, but doesn’t slide around the cam, then the beam

could buckle. Slider crank change points should be avoided. At these points, it may be dif-

ficult to get the beam to begin to slide around the cam. This can be done by changing the

initial angle of the beam or changing the eccentricity of the slider-crank as illustrated in

Figure 9.4a and Figure 9.4b.

There is also a limit to how far around the circular cam the flexible link can travel.

If the mechanism is deflected beyond the point at which the flexible beam is tangent to the

cam, the tip of the flexible beam will no longer be in contact with the cam (See Fig. 9.4e).

Figure 9.4 shows a graphical summary of the limitations, along with the methods

to overcome these limitations, associated with the simulated pin joint method. Despite

these exceptions, the simulation of pin joints with the use of a circular cam is an important

tool.

To combine the strengths of constant-force mechanisms and bent beam electrical

contacts, many different possible configurations were evaluated. Using the industry prac-

tice and standards criteria and a screening process, the configuration determined most via-

ble for use in a CFEC is one in which a slider-crank mechanism is attached directly to the

end of a bent cantilever beam as illustrated in Figure 9.5. A concept drawing of the CFEC

inside of a PDA dock is shown in Figure 9.6.

This configuration is easy to manufacture and assemble, and has electrical continu-

ity. Additionally, the beam and cam combination provide the necessary increases in

157
 Displacement Displacement

Increased Start Angle

Eccentric

Cam Cam

Avoid Inflection Point Avoid Inflection Point

(a) (b)

Displacement Displacement Displacement

Compression Only Rounded Tip

Smooth Surface Finish Limit Maximum
Deflection to
Tangent Point

Cam Cam Cam

Avoid Tension Avoid Friction Avoid Over-Deflection

(c) (d) (e)

Figure 9.4 Limitations and solutions to limitations of simulated pin joint method

Deflection

Cam

Figure 9.5 Selected constant-force electrical connector configuration

158
 n
otio t
kM Un i
Doc kab
le
Do c

Electrical Contact on Unit

Constant-Force Electrical Contact

Cam

Printed Circuit Board

Docking Station

Figure 9.6 Selected CFEC configuration in PDA dock.

mechanical advantage and the strain energy storage device necessary for constant-force

behavior.

9.4.2 Parameter Definitions

Parameters establish the shape and size of the mechanism and are used as inputs in

the model and optimization. Among these parameters are link lengths, angles, and cross

sectional geometries. Some of the parameters are also used to assess performance relative

to design requirements associated with the industry practice and standards. A graphical

summary of each of the important parameters for the selected configuration is shown in

Figure 9.7.

159
 Deflection
δ
R1

h Cross Section

l3
l2
h package b

θ3
l1 θ2 R3
l4
l5
R2

θ1

R4
l6

b package

Figure 9.7 Important parameters for general CFEC.

9.5 Case Study Details

The process of moving from the chosen configuration to a commercially-viable

CFEC is demonstrated by using a specific case study of electrical contacts for Personal

Digital Assistants (PDAs) docking stations. Specific requirements for the case study were

gathered based on existing dock designs and by working closely with the engineers of a

leading manufacturer of these devices.

Phosphor Bronze, a common bronze alloy used in electrical contacts, is selected

for this contact because it is relatively common, cheap, and easy to work with during pro-

duction when compared to other alternatives. The force range for the design is 294 - 588

mN (30 - 60 gf), and the maximum stress in the contact should not exceed the yield

strength. The CFEC is required to have a cross sectional height, h, of 0.2 mm and a width,

b, of 1 mm. The case study also requires that the contact fit inside of a 12 mm wide by 6

mm tall rectangle. The final design constraint is that the output force of the mechanism

160
should be at least 60% constant. This means that there is only a 40% variation between the

minimum force and the maximum force within the possible displacement range. Table 9.1

summarizes the design constraints for the case study. The symbols for the model functions

for each constraint are listed in the first column. The second column contains the general

constraint symbol which represents the fixed design constraints for any problems, while

column 3 lists the actual constraint values for the case-study.

9.6 Model Development

An accurate model in which the governing parameters can be modified and accu-

rate resulting forces and displacements can be calculated is needed. During the optimiza-

Table 9.1 Summary of case-study constraints

General
Constraint Value
Model Function Symbol Constraint
for Case-Study
Symbol

hpackage hpc ≤ 6 mm
bpackage bpc ≤ 12 mm

h hc 0.2 mm

b bc 1.0 mm

Bend Radius Rc ≥ 0.7 mm

E Ec 110e9 Pa

Sy Syc 552e6 Pa

SF SFc ≥ 1.0

Fave Fave, c ≈ 441 mN (45 gf)

Fmin Fmin,c ≥ 294 mN (30 gf)
Fmax Fmax, c ≤ 588 mN (60 gf)

Percent Constant (Ξ') Ξ'c 60

161
tion phase, the model is called many times to calculate function values and derivatives.

Therefore a simple model is preferred, but it must also be accurate.

Originally, a combination of a numerical CFM model based on the PRBM and a

numerical bent beam model based on Euler’s Method were combined to model the CFEC

configuration. However, the model was not accurate enough due to violations of assump-

tions in the CFM model. The CFM portion of the CFEC does not act as a pure slider. The

motion is not straight line and the moment assumed not to pass through the slider, is actu-

ally passed to the bent beam. These differences proved too much for the joint numerical

model.

To overcome the model problem, a finite element analysis (FEA) program capable

of nonlinear analysis (ANSYS) was used to model the deflections, contact forces, and

stresses in the CFEC. A parametric model was used so that values could be passed

between the FEA and optimization programs.

The FEA model was generated using the input parameters to calculate the location

of the key points shown in Figure 9.8. Once all the key points have been defined, a total of

175 beam elements are used to model the CFEC.

The cam is replaced with the rigid link (segment A) that it is simulating. This

requires that segment A be pinned to ground at key point 1, and that key points 2 and 3 be

constrained to have the same x and y displacement, thus forming a pin-joint. Segment A is

given a large width and height to ensure that it is rigid.

162
 100

5
4
20

D
B

6 21
F 8
2 3 G
E
7
22 9
A
H
1 23 10

I
J 11
12
Figure 9.8 Key Points for the finite element model

It is also necessary to constrain segment J at key point 12 in the x and y directions,

as well as rotation about the z -axis. This represents the way the bent beam attaches to

ground as a cantilever, simulating its attachment when soldered to a printed circuit board

(PCB). Finally, 5 vertical displacement load steps in the downward direction are applied to

the top of the mechanism at key point 100.

Once the model has run for the 5 different load steps, the contact force for each

load step and the highest stresses over the total deflection are written to a data file for use

by the optimization software (Optdes-X).

9.7 Model optimization

As with the CFM, it is necessary to establish an objective function, design vari-

ables, design functions, and constraints that facilitates the development of a constant-force

163
mechanism from the layout presented in Figure 9.5 that satisfies all of the design con-

straints.

As with any CFM, the principle objective function is the parameter Ξ' . The

lengths, angles, and radii described in Figure 9.7 are established as design variables in the

optimization problem with reasonably assumed bounds. The beam height (h), width (b),

modulus of elasticity (E), and safety factor (SF) are set up as analytical variables. The val-

ues for the analytical variables are established by the requirements of the case study as

described in Table 9.1. The remaining constraints of the case study show up in the design

functions calculated from variables and other model results.

9.7.1 Optimization

Using the design constraints of the case study, the optimization problem can be

formally stated in as:

Maximize Ξ' (9.1)

Subject to the constraints:

Ξ' > Ξ' c (9.2)

F ave > F min c

(9.3)

F ave < F max c

(9.4)

SF ≥ SFc (9.5)

b package < b pc (9.6)

h package < h pc (9.7)

164
 With the following constraints on the design variables:

R 1 > Rc (9.8)

R 2 > Rc (9.9)

R 3 > Rc (9.10)

R4 > Rc (9.11)

Where the variables with a subscript c denote the constraint values found in Table 9.1.

The optimization and FEA model were linked together in a similar manner as the

CFM model. At first, a feasible starting point was difficult to find so the constraints were

loosened by 10%-15%. Once a starting point was found, the optimization was allowed to

run and the constraints were tightened. This was repeated until a suitable design was

found.

The final design chosen satisfied the design constraints and requirements of the

case study. A detailed drawing of the final design chosen for the case study is shown in

Figure 9.9. The model values for the design and constraint parameters are listed in Table

9.2.

9.8 Model Validation

To confirm the behavior of the CFEC and the accuracy of the model, 9 prototypes

of the final design were produced for testing. The photo in Figure 9.10 illustrates the com-

parative size of the prototypes.

165
 4.7672

2.9398

x2
78
.92
R0

[9
5°
]
[10°]
.7
R0

4.5521
.7
R0

.5

2.04
R0
R0
.7

1.0
0.4184

0.4956

1.35
0.5087

2.72

5.1221

5.3912

Figure 9.9 CFEC final design

Table 9.2 Parameter summary of final design

Constraint Value
Model Function Symbol Final Design
for Case-Study

hpackage 5.9 mm ≤ 6 mm

bpackage 5.4 mm ≤ 12 mm
h 0.2 mm 0.2 mm

b 1.0 mm 1.0 mm

Bend Radius 0.7 mm ≥ 0.7 mm

E 110e9 Pa 110e9 Pa

Sy 552e6 Pa 552e6 Pa

SF 1.29 ≥ 1.0
Fave 478 mN (48.8 gf) ≈ 441 mN (45 gf)
Fmin 423 mN (43.2 gf) ≥ 294 mN (30 gf)

Fmax 577 mN (58.9 gf) ≤ 588 mN (60 gf)

Percent Constant (Ξ') 73.2 60

166
 Figure 9.10 CFEC prototype as compared to a dime

9.8.1 Dimensional Analysis

A dimensional analysis was performed to determine how close the prototypes’

dimensions were to the specified dimensions. An optical comparator was used to take 16

dimensional measurements from each of the 9 prototypes to determine the variation

between the measured values and the design values.

A weighted sum of the variation in each prototype was calculated to determine

which of the prototypes were closest to the final design. The three prototypes closest to the

final design were chosen for testing. The results of the dimensional analysis for the three

contacts chosen are found in Table 9.3.

9.8.2 Testing

A rigid test fixture was designed to allow for easy and accurate placement of the

prototype. The cam was fabricated as a separate piece to help ensure tight tolerances and

allow for different materials for the cam to be used, including polypropylene and teflon.

167
The purpose of the different materials was to investigate how different material types

affected the performance of the prototype.

A force transducer was attached to a computer-controlled actuator. The computer

controlled the actuator and collected position and force data. During testing, the contacts

were deflected to 0.75 mm and back. Figure 9.11a shows a photo of the general test setup

and Figure 9.11b shows a close-up photo of the contact in the test fixture.

9.9 Results

The prototypes were each tested using two different cams. Figure 9.12 shows a

graph of testing results for prototype 3 with a polypropylene cam. The mechanism main-

tained a near constant-force throughout the deflection and behaved as predicted.

Table 9.3 Dimensional analysis of CFEC prototypes

Contacts All Contacts

Dim Design Weight 3 4 5 STDEV Average Median
Value Variation Value Variation Value Variation
A 5.2809 3 5.401 0.068 5.335 0.031 5.443 0.092 0.200 5.393 5.401
B 2.9116 1 2.925 0.005 2.946 0.012 2.992 0.028 1.496 1.561 2.790
C 1.45 1 1.490 0.028 1.511 0.042 1.446 0.003 0.746 0.807 1.394
D 0.2 2 0.183 0.170 0.176 0.240 0.186 0.140 0.071 0.191 0.178
d2 0.2 2 0.199 0.010 0.217 0.170 0.196 0.040 0.081 0.132 0.186
E 0.8 1 0.700 0.125 0.915 0.144 0.919 0.149 0.364 0.505 0.449
F 0.8 1 0.738 0.078 0.836 0.045 0.813 0.016 0.416 0.498 0.738
G ang 90 2 90.000 0.000 88.850 0.026 90.000 0.000 46.788 48.154 87.700
G 2.24 1 2.287 0.021 2.256 0.007 2.245 0.002 1.155 1.197 2.220
H 5.5188 3 5.334 0.100 5.453 0.036 5.602 0.045 2.796 2.955 5.200
I 0.4184 3 0.394 0.175 0.457 0.277 0.503 0.607 0.859 0.818 0.503
J 0.6 1 0.475 0.208 0.547 0.088 0.569 0.052 0.241 0.328 0.475
K 0.8 1 0.537 0.329 0.480 0.400 0.565 0.294 0.109 0.443 0.470
L 95 2 96.100 0.023 96.500 0.032 93.200 0.038 50.066 51.540 93.200
M 10 2 10.300 0.060 11.400 0.280 9.400 0.120 5.873 6.158 8.200
N 1.0278 1 0.952 0.074 1.294 0.259 0.999 0.028 0.470 0.597 0.758
Total Weighted Variation 1.473 2.088 1.653
Rank 1 3 2

168
 (a) (b)

Figure 9.11 (a) General testing setup and (b) close-up of contact with fixture and probe

1000

800

600
Force (mN)

Compression
400
Expansion

200

0
0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.600 0.700 0.800 0.900

-200
Displacement (mm )

Figure 9.12 Graph of force versus displacement from test data

There are two interesting phenomenon that were observed in every test. First, since

there is no pre-load on the mechanism, the initial force must be zero. However, as the

mechanism goes through the initial displacement (about 0.05 mm), there is a sharp rise

from zero force to the intended constant-force. The phenomenon was observed in every

test and in fact was observed by Millar et al. (1996) during initial testing of constant-force

mechanisms. This is easily addressed by applying a deflection preload of 0.05 mm.

169
 The second phenomenon observed is a difference in force between the compres-

sion and expansion strokes of the testing. During the compression stroke, the mechanism

experienced a higher force than predicted. As the mechanism reverses direction, there is a

sharp decrease in the force to a point below the predicted force which persists throughout

the expansion stroke.

This phenomenon was consistent throughout testing and is found in all types of

electrical contacts and mechanisms. In fact, this same phenomenon was also observed by

Boyle (2001) while studying the dynamics of constant-force mechanisms. In all cases, this

behavior is consistent with the effects of friction, which acts in the direction to oppose

motion. Boyle (2001) was successful at modeling this phenomenon as friction found

within the mechanism and testing system.

The accuracy of the model can be verified by comparing the testing results with

the predicted results. However, the model used for the case study does not account for the

friction, requiring that the effects of the friction be removed from the test data. Assuming

that the difference in force between the compression and expansion strokes and the force

of the mechanism without friction is the magnitude of the friction force, the effects of fric-

tion can be removed by averaging the compression and expansion strokes .

Additionally, to make the comparison between test results and model predictions,

new predictions were made based on the actual shape and size of prototype 3. These pre-

dictions are listed in Table 9.4 while Figure 9.13 shows the predicted and adjusted-mea-

sured forces for prototype 3.

170
 600

500

Force (mN) 400 Predicted

Polypropylene
300 Teflon

200

100

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Deflection (mm)
Figure 9.13 Average and predicted force comparison

Table 9.4 Parameter summary of prototype 3

Constraint Value
Function Symbol Prototype 3
for Case-Study

hpackage 5.6 mm ≤ 6 mm

bpackage 5.5 mm ≤ 12 mm
h 0.2 mm 0.2 mm

b 1.0 mm 1.0 mm

Minimum Bend Radius 0.7 mm ≥ 0.7 mm

E 110e9 Pa 110e9 Pa

Sy 552e6 Pa 552e6 Pa

SF 1.29 ≥ 1.0
Fave 448 mN (45.7 gf) ≈ 441 mN (45 gf)
Fmin 418 mN (42.6 gf) ≥ 294 mN (30 gf)

Fmax 500 mN (51.0 gf) ≤ 588 mN (60 gf)

Percent Constant (Ξ') 79.4 60

171
 The percent constant-force for prototype 3 can be calculated by using Equation

(9.1). However, since the model does not include the region of quickly rising forces in the

initial deflections, the method introduced in Section 5.3 must be used to calculate the

extrapolated percent constant-force, Ξ' ex . This value is found by using Equation (5.27)

with the lowest average force on the flat part of the curve as Fmin and the highest force as

F max . This results in a value for Ξ' ex that is within 12% of the predicted extrapolated per-

cent-constant force. Table 9.5 contains a summary of the comparison between the testing

and predicted values.

9.10 Case Study Conclusions and Recommendations

This chapter has presented work done to develop near-constant-force mechanisms

for use in electrical connectors. Viable configurations were developed, and one configura-

tion was chosen for use in a case study. A design for the chosen configuration was gener-

ated, prototyped, and tested. The testing results indicated that the model predicted the

performance of the prototype.

The application of constant-force mechanism technology to electrical contacts

could provide a number of benefits in terms of performance, robustness, and package size.

Table 9.5 Summary of testing and prediction comparisons

Level of Constant Force Average Force

Ξ'ex % Error Force (mN) Force (gf) % Error
Predicted 79.42 - 447.97 45.68
Measured-Teflon Cam 71.89 9.49 402.62 41.06 10.12
Measured - Polypropylene Cam 63.86 11.17 357.59 36.46 20.17

172
The successful demonstration of the uncoupling of the force and deflection in an electrical

contact promises to create new possibilities in electrical contact designs, possibilities in

lowering required manufacturing tolerances, reduction of system sensitivity to variations

introduced by the user, and increased system robustness in applications where movement

and/or vibrations exist.

Further work to explore the contribution of CFECs to these areas must be done.

The size and force limitations and the affects of tolerances on CFECs should be better

understood as well as a better understanding of the phenomenon observed.

173
174
CHAPTER 10 SUMMARY,
CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

10.1 Review of Research Purposes

The five purposes for this research were:

• Seek to understand compliant constant-force mechanism behavior from

both a stress and force viewpoint.

• Develop different ways of comparing constant-force mechanisms.

• Define new mechanisms with improved performance.

• Outline a design method that can be used independent of the pseudo-

rigid-body model.

• Incorporate constant-force behavior into electrical contacts.

10.2 Summary

The purposes listed above were attained through the main contributions of this

research including:

• Non-dimensionalized parameters were developed. These parameters

can be used to assess stress and force feasibilities.

175
 • The classification system for CFMs was refined and expanded to
include naming methods for groups of mechanisms, families of mecha-
nisms, and individual mechanisms.

• Methods for comparing constant-force mechanisms were established

and defined.

• A detailed optimization model was developed that incorporated the

new non-dimensionalized parameters.

• The model was used, together with the comparison methods, to seek
out and identify new and improved mechanisms. This effort resulted in
the discovery of mechanisms with major improvements in stiffness and
feasible manufacturing orientations.

• A design methodology, including detailed examples, was outlined and

set forth to assist designers in the design of CFMs. Included were the
primary design equations, methods to identify stress and force feasible
mechanisms, and description of variable interactions and trends.

• A constant-force electrical contact was developed and tested. The

CFEC performed as intended and the details and results were pre-
sented.

10.3 Conclusions

Before this research was performed, the CFM knowledge base was limited. This

work has resulted in new understanding and insights into CFMs. Important new compari-

son methods were developed that can be used to identify new mechanisms and aid in the

design process.

While it was not known whether or not improvements over the original CFMs

could be made, this work showed that improvements were possible. In most cases, the

level of constant-force could not be improved. However, for the Class 2B mechanisms, the

level of constant-force was improved from 93 percent constant to 99 percent constant for

176
the sub-class a mechanisms. For the sub-class b mechanisms in this class, the percent con-

stant-force increased from 84 to 99, an 18% increase.

For every class of mechanism, an increase in the stiffness was made without

increasing the relative stress in the mechanism. Each class of mechanisms had some kind

of increase (ranging from 5% to 3000%) with the largest improvements in Class 2B.

Four 16% deflection mechanisms and five 40% deflection mechanisms were

defined with a stiffness parameter greater than or equal to 1 (see Table 10.1). These mech-

anisms were in the lpp and lps configurations and are the stiffest known CFMs.

It was also observed that the configurations with at least one long flexible segment

had higher stiffness parameters than their counterparts with only small-length flexural piv-

ots. The use of long flexible beams is important in gaining stiffness without increasing

stress.

This work also showed that a reasonable design approach is possible. This design

approach was defined and works for many different design scenarios. The design method-

Table 10.1 Mechanisms with highest stiffness

Configuration Sub-Class Ξ' Ψ R K2 %∆Ψ

lpp a 99.7 1.000 0.8274 - -
a99 99 1.046 0.8018 - 4.6%
a95 95 1.239 0.7106 - 23.9%
a90 90 1.490 0.6185 - 49.0%
lpp b 97.6 1.000 0.8853 - -
b95 95 1.052 0.8595 - 5.2%
b90 90 1.129 0.8226 - 12.9%
lps b95M 95 1.053 0.8561 0.0100 5.3%
b90M 90 1.137 0.8177 0.0100 13.7%

177
ology allows the designer to make educated decisions and choices based on the informa-

tion summarized in the tables. Additionally, two methods were outlined that identify

mechanisms that are either feasible from a stress or force standpoint. It was also shown

that when these methods are used together, it is possible to identify all of the mechanisms

that will satisfy all of the design constraints.

It can be concluded from this work that the methods and techniques used to design

CFMs can be used to develop models for mechanisms other than the traditional slider

crank. The CFEC developed in this work is such a mechanism. A number of viable config-

urations were developed, and one configuration was chosen. From this configuration, a

design was generated, prototyped, and tested. Testing results showed that the CFEC dis-

played constant-force behavior and characteristics similar to the models predictions.

Additionally, the successful demonstration of the uncoupling of the force and

deflection in an electrical contact promises to create new possibilities in electrical contact

designs, possibilities in lowering required manufacturing tolerances, reduction of system

sensitivity to variations introduced by the user, and increased system robustness in appli-

cations where movement and/or vibrations exist. This could lead to benefits in terms of

performance, robustness, and package size.

10.4 Recommendations for Further Research

This section recommends and outlines some of the areas in which future work

should be undertaken.

178
10.4.1 New Configurations

Much work was done to understand the limitations of the original configurations.

However, much work is needed to understand the following types or variations of config-

urations.

• Cam- Replacement of link with circular cam

• Offset - Mechanisms that utilize the eccentricity of the mechanism

• Orthoplaner - Configurations that start in an orthoplaner (in plane)

position

• Linear Spring - Configurations that include a linear spring

• Perpendicular Force - The movement of the force from a horizontal

position to a vertical position

• Inverted Mechanisms - These are mechanisms that work under tension

• Series/Parallel configurations - Different arrangements of CFM in

series and parallel to achieve desired displacement/force

• Pre-loads - Different pre-loads on the torsional and linear springs

• lpl- Configuration with two long flexible segments attached with a pin

The model developed for this work had the ability to add pre-loads, linear springs,

and offsets to the traditional mechanisms, as well as consider orthoplaner type CFMs. It is

recommended that further work be done to fully understand the effects and possibilities

presented by these types of mechanisms.

179
10.4.2 Physical Implementation

Going from theory to physical implementation presents many challenges. During

the development of the CFEC, several different phenomenon where observed that affected

the performance of the CFEC. These phenomenon included:

• Sharp rise as the mechanism is initially displaced

• Difference in force between compression and expansion strokes

• Sensitivity to tolerances

The effects of physical implementation of CFMs should be studied more fully.

These phenomenon and others should be studied, allowing CFMs to be used in future

applications.

10.4.3 Other Mechanisms

The requirements for constant-force mechanisms were partially outlined in this

work. With the development of the CFEC, a different type of mechanism was developed

that exhibited constant-force behavior. It is recommended that further work be undertaken

to examine other types of mechanisms for the properties required for constant-force

behavior. Some of these mechanisms include: centrifugal clutches and four-bar mecha-

nisms.

10.4.4 Other Flexible Segment Configurations

The lpp configuration exhibited the highest stiffness of the configurations exam-

ined. Other configurations were constrained by stress due to small-length flexural pivots.

It can then be reasoned that the lpl configuration, which adds a second long flexible seg-

180
ment without affecting stress, should exhibit an even greater stiffness than the lpp config-

uration. It is recommended that further work should be done to understand the behavior of

the lpl configuration, its stiffness, and its susceptibility to stress.

10.4.5 Applications

The improved mechanisms and the design methodology developed can be used to

develop CFMs for applications. It is recommended that work be done to implement CFMs

in viable commercial applications. This can be in conjunction with the work of Boyle

(2001) on the dynamics of CFMs to develop CFMs for dynamic applications.

10.4.6 Constant-Force Electrical Contacts

Further work to explore the contribution of CFECs to reduction in required manu-

facturing tolerances, reduction in system sensitivities to variation, and increased design

robustness must be done. The size and force limitations and the affects of tolerances on

CFECs should be better understood, as well as a better understanding of the effects of the

observed phenomenon on electrical contact performance.

181
182
 REFERENCES
Bossert, D., Ly, U. L., and Vagners, J., 1996, “Experimental Evaluation of a
Hybrid Position and Force Surface Following Algorithm for Unknown
Surfaces,” Proceedings - IEEE International Conference on Robotics asnd
Automation, Vol. 3, pp. 2252-2257.

Boyle, C. L. , 2001, “A Closed-Form Dynamic Model of the Compliant Constant-

Force Mechanism using the Pseudo-Rigid-Body Model,” M.S. Thesis,
Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah.

Brush Wellman Inc., 1999, Connector Engineering Design Guide: Material Selec-
tion in the Design of Spring Contacts and Interconnections, Brush Well-
man Inc.

Chang, L. H., and Fu, L. C., 1997, “Nonlinear adaptive control of a flexible manip-
ulator for automated deburring,” Proceedings - IEEE International Confer-
ence on Robotics asnd Automation, Vol. 4, pp. 2844-2849.

Deshpande, A. and Subbarayan, G., 2000, “LGA Connectors: An Automated

Design Technique for Shrinking Design Space,” Journal of Electronic
Packaging, Vol. 122, pp. 247-254.

Evans, M. S., and Howell, L. L., 1999, “Constant-Force End-Effector Mecha-

nism,” Proceedings of the IASTED International Conference, Robotics &
Applications, Santa Barbara, CA, USA, pp. 250-256.

Harper, C. A. 1996, Electronic Packaging & Interconnection Handbook -Second

Edition, McGraw-Hill, New York.

Herder, J.L., Tuijthof, G.J.M., “Two Spatial Gravity Equilibrators,” Proceedings of

the 2000 Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computer in
Engineering Conference, DETC2000/MECH-14120.

Herder, J. L., van den Berg, F. P. A., “Statically Balanced Compliant Mechanisms
(SBCM’s), An Example and Prospects,” Proceedings of the 2000 Design
Engineering Technical Conferences and Computer in Engineering Confer-
ence, DETC2000/MECH-14144.

183
Howell, L. L., 2001, Compliant Mechanisms, John Wiley and Sons, New York.

Howell, L. L., Midha, A., and Murphy, M. D., 1994, “Dimensional Synthesis of
Compliant Constant-Force Slider Mechanisms,” Proceedings of DETC’94,
ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences, DETC98/MEMD-71.

Howell, L. L. and Midha, A., 1994, “The Development of Force-Deflection Rela-

tionships for Compliant Mechanisms,” Proceedings of the 1994 ASME
Mechanisms Conference, DE-Vol. 71, pp. 501-508.

Howell, L. L., and Midha, A., 1995, “Determination of the Degrees of Freedom of
Compliant Mechanisms Using the Pseudo-Rigid-Body Model Concept,”
Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress on the Theory of Machines and
Mechanisms, Milano, Italy, Vol. 2, p. 1537-1541.

Howell, L. L., and Midha, A., 1996, “A Loop-Closure Theory for the Analysis and
Synthesis of Compliant Mechanisms,” ASME Journal of Mechanical
Design, Vol. 118, No. 1, pp. 121-125.

Jenuwine, J. G., and Midha, A., 1994, “Synthesis of Single-Input and Multiple-
Output Port Mechanisms with Springs for Specified Energy Absorption,”
Journal of Mechanical Design, Trans. ASME, Vol. 116, No. 3, September,
pp. 937-943.

Midha, A., Murphy, M. D., and Howell, L. L., 1995, “Compliant Constant-Force
Mechanism and Devices Formed Therein”, U.S. Patent 5649454, Issued
July 22, 1997.

Millar, A. J., Howell, L. L, and Leonard, J. N., 1996, “Design and Evaluation of
Compliant Constant-Force Mechanisms,” Proceedings of the 1996 ASME
Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers in Engineering
Conference, 96-DETC/MECH-1209.

Murphy, M. D., Midha, A., and Howell, L. L., 1994, “Methodology for the Design
of Compliant Mechanisms Employing Type Synthesis Techniques with
Example,” Proceedings of the 1994 ASME Mechanisms Conference, DE-
Vol. 70, pp. 61-66.

Nathan, R. H., 1985, “A Constant Force Generation Mechanism,” Journal of

Mechanisms, Transmissions, and Automation in Design, Trans. ASME,
Vol. 107, December, pp. 508-512.

Parkinson, M. B., Howell, L. L., and Cox, J. J., 1997, “A Parametric Approach to
the Optimization-Based Design of Compliant Mechanisms,” Proceedings
of the 23rd Design Automation Conference, DETC97/DAC-3763.
184
Paul, B. 1979, Kinematics and Dynamics of Planar Machinery, Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.

Wahl, A., 1963, Mechanical Springs, 2nd. Ed. McGrawHill, New York.

Wittwer, J. W., 2001, “Predicting the Effects of Dimensional and Material Property
Variations in Compliant Mechanisms,” M.S. Thesis, Brigham Young Uni-
versity, Provo, Utah.

Williman, J., 1995, “Small Torque,” Engineering (London), Gillard Welch Associ-
ates, pp. 27-28.

185
186
APPENDIX A PSEUDO-RIGID-BODY
MODEL

The Pseudo-Rigid-Body Model (PRBM) plays an important part in the design and

analysis of compliant mechanisms. This appendix offers a closer look at the PRBM. It

gives a brief overview and then discusses the nomenclature and equations for several dif-

ferent types of flexible segments. However, no attempt is made to show evidence of the

validity of the PRBM or its limitations. For further information and details, the reader is

referred to the work from which this appendix was summarized (Howell, 2000).

A.1 PRBM Overview

The design and analysis of compliant mechanisms can be complicated. Tradition-

ally, the large non-linear deflections have caused significant difficulties in the design of

compliant mechanisms. Techniques such as finite element analysis (FEA) and elliptic inte-

grals provide accurate information, but make design very drawn out and complicated.

Fortunately, the development of the PRBM has greatly increased the speed and

ease in which compliant mechanisms can be designed. The PRBM allows for the approxi-

187
mation of the force-deflection characteristics of flexible segments. Thus, the PRBM is

intended to be an intermediate design tool, allowing for the rapid design and analysis of

first generation compliant mechanisms. Afterwards, techniques such as FEA and other

numerical methods can be used to refine the designs. The PRBM becomes a tool to take

beginning ideas to refined designs.

The power of the PRBM comes from its ability to model compliant members using

rigid members that have the same force-deflection characteristics as the original member.

Continuous work in developing the PRBM has shown it to accurately model the behavior

of compliant mechanism in displacement, force, velocity, and acceleration. Thus, design-

ers can draw from the vast number of traditional mechanism design and analysis tools.

For each type of flexible segment, several parameters are defined. The first of

these is the characteristic pivot. The characteristic pivot is the center of the arc created by

the path of the end of the beam. This pivot lies on the flexible beam and is represented as a

pin joint in the PRBM. Equations for the position of this characteristic pivot is given for

each type of flexible segment and is easily determined. Additionally, the variable Θ is the

pseudo-rigid-body angle and equations relating it to the end angle of the beam are pre-

sented.

The strain energy stored in each flexible member is represented by a torsional

spring with a spring constant of K. This spring constant is determined by geometric and

material properties and is also dependent upon the type of flexible member. Formulas for

each of these spring constants will be given.

188
 P P

nP nP

θo Θ

P P
l
2

nP nP

l L Torsional l L
Spring

Figure A.1 (a) A small-length flexural pivot and (b) its PRBM

These are the main parameters that will be described below. Each section gives a

diagram for the flexible segment and its corresponding PRBM diagram, the characteristic

pivot, and the torsional spring constant. Additionally, the formula for the maximum stress

in each flexible element will be given.

A.2 Small-Length Flexural Pivots

A small-length flexural pivot is one in which a large beam is grounded or pinned

through a smaller beam, as illustrated in Figure A.1a. Typically, a small-length flexural

pivots satisfies the following conditions:

L»l (A.1)

( EI )L » ( EI )l (A.2)

189
 The characteristic pivot is located at the center of the small-length flexural pivot as

shown in Figure A.1b. For small-length flexural pivots, the basic equations are

Θ = θo (A.3)

( EI )
K = ------------l (A.4)
l

T = KΘ (A.5)

The x and y coordinates of the end of the beam can be found through

l l
a = --- +  L + --- cos Θ (A.6)
2 2

and

l
b =  L + --- sin Θ (A.7)
2

The stress equations for this flexible segment are

– ( Pa + nPb )c nP
σ top = ---------------------------------- – ------- (A.8)
I A

( Pa + nPb )c nP
σ bot = ------------------------------- – ------- (A.9)
I A
The equations presented here are sufficient in most cases. At times, the size of the

small-length flexural pivot is small enough that the spring constant can be ignored if other

larger torques are present. This special case small-length flexural pivots are called living

hinges.

190
 P P

nP nP

P P

nP nP

L Torsional γL
Spring (1-γ)L

Figure A.2 (a) Cantilever beam with force at end and (b) its PRBM

A.3 Cantilever Beam with Force at End

A second type of flexible segment is a cantilever beam with a force at the end. Fig-

ure A.2a show the cantilever beam with its PRBM and corresponding parameters (Figure

A.2b).

The characteristic pivot is located a distance γL from the free end where γ is the

characteristic radius factor. The value of the characteristic radius factor is a function of

the direction of the applied force and can be expressed in terms of n as follows:

γ = 0.841655 – 0.0067807n + 0.000438n 2 ; ( 0.5 < n < 10.0 ) (A.10)

γ = 0.852144 – 0.0182867n ; ( – 1.8316 < n < 0.5 ) (A.11)

γ = 0.912364 + 0.0145928n ; ( – 5 < n < – 1.8216 ) (A.12)

191
 For values of n between -0.5 and 1.0,

γ ave = 0.85 (A.13)

There is some slight deviation between the pseudo rigid body angle and the actual

angle of the beam. This variation is almost linear and is compensated through

θo = cθ Θ (A.14)

where

c θ ≈ 1.24 (A.15)

The value of cθ, the parametric angle coefficient, varies between 1.256 and 1.179. Values

for different values of n are tabulated in Howell (2000).

The torsional spring constant for a cantilever beam with a force on the end can be

found from

EI
K = γK θ ------ (A.16)
l

K θ ≈ 2.65 (A.17)

The value Kθ is called the stiffness coefficient. The approximation given in Equation

(A.17) is accurate in most cases. However, more accurate values are given in Howell

(2000). With the spring constant, force and torque calculations can be made according to

Equation (A.5).

The x and y coordinates of the end of the beam can be found through

a = L – γL ( 1 – cos Θ ) (A.18)

192
 M
M
θo Θ

L γL
Torsional (1-γ)L
Spring

Figure A.3 (a) Cantilever beam with force at end and (b) its PRBM

and

b = γL sin Θ (A.19)

The stress in the beam can be calculated from Equation (A.8) and Equation (A.9),

which are the same equations used for the small-length flexible segment.

A.4 Cantilever Beam with End Moment Loading

A cantilever beam is often loaded with an end moment. Figure A.3 show this load-

ing configuration along with its PRBM. The equations for this configuration are identical

to the previous configuration. However, there are some differences in the values of the

parameters. The characteristic radius factor is

γ = 0.7346 (A.20)

193
 Centerline

P P

L γL
Torsional (1-γ)L (1-γ)L
Spring 2 2

Figure A.4 (a) Fixed-guided beam and (b) its PRBM

The parametric angle coefficient is

c θ = 1.5164 (A.21)

and the stiffness coefficient is

K Θ = 2.0643 (A.22)

A.5 Fixed-Guided Beam

A common type of flexible segment is the fixed-guided beam. This beam consists

of a beam fixed on one end, while the other end is kept perpendicular to ground during dis-

placement. This is commonly see in mechanisms such as parallel and folded beam mecha-

nisms and is illustrated in Figure A.4.

Close observation of the fixed-guided beam shows that the curvature is zero at the

middle due to symmetry. It is also known that the curvature at the end of a cantilever beam

with an end load is also zero. Therefore, the fixed-guided beam can be modeled as two

194
cantilever beams each half the length of the original beam. Thus, the PRBM is easily

found.

The parameters for this beam are similar to previous parameters. The characteristic

radius factor is

γ = 0.8517 (A.23)

Since the beam has a constant end angle, the parametric angle coefficient is trivial

and

cθ = 0 (A.24)

The spring constant is found to be

EI
K = 2γK θ ------ (A.25)
l
From observation, it can be seen that the spring constant for the fixed-guided beam

is twice that for cantilever beams. This indicates that the overall stiffness of the fixed-

guided is four times that of the cantilever beam.

Since the end of the beam is constrained, a reactionary moment, Mo is created. The

formula for this moment is

Pa
M o = ------- (A.26)
2

or

Pl
M o = ----- [ 1 – γ ( 1 – cos Θ ) ] (A.27)
2

195
 The maximum stress occurs at the ends of the beam where the moment is largest. It

has a value of

Pac
σ max = ---------- (A.28)
2I

196
APPENDIX B MODEL AND
OPTIMIZATION CODE

B.1 MatLab Code

The CFM model is written in Matlab. Matlab has the ability to manipulate files,

store matrices, and use functions. However, a significant advantage is that no compiling is

required as in C. Changes can be made and the program can be execute immediately. This

allows for quick and easy changes. Unfortunately, this software requires that Matlab is

installed and running on the computer to run the code.

B.1.1 File Run Order

The 4 separate Matlab files make up the CFM model. These files each serve a dif-

ferent purpose allowing the model to be either independently or linked to the optimization

code. The different operating paths of the model and the run order of the files are summa-

rized in Figure B.1. The primary file, CFMModel, is the model core. This file contains all

of the relationships and functions used by the model.

197
 Independent of
Optimization Linked to Optimization

UserModel
Run Order
OptdesLink

OptdesModel

CFMModel

Figure B.1 Summary of Matlab file paths and run order

The UserModel file is used by the user to run the model independent of the optimi-

zation software. The user can change the input values within this file. This file then calls

and passes all important parameters to CFMModel. UserModel then receives all the output

values from CFMModel.

The file OptdesModel is similar in purpose to UserModel. However, this file

receives all the needed information from data files created by the optimization code. It

then calls CFMModel and passes and receives all important values. Its final duty is to cre-

ate an output file that is read by the optimization code.

The final file is OptdesLink. This file handles the handshaking that goes on

between Matlab and OptdesX. It triggers OptdesModel, telling it when the optimization

code is finished creating data files. It then tells the optimization code when Matlab is fin-

ished and the output file has been generated.

198
B.1.2 Variable Name Mapping

Due to the number of variables required, there relationship to one another, and

requirements for input and output of data, the variable names in the Matlab and OptdesX

code are not necessarily intuitive. In some cases, to simplify the writing of the code, two

names were used. Table B.1 outlines the variable names, any second names that may exist,

and the parameter or item that the variable represents. This table can be used to help

understand more fully the code.

B.1.3 CFMModel Code

%[cfparam,deltax,phi]=cfmmodel(r2,r3,k1,k2,k3,percentage)
%percentage in
%r2,r3

Table B.1 Mapping of parameter names to names in Matlab and OptdesX code
Variable Name Alternate Name Parameter Variable Name Alternate Name Parameter

Matprop(1) E di Initial displacement (manufactured position)

Matprop(2) Sy d d
Matprop(3) Sy/E ds Linear Spring Preload
SF Safety Factor
stress(x) stress rtot rtot
ltot ltot
lengths(1) ri ri L λ
lengths(2) r2 r2
lengths(3) r3 r3 roe(x) ρ
lengths(4) r4 r4 zeta(x) ζ
ka(x) κx
geoparam(x,1) bx deltax deflection vector
geoparam(x,2) hx
geoparam(x,3) l flex alpha α at each displacment
fparam Ψ at each displacement
pivotparam(x,1) Pivot Type F Force at each displacement
pivotparam(x,2) Reference (1B) Fave Average Force
pivotparam(x,3) thetaxo Preload angle
pivotparam(x,4) kx kx r4 length of r4 -eccentricity portion
pivotparam(x,5) thetaxi Initial angle r4type 0 - Regular 1- Forces orthoplaner
pivotparam(x,5) thetaxfinal Final angle A(x) A
I(x) moment of inertia
cfparam(1) R R maxstresspivot primary pivot
cfparam(2) K1 K1 changepivot # of changes in primary pivot
cfparam(3) K2 K2
cfparam(4) K3 K3 DesignParameter(x,1) hpx max hx given same b
cfparam(5) averagephi Average Φ DesignParameter(x,2) bpx max bx given same h
cfparam(6) averagephis average Φ s DesignParameter(x,3) Dx D
cfparam(7) Xi Ξ' DesignParameter(x,4) Areax Design Area

configparam(1) alphamax fit Turn Curve Fit On (1) or Off (0)

configparam(2) primary pivot pc(1) M
configparam(3) changepivot pc(2) n
configparam(4) average_Beta C C
configparam(5) fp Ψ
configparam(6) dN dN
* note: in AnasubC, array values are all shifted down by 1due to C code requirments.

199
function[lengths,cfparam,configparam,pivotparam,geoparam,deltax,F,di,d,SF,pc,alpha,Beta,fparam,phi,ka,C,Des
ignParam]=cfmmodel(ltot,r4type,r4,di,d,ds,geoparam,pivotparam,cfparam,matprop,fit)
gamma=[0,1,0.85];
roedata=[1,0.1,1/0.85]; %One in first place is to avoid dividing by zero.
Ktheta=[0,1,2.65];
fgoal=.4518;
%10.2483;
Ldata=[1,1.05,gamma(3)];
%Spot at which f parameter is compared.
%if d==16
% famount=15.9/100;
%elseif d==40
% famount=0.05;
%end

R=cfparam(1);
geoparam(2,1)=geoparam(1,1);
geoparam(3,1)=geoparam(1,1);

K1=cfparam(2);
K2=cfparam(3);
K3=cfparam(4);
K(1)=1;
K(2)=K1;
K(3)=K2;
K(4)=K3;
k1=pivotparam(1,4);
k2=K1*k1;
k3=K2*k1;
pivotparam(1,4)=k1;
pivotparam(2,4)=k2;
pivotparam(3,4)=k3;

Lvalues(1)=R;
Lvalues(2)=1;
Lvalues(3)=1;

if pivotparam(1,1)==2
Lvalues(2)=Lvalues(2)*Ldata(2);
elseif pivotparam(1,1)==3
Lvalues(1)=Lvalues(1)*Ldata(3);
Lvalues(3)=Lvalues(3)+1;
end
if pivotparam(2,1)==3
if pivotparam(1,1)==2
Lvalues(2)=Lvalues(2)*Ldata(3);
Lvalues(3)=Lvalues(3)+1;
elseif (pivotparam(2,2)==3)
Lvalues(2)=Lvalues(2)*Ldata(3);
Lvalues(3)=Lvalues(3)+1;
else
Lvalues(1)=Lvalues(1)*Ldata(3);
Lvalues(3)=Lvalues(3)+1;
end
end
if pivotparam(3,1)==2
Lvalues(1)=Lvalues(1)*Ldata(2);
elseif pivotparam(3,1)==3
Lvalues(2)=Lvalues(2)*Ldata(3);
Lvalues(3)=Lvalues(3)+1;
end

if Lvalues(3)==1

200
 Lvalues(3)=R+1;
else
Lvalues(3)=Ldata(3)*(R+1);
end
L=(Lvalues(1)+Lvalues(2))/Lvalues(3);

rtot=ltot/L;
r3=rtot/((1+1/R)); %Calculate r3 value
r2=rtot/(1+R); %Calculate r2 value

d=d/100;
class1B=0; %Boolean for class 1B config.
for i=1:3
roe(i)=roedata(pivotparam(i,1));
zeta(1)=R+1;
zeta(3)=1+1/R;
if (pivotparam(2,1)==2)%Small length in center
zeta(2)=2;
elseif (pivotparam(2,1)==3) %Long flexible in center
if pivotparam(1,1)==1
if (pivotparam(2,2)==2) %Associated with r2
zeta(2)=zeta(1);
else
zeta(2)=zeta(3); %Associated with r3
end
else
zeta(2)=zeta(3);
end
else
zeta(2)=1; %Sets to arbitary 1 (not zero so can divide w/o error
end
geoparam(i,3)=rtot*roe(i)/zeta(i); %Calculate flexible segment lengths

if pivotparam(i,1)==1
I(i)=0;
geoparam(i,2)=0;
else
I(i)=pivotparam(i,4)*geoparam(i,3)/(gamma(pivotparam(i,1))*Ktheta(pivotparam(i,1))*matprop(1)); %Calcu-
late spring constants
geoparam(i,2)=(12*I(i)/geoparam(i,1))^(1/3);
end
A(i)=geoparam(i,2)/(2*rtot); %Calculate A value
ka(i)=gamma(pivotparam(i,1))*zeta(i)*Ktheta(pivotparam(i,1))/roe(i);
end

if (pivotparam(1,1)==1)
class1B=1;
geoparam(1,3)=geoparam(1,2);
pivotparam(1,4)=pivotparam(2,4);
A(1)=A(2);
ka(1)=ka(2);
end

type=0;
if (r4type==1) %Forces Orthoplaner position by changing r4 from user defined to ideal for orthoplaner
r4=(1-R)*r2;
end
ks=K3*k1/(r2*r2);

201
pivotparam(4,4)=ks;
rimin=0;
if (r3+r4>r2) %& ~(r4==0) %Limits ri so that mechanisms doesn't go back on itself
theta3max=asin((r4-r2)/r3); %Limits to where r2 is vertical. Finds theta3max
rimin=r3*cos(theta3max); %Sets start point and limits for non-linear solver
thetaT = pi/4;
limit = pi/2;
elseif (r3+r4<r2) %& ~(r4==0) %Limits to where r3 and r4 are vertical. Finds theta2max
theta2max=asin((r4+r3)/r2);
rimin=r2*cos(theta2max);
thetaT = theta2max/2;
limit = theta2max;
elseif (r3+r4==r2) %OrthoPlaner position
thetaT=pi/4;
limit=2*pi;
end

ri=sqrt((r2+r3)^2-r4^2)*(1-di); %Calculate initial displacement (rest)

if (ri<rimin) %& (d<0) %Force ri to be no longer than maximum allowable displacement with given geometery
ri=rimin;
di=1-ri/(r2+r3);
if d>0 %Don't allow any compression because ri=rimin
d=0;
end
elseif (d>0) & (ri*(1-d)<rimin) %checks to see if compression mechanism is going too far
d=1-rimin/ri; %Resets percd to maximum allowable
end

%Solve for theta i's

if (di==0) & (r4==0)%if initially flat
theta2i=0;
theta3i=2*pi;
theta4i=pi;
elseif (di==1) %if orthoplaner
theta2i=pi/2;
theta3i=3*pi/2;
elseif (r4==0)
theta2i=acos((ri*ri+r2*r2-r3*r3)/(2*ri*r2)); %Solves for initial angles (not pre-load)
theta3i=2*pi+asin(-r2*sin(theta2i)/r3); %Solves for initial angle 3 (not pre-load)
else
del = 1e-6;
tol = 1e-3;
theta2i = Newton(type,'theta2',thetaT,[ri,r2,r3,r4],limit,del,tol);
theta3i = asin((r4-r2*sin(theta2i))/r3)+2*pi;
end

theta2o=theta2i+pivotparam(1,3); %Initial angle + Pre-load-->Pre-load is Counter Clock-wise resulting in nega-

tive torque (radians)
theta3o=theta3i+pivotparam(2,3); %Initial angle + Pre-load-->Pre-load is Counter Clock-wise resulting in nega-
tive torque (radians)
theta4o=2*pi-theta3i+pivotparam(3,3);

%d is the percent deflection of mechanism.

if (d>0) %If d is >0, then is percent of rest length.
deltax=0.001:0.001*ri*d:(ri)*d; %Set up percentage vector
[r1]=ri-deltax;
else % if d <0, then is percent of total allowable(total length - rest length)
deltax=0.001:0.001*(sqrt((r2+r3)^2-ri^2)):(sqrt((r2+r3)^2-r4^2)-ri)*d*-1;
[r1]=ri+deltax; %Set up r1 vector
end

[trash,sz]=size(deltax); %Find value of lengths

202
for i=1:sz
darray(i)=deltax(i)/ri*100;
end

%bo=0;
%for i=1:sz
% if (deltax(i)>ri*famount) & (bo==0)
% bo=1;
% fspot=i
% end
%end

fspot=sz; %calculate f at d
deltax(fspot)=ri*d;
if (d>0)
r1(fspot)=ri-deltax(fspot);
else
r1(fspot)=ri+deltax(fspot);
end

changepivot=-1;
maxstresspivot=0;

dd=d*100;
dN=100*(1/(R+1))*sin(acos((-1/200)*((dd^2*R-200*dd*R-200*dd+20000+dd^2)/(dd-100))));

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%Basic slider crank model
for i=1:sz

if r4==0
theta2(i)=acos((r1(i)^2+r2^2-r3^2)/(2*r1(i)*r2));
tempangle=asin((-r2*sin(theta2(i)))/r3);
else %solves equations using Newton Raphson if r4!=0
del = 1e-6;
tol = 1e-3;
limit=2*pi;
if i==1
theta2temp = Newton(type,'theta2',theta2i,[r1(i),r2,r3,r4],limit,del,tol);
else
theta2temp = Newton(type,'theta2',theta2(i-1),[r1(i),r2,r3,r4],limit,del,tol);
end
theta2(i) = theta2temp;

tempangle = asin((r4-r2*sin(theta2(i)))/r3)+2*pi;
end
if tempangle<0
theta3(i)=2*pi+tempangle;
else
theta3(i)=tempangle;
end
if i==sz
theta2final=theta2(i);
theta3final=theta3(i);
end

%Equation to solve for non-dimensionalized parameter phi

% Note: Equation for 1B mechanism is not the same as for others.
if class1B==0

203
 phi(i)=(R*cos(theta3(i))*((theta2(i)-theta2o)+K1*(theta3o+theta2(i)-theta3(i)-theta2o))...
+cos(theta2(i))*(K1*(theta3o+theta2(i)-theta3(i)-theta2o)+K2*(theta3o-theta3(i))))/(R*sin(theta2(i)-theta3(i)));

else

phi(i)=(R*cos(theta3(i))*(K1*(theta3o+theta2(i)-theta3(i)-theta2o))...
+cos(theta2(i))*(K1*(theta3o+theta2(i)-theta3(i)-theta2o)))/(R*sin(theta2(i)-theta3(i)));

end

phis(i)=K3*((cos(theta2(i))-(1-ds)*cos(theta2i))+R*(cos(theta3(i))-(1-ds)*cos(theta3i)));
F(i)=k1*(phi(i)-phis(i))/r2; %Force equation

%Calculate Beta
if class1B==1
Beta(i)=gamma(pivotparam(2,1))*Ktheta(pivotparam(2,1))*(R+1)*zeta(2)*phi(i)/roe(2);
else
Beta(i)=gamma(pivotparam(1,1))*Ktheta(pivotparam(1,1))*(R^2+2*R+1)*phi(i)/roe(1);
end

%Equations to calculate alpha

alpha(1,i)=gamma(pivotparam(1,1))*zeta(1)*Ktheta(pivotparam(1,1))*(theta2(i)-theta2o)/roe(1);
alpha(2,i)=gamma(pivotparam(2,1))*zeta(2)*Ktheta(pivotparam(2,1))*(theta3o+theta2(i)-theta3(i)-theta2o)/
roe(2);
alpha(3,i)=gamma(pivotparam(3,1))*zeta(3)*Ktheta(pivotparam(3,1))*(theta3o-theta3(i)-theta4o)/roe(3);

%Equations to calculate stress

stress(1,i)=alpha(1,i)*A(1)*matprop(1);
stress(2,i)=alpha(2,i)*A(2)*matprop(1);
stress(3,i)=alpha(3,i)*A(3)*matprop(1);

%Equations to calculate which pivot has the highest stress

if (stress(1,i)>=stress(2,i)) & (stress(1,i)>=stress(3,i))
if (maxstresspivot==1)
maxstresspivot=1;
else
maxstresspivot=1;
changepivot=changepivot+1;
end
elseif (stress(2,i)>stress(1,i)) & (stress(2,i)>stress(3,i))
if (maxstresspivot==2)
maxstresspivot=2;
else
maxstresspivot=2;
changepivot=changepivot+1;
end
elseif (stress(3,i)>stress(2,i)) & (stress(3,i)>stress(2,i))
if (maxstresspivot==3)
maxstresspivot=3;
else
maxstresspivot=3;
changepivot=changepivot+1;
end
end

%Calculate f parameter by normalizing highest stress parameter (Offset for K already applied)

fparam(i)=ka(maxstresspivot)*(1/alpha(maxstresspivot,i))^3/(ka(1)*L*K(maxstresspivot));

204
 %Equations for calculating force on sliding Cam
Fx(i)=((theta2(i)-theta2o)*k1)/((cos(theta3o-theta3(i))*sin(theta2(i)-theta2o)*r2)/sin(theta3o-theta3(i))...
+cos(theta2(i)-theta2o)*r2);
Fy(i)=(-Fx(i)/tan(theta3o-theta3(i)));
Fcam(i)=sqrt(Fx(i)^2+Fy(i)^2);
end

for i=1:3
if alpha(i,sz)==0
C(i)=-1;
else
C(i)=alpha(maxstresspivot,sz)/alpha(i,sz);
end
end

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

% Return important parameters back to the interace function.

pivot=maxstresspivot;
kapivot=ka(pivot)
ka1=ka(1)
Kpivot=K(pivot)

for i=1:3
if(pivotparam(i,1)==1)
DesignParam(i,1)=-1
DesignParam(i,2)=-1
DesignParam(i,3)=-1
DesignParam(i,4)=-1
else
DesignParam(i,1)=(K(i)*kapivot/(ka(i)*Kpivot))^(1/3) %maximum h given same stress and b values
DesignParam(i,2)=(K(i)*kapivot/(ka(i)*Kpivot)) %maximum b given same stress and h values
DesignParam(i,3)=(K(i)*kapivot/(ka(i)*Kpivot)*C(i)^3) %D ratio of maximum b to primary stress pivot b
given max h on x
DesignParam(i,4)=(11-DesignParam(i,3))*(C(i)) %A
end
end

[alphamax,temp]=max(alpha(maxstresspivot,:));
alphamax;
Amax=A(pivot);

maxstress=max(stress(maxstresspivot,:));
SF=matprop(3)/alphamax/Amax;

lengths(1)=ri;
lengths(2)=r2;
lengths(3)=r3;
lengths(4)=r4;
lengths(5)=L;

pivotparam(1,5)=theta2i;
pivotparam(2,5)=theta3i;
pivotparam(1,6)=theta2final;
pivotparam(2,6)=theta3final;

%Average array values

205
 average_phi=average(phi);
average_phis=average(phis);
average_Beta=average(Beta);
average_alpha=average(alpha(maxstresspivot,:));

%Multiply in the average Beta value

for i=1:sz
fparam(i)=fparam(i)*average_Beta; %Must use end average
end

Fmin=min(F);
Fmax=max(F);

if d>0
xi=((Fmin/Fmax))*100;
else
xi=abs(Fmin/Fmax);
end

fp=fparam(fspot);
fp=fparam(fspot)/fgoal;
pc=[-1,-1];
if fit==1
X=[1,1];
Options = optimset('TolFun',.0001);
LL=[];
UL=[];
pc=lsqcurvefit('powerb',X,darray,alpha(maxstresspivot,:),LL,UL,Options); %Curve fit alpha
end

ForceAverage=average(F);

cfparam=[R,K1,K2,K3,average_phi,average_phis,xi];

configparam=[alphamax,pivot,changepivot,average_Beta,fp,dN];

dd=d*100;
d=dd;

B.1.4 UserModel Code

%This is the user interface for the CFORIGINAL model. The model can also be accessed through
%the optdes interface
%function usermodel
clear all;
close all;
%User Inputs
matprop(1)=1; %E%E
matprop(2)=1;%Sy %Sy
matprop(3)=matprop(2)/matprop(1);%Sy/E
K3=0;
R=0.395;
K1=.1906;
K2=0;
cfparam(2)=K1;
cfparam(3)=K2;

206
ltot=1;
k1=.60106;
b=1;
geoparam(1,1)=b;
geoparam(2,1)=b;
geoparam(3,1)=b;
pivotparam(1,4)=k1;
r4=0;
r4type=0; %0==> User input 1 ==> Orthoplaner
di=0; %0..1
d=16; %percent displacement (0..100) +--> percent of ri to displace - -->percent of (r2+r3-ri) to displace
ds=0; %Percent of rest length to preload spring
%Pin joint types 1=pin 2=small 3=long
pivotparam(1,1)=2;
pivotparam(2,1)=3;
pivotparam(3,1)=1;
%Pin Joint reference links for long length segments
%Should only matter for pivot 2 Can be either link 2 or link 3
pivotparam(2,2)=3;
%Initial angles can be inputed through the pivot parameters. The defaults for
%the normal slider crank are as follows:
%Initial wind up on springs --> pos. # is a counter clockwise rotation results in negative torque
%With no pre-load, the springs will be at rest in rest posistion (theta#i)
pivotparam(1,3)=0;
pivotparam(2,3)=0;
pivotparam(3,3)=0;
fit=0;
cfparam(1)=R;
cfparam(4)=K3;
[lengths,cfparam,configparam,pivotparam,geoparam,deltax,force,di,d,SF,pc,alpha,Beta,fp,phi,ka,C,DesignPara
m]=cfmmodel(ltot,r4type,r4,di,d,ds,geoparam,pivotparam,cfparam,matprop,fit);
%Plot Force output
figure(1)
plot(deltax,force);
axis([0,max(deltax),0,max(force)*1.1]);
%Plot mechanism in initial and fully deflected position
figure(2)
hold on;
r2=lengths(2);
axis equal;
theta2i=pivotparam(1,5);
theta3i=pivotparam(2,5);
r2ix=cos(theta2i)*r2;
r2iy=sin(theta2i)*r2;
x=[0,r2ix];
y=[0,r2iy];
r3=lengths(3);
r3ix=r2ix+cos(pivotparam(2,5))*r3;
r3iy=r2iy+sin(pivotparam(2,5))*r3;
plot(x,y,'g');
x=[r2ix,r3ix];
y=[r2iy,r3iy];
plot(x,y,'b');
x=[r3ix,r3ix];
y=[r3iy,0];
plot(x,y,'r');
if r2iy > r3ix
range = r2iy+1;
else
range = r3ix+1;
end
theta2final=pivotparam(1,6);
theta3final=pivotparam(1,6);

207
 r2ix=cos(theta2final)*r2;
r2iy=sin(theta2final)*r2;
x=[0,r2ix];
y=[0,r2iy];
r3ix=r2ix+cos(pivotparam(2,6))*r3;
r3iy=r2iy+sin(pivotparam(2,6))*r3;
plot(x,y,'g-.');
x=[r2ix,r3ix];
y=[r2iy,r3iy];
plot(x,y,'b-.');
x=[r3ix,r3ix];
y=[r3iy,0];
plot(x,y,'r-.');
hold off;
%if r2iy > r3ix & r2iy>range
% range = r2iy+1;
%elseif r3ix>range
% range = r3ix+1;
%end
%axis([0 range 0 range]);%
%plotmech(2,r2,r3,theta2i,theta3i,theta2final,theta3final);
%plot(deltax,cfparam(5))
%postprocess2(r2,r3,percentage,pivotparam,matprop,cfparam,deltax,phi,force)

B.1.5 OptdesModel Code

function optdesmodel(x)

%Preps model to be used with OptdesX

clear all;
close all;
format long;

% Data file order

% E Sy ltot k1 b
% R K1 K2 K3 %deflectioninitial %deflection of total %deflec of spring
% pintype1 pintype2 pintype3 r4type r4
%0 Reference for caculating pivot 2 flexible member length 0
%theta2prewind theta3prewind theta4prewind

load cfc_Data1.txt;
matprop(1)=cfc_Data1(1,1);
matprop(2)=cfc_Data1(1,2);
matprop(3)=matprop(2)/matprop(1);

ltot=cfc_Data1(1,3);
pivotparam(1,4)=cfc_Data1(1,4);
geoparam(1,1)=cfc_Data1(1,5);

cfparam(1)=cfc_Data1(2,1);
cfparam(2)=cfc_Data1(2,2);
cfparam(3)=cfc_Data1(2,3);
cfparam(4)=cfc_Data1(2,4);

di=cfc_Data1(2,5);
d=cfc_Data1(2,6);
ds=cfc_Data1(2,7); %Percent of rest length to preload spring

%Pin joint types 1=pin 2=small 3=long

208
pivotparam(1,1)=cfc_Data1(3,1);
pivotparam(2,1)=cfc_Data1(3,2);
pivotparam(3,1)=cfc_Data1(3,3);
r4type=cfc_Data1(3,4);
r4=cfc_Data1(3,5);

%Pin Joint reference links for long length segments

%Should only matter for pivot 2 Can be either link 2 or link 3
pivotparam(2,2)=cfc_Data1(4,2);

%Initial angles can be inputed through the pivot parameters. The defaults for
%the normal slider crank are as follows:
%Initial wind up on springs --> pos. # is a counter clockwise rotation results in negative torque
%With no pre-load, the springs will be at rest in rest posistion (theta#i)

pivotparam(1,3)=cfc_Data1(5,1);
pivotparam(2,3)=cfc_Data1(5,2);
pivotparam(3,3)=cfc_Data1(5,3);
fit=cfc_Data1(6,1);

[lengths,cfparam,configparam,pivotparam,geoparam,deltax,force,di,d,SF,pc,alpha,Beta,fp,phi,ka,C,DesignPara
m]=cfmmodel(ltot,r4type,r4,di,d,ds,geoparam,pivotparam,cfparam,matprop,fit);

averageforce=average(force)

save cfc_Results.txt lengths geoparam pivotparam cfparam configparam averageforce di d SF pc ka C Design-

Param -ASCII

%Result File Setup

%ri r2 r3 r4
%b1 h1 l1
%b2 h2 l2
%b3 h3 l3
%pinjoint1 0 theta2pre k1 theta2i theta2final
%pinjoint2 Reference theta3pre k2 theta3i theta3final
%pinjoint3 0 theta4pre k3 0 0
%0 0 0 ks 0 0
%R K1 K2 K3 phi phis xi
%alphamax pivot changepivot average_Beta fp dN
%averageforce
%di
%d
%SF
%m,n
%ka1 ka2 ka3
%C1 C2 C3
%hparam1 bparam1 D1 Area1
%hparam2 bparam2 D2 Area2
%hparam3 bparam3 D3 Area3

209
B.2 Optimization Code

The optimization is performed by OptdesX. This software contains built in optimi-

zation routines. It is necessary to construct a C file called anasubC. This file establishes

the analysis variables, analysis functions, and the model or links to the model. The vari-

able names in the anasubC code are mapped to the given parameter names in Table B.1

B.2.1 anasubC Code

#include "supportC.h"
#include "math.h"
#include "stdlib.h"
#include "string.h"
#include <stdio.h>

double ri,r2,r3,r4,r4type,d,L,di,ds,E,Sy,SF,rtot;
double pivotparam[6][6];
double hp1,bp1,D1,Area1,hp2,bp2,D2,Area2,hp3,bp3,D3,Area3;
double AA1,BB1,CC1,DD1,AA2,BB2,CC2,DD2,AA3,BB3,CC3,DD3;
double geoparam[3][3];
double cfparam[7];
double lengths[4];
double configparam[5];
double C1,C2,C3;
double R,K1,K2,xi,averageforce,m,n,ka1,ka2,ka3,dN;
double k1,k2,k3,ks,averagephi,averagephis;
double alphamax, pivot, changepivot,averagebeta,fp,ltot;
double fit,b1,h1,b2,h2,b3,h3,l1,l2,l3;
int hold;

/*=============================================================================
Function anapreC
Preprocessing Function
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------*/
#ifdef __STDC__
void anapreC( char *modelName )
#else
void anapreC( modelName )
char *modelName;
#endif
{
/* set model name (16 chars max) */
strcpy( modelName, "Original CF" );
}

/*=============================================================================
Function anafunC
Analysis Function
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------*/
#ifdef __STDC__
void anafunC( void )

210
#else
void anafunC( )
#endif
{

/* don't forget to declare your variables and functions to be

double precision */

/*File declarations for linking to other models */

FILE *out, * in, *flag;
/* char str[80];*/

/* get AV values from OptdesX (Variable names 16 chars max) */

/* be sure to use the ADDRESS of the variables in the function calls */

/*Checks to see if Hold existes */

flag=fopen("Hold.txt","r");
if(flag!=NULL)
{fclose(flag);
system("rm Hold.txt");
}
fclose(flag);

avdscaC(&E,"E");
avdscaC(&Sy,"Sy");

avdscaC(&ltot,"ltot");
avdscaC(&pivotparam[0][3],"k1");
avdscaC(&geoparam[0][0],"b");
avdscaC(&cfparam[0],"R");
avdscaC(&cfparam[1],"K1");
avdscaC(&cfparam[2],"K2");
avdscaC(&cfparam[3],"K3");
avdscaC(&di,"% Defl. Intial");
avdscaC(&d,"d");
avdscaC(&ds,"% Spring Pre-load");

avdscaC(&r4,"r4");
avdscaC(&r4type,"r4 type");

avdscaC(&pivotparam[0][0],"Pin 1 Type");
avdscaC(&pivotparam[1][0],"Pin 2 Type");
avdscaC(&pivotparam[2][0],"Pin 3 Type");

avdscaC(&pivotparam[1][1],"Pin 2 Reference");

avdscaC(&pivotparam[0][2],"Theta2 Preload");
avdscaC(&pivotparam[1][2],"Theta3 Preload");
avdscaC(&pivotparam[2][2],"Theta4 Preload");
avdscaC(&fit,"Fit 1Yes 0No");

/*Hold portion of program for linking to Matlab*/

211
/*Checks to see if Hold existes */
flag=fopen("Hold.txt","r");
if(flag!=NULL)
{fclose(flag);
system("rm Hold.txt");
}
fclose(flag);

out = fopen("cfc_Data1.txt","w");

/*Create Data file for input into Matlab */

fprintf(out,"%g %g %g %g %g -1 -1\n",E,Sy,ltot,pivotparam[0][3],geoparam[0][0]);
fprintf(out,"%g %g %g %g %g %g %g\n",cfparam[0],cfparam[1],cfparam[2],cfparam[3],di,d,ds);
fprintf(out,"%g %g %g %g %g -1 -1\n",pivotparam[0][0],pivotparam[1][0],pivotparam[2][0],r4type,r4);
fprintf(out,"-1 %g -1 -1 -1 -1 -1\n",pivotparam[1][1]);
fprintf(out,"%g %g %g -1 -1 -1 -1\n",pivotparam[0][2],pivotparam[1][2],pivotparam[2][2]);
fprintf(out,"%g -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1\n",fit);

fclose(out); /*Close matlab data file */

hold=1;

/*system("matlab ,main.m &"); */

/*Force anasubC to hold till Matlab is finished*/

flag=fopen("Stop.txt","w");
fprintf(flag,"%g \n",1.00);
fclose(flag);

flag=NULL;

while (flag==NULL)
{
flag= fopen("Hold.txt","r");
}
fclose(flag);
system("rm Hold.txt");

/*Read in data from Result file*/

in = fopen("cfc_Results.txt","r");
/*variable=getValue(in,#));*/

fscanf(in,"%lf%lf%lf%lf%lf",&ri,&r2,&r3,&r4,&L);

fscanf(in,"%lf%lf%lf",&b1,&h1,&l1);
fscanf(in,"%lf%lf%lf",&b2,&h2,&l2);
fscanf(in,"%lf%lf%lf",&b3,&h3,&l3);

fscanf(in,"%lf%lf%lf%lf%lf%lf",&pivotparam[0][0],&pivotparam[0][1],&pivotparam[0][2],&pivotparam[0][3],&p
ivotparam[0][4],&pivotparam[0][5]);

fscanf(in,"%lf%lf%lf%lf%lf%lf",&pivotparam[1][0],&pivotparam[1][1],&pivotparam[1][2],&pivotparam[1][3],&p
ivotparam[1][4],&pivotparam[1][5]);

fscanf(in,"%lf%lf%lf%lf%lf%lf",&pivotparam[2][0],&pivotparam[2][1],&pivotparam[2][2],&pivotparam[2][3],&p
ivotparam[2][4],&pivotparam[2][5]);

fscanf(in,"%lf%lf%lf%lf%lf%lf",&pivotparam[3][0],&pivotparam[3][1],&pivotparam[3][2],&pivotparam[3][3],&p
ivotparam[3][4],&pivotparam[3][5]);

fscanf(in,"%lf%lf%lf%lf%lf%lf%lf",&cfparam[0],&cfparam[1],&cfparam[2],&cfparam[3],&cfparam[4],&cfpara
m[5],&cfparam[6]);

212
fscanf(in,"%lf%lf%lf%lf%lf%lf",&alphamax,&pivot,&changepivot,&averagebeta,&fp,&dN);
fscanf(in,"%lf",&averageforce);
fscanf(in,"%lf",&di);
fscanf(in,"%lf",&d);
fscanf(in,"%lf",&SF);
fscanf(in,"%lf%lf",&m,&n);
fscanf(in,"%lf%lf%lf",&ka1,&ka2,&ka3);
fscanf(in,"%lf%lf%lf",&C1,&C2,&C3);
fscanf(in,"%lf%lf%lf%lf",&hp1,&bp1,&D1,&Area1);
fscanf(in,"%lf%lf%lf%lf",&hp2,&bp2,&D2,&Area2);
fscanf(in,"%lf%lf%lf%lf",&hp3,&bp3,&D3,&Area3);

fclose(in);

k1=pivotparam[0][3];
k2=pivotparam[1][3];
k3=pivotparam[2][3];
ks=pivotparam[3][3];

/* send functions to OptdesX (Function names 16 chars max) */

afdscaC(averageforce, "Average Force" );
afdscaC(cfparam[0], "R" );
afdscaC(cfparam[1], "K1" );
afdscaC(cfparam[2], "K2" );
afdscaC(cfparam[3], "K3");
afdscaC(cfparam[4], "Phi");
afdscaC(cfparam[5], "Phi S");
afdscaC(cfparam[6], "Xi" );
afdscaC(dN,"dN");
afdscaC(alphamax,"Max. Alpha");
afdscaC(pivot,"max S P");
afdscaC(changepivot,"pivot changes");
afdscaC(averagebeta,"average Beta");
afdscaC(fp,"f");
afdscaC(k1,"k1");
afdscaC(k2,"k2");
afdscaC(k3,"k3");
afdscaC(ks,"ks");

afdscaC(pivotparam[0][4],"Theta2 initial");
afdscaC(pivotparam[1][4],"Theta3 initial");

afdscaC(pivotparam[0][5],"Theta2 final");
afdscaC(pivotparam[1][5],"Theta3 final");

afdscaC(ri,"r initial");
afdscaC(r2,"r2");
afdscaC(r3,"r3");
afdscaC(r4,"r4");

afdscaC(di,"% Defl. Initial");

afdscaC(d,"d");
afdscaC(ds,"% Spring Pre-Load");
afdscaC(SF,"Safety Factor");
afdscaC(m,"Power m");
afdscaC(n,"Power n");
afdscaC(L,"L");
afdscaC(b1,"b1");
afdscaC(h1,"h1");
afdscaC(l1,"l1");
afdscaC(b2,"b2");
afdscaC(h2,"h2");

213
 afdscaC(l2,"l2");
afdscaC(b3,"b3");
afdscaC(h3,"h3");
afdscaC(l3,"l3");
afdscaC(ka1,"ka1");
afdscaC(ka2,"ka2");
afdscaC(ka3,"ka3");
afdscaC(C1,"C1");
afdscaC(C2,"C2");
afdscaC(C3,"C3");

afdscaC(hp1,"h param 1");

afdscaC(bp1,"b param 1");
afdscaC(D1,"D1");
afdscaC(Area1,"Design Area 1");

afdscaC(hp2,"h param 2");

afdscaC(bp2,"b param 2");
afdscaC(D2,"D2");
afdscaC(Area2,"Design Area 2");

afdscaC(hp3,"h param 3");

afdscaC(bp3,"b param 3");
afdscaC(D3,"D3");
afdscaC(Area3,"Design Area 3");

afdscaC(AA1,"AA 1");
afdscaC(AA2,"AA 2");
afdscaC(AA3,"AA 3");

afdscaC(BB1,"BB 1");
afdscaC(BB2,"BB 2");
afdscaC(BB3,"BB 3");

afdscaC(CC1,"CC 1");
afdscaC(CC2,"CC 2");
afdscaC(CC3,"CC 3");

afdscaC(DD1,"DD 1");
afdscaC(DD2,"DD 2");
afdscaC(DD3,"DD 3");

/*=============================================================================
Function anaposC
Postprocessing Function
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------*/
#ifdef __STDC__
void anaposC( void )
#else
void anaposC( )
#endif
{

FILE *out, * in, *flag;

out = fopen("cfc_postdata1.txt","w");
/*variable=getValue(in,#));*/

fprintf(out,"%lf %lf %lf %lf 0 0 0\n",geoparam[0][0],geoparam[0][1],geoparam[0][2],geoparam[0][3]);

214
 fprintf(out,"%lf %lf %lf %lf 0 0 0\n",geoparam[1][0],geoparam[1][1],geoparam[1][2],geoparam[1][3]);

fprintf(out,"%lf %lf %lf %lf %lf %lf

%lf\n",cfparam[0],cfparam[1],cfparam[2],cfparam[3],cfparam[4],cfparam[5],cfparam[6]);

fprintf(out,"%lf %lf %lf 0 0 0 0\n",pivotparam[0][0],pivotparam[0][1],pivotparam[0][2]);

fprintf(out,"%lf %lf %lf 0 0 0 0\n",pivotparam[1][0],pivotparam[1][1],pivotparam[1][2]);
fprintf(out,"%lf %lf %lf 0 0 0 0\n",pivotparam[2][0],pivotparam[2][1],pivotparam[2][2]);
fprintf(out,"%lf %lf %lf 0 0 0 0\n",pivotparam[3][0],pivotparam[3][1],pivotparam[3][2]);
fprintf(out,"%lf %lf %lf 0 0 0 0\n",pivotparam[4][0],pivotparam[4][1],pivotparam[4][2]);

fprintf(out,"%lf 0 0 0 0 0 0\n",averageforce);
fprintf(out,"%lf 0 0 0 0 0 0\n",di);
fprintf(out,"%lf 0 0 0 0 0 0\n",d);

fclose(out);

system("matlab <postprocess.m");
}

B.3 Optdes/Matlab Link

The Matlab model code and the OptdesX optimization package are linked together

through "hand shaking" that occurs through data files. One piece of software signals the

other piece of software that it is finished with its part of the problem by creating or editing

a data file. Meanwhile, the software that is not currently doing anything in the problem

waits for the other software to signal that it is finished. Ideally, the two programs would

share a common database and have internal triggers. However, with the software being

used, this is impossible.

The MatLab file that controls the hand shakes is as follows:

while 1

stop=0;
load Stop.txt
while Stop == 0.0
load Stop.txt
end

temp=1.0;

215
 temp2=0.000;
save Stop.txt temp2 -ASCII;

% Insert first function here

x=1;
optdesmodel(x);

save Hold.txt temp -ASCII

end

Stop is a file that tells MatLab to wait. MatLab continues to read the file until the

value in the file is no longer zero. This value is changed by anasubC upon once all data has

been written to the data file.

The MatLab function OptdesModel is then called. Once all the data has been saved

from MatLab to a data file, MatLab creates the file Hold. Meanwhile, anasubC is waiting

for the file Hold to be created.

To run the linked models, it is necessary to start Matlab and run the OptdesLink

function, as well as start OptdesX. The model runs fairly quickly. It is much faster than

launching the MatLab application each time through a system command. Additionally,

this set up allows for easy debugging and model changes. It is not necessary to terminate

the optimization code. The matlab code can be stopped, the model altered, and OptdesLink

restarted.

216
APPENDIX C OPTIMIZATION PLOTS
69.8
75.6
85.4
85.4

80.2
75.6

69.8

68.5

67.7

67.2

.155
.205
.336

.336
.205

.155

.126

.096
.079
12.0

12.0

.065
66.7

.049
8.00

8.00
K1

K1

65.8 .034
4.00

4.00

.018
62.7

1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00
R R

(a) (b)

Figure C.1 2-D Explore plots for slp-b with R vs. K1 and contours of (a) Ξ'ex and (b) Ψ

217
 69.7
75.4
85.4
85.4

80.1
75.4

69.7

68.4

67.6

67.1

.022
.015
.016

.016

.016
.017
.019

.022
.024

.027

.031

.036
12.0

12.0
66.6
8.00

8.00
K1

K1
65.6 .036
4.00

4.00
.031
.027
.022
.019
62.4 .015

1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00
R R

(a) (b)

Figure C.2 2-D Explore plots for ssp-b with R vs. K1 and contours of (a) Ξ'ex and (b) Ψ
20.0

.987

97.4
16.0

.792

95.7

1 1
12.0

.597

93.9
2-Psi

1
3-K2

1-Xi
8.01

.403

92.1

2
4.01

.208

90.4

3 3
2
.0172

.0133

2
88.6

.500 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00

R

Figure C.3 Optimum plot for lps-b which shows Ξ'ex, Ψ and optimal K2 for given R value

218
 54.0
67.7
79.3
93.6
84.2
75.4
71.3
71.3
79.3
84.2

93.6

93.6

88.5
84.2

79.3

75.4

.00876

.00876

.00770

.00682

.00612

.00557
.0149
.0249
.0406

.0406
.0249
.0149

.0107
10.0

10.0
.00512
71.3
8.00

8.00
67.7
6.00

6.00
K2

K2
62.8
4.00

4.00
58.6
2.00

2.00
54.0
.500 1.50 2.50 3.50 4.50 .500 1.50 2.50 3.50 4.50
R R

(a) (b)

Figure C.4 2-D explore plots for sps-b with R vs. K2 and contours of (a) Ξ'ex and (b) Ψ
.0808

99.2
.0660

96.9

1
.0513

94.7

2
2-Psi

1-Xi
.0365

92.4

2
.0218

90.1

1 1
2
.00708

87.8

.500 1.50 2.50 3.50 4.50

R

Figure C.5 Optimum plot of design variables K1 and K2 versus R for sss-b with curves of Ξ'ex and Ψ

219
220
APPENDIX D MECHANISM TABLES

The tables on the following pages summarize all of the new mechanisms along

with their parameters. The lpp-a and lpp-b mechanisms are bolded in each graph so that

they can be quickly found during design. Tables D.1 and D.2 list the mechanisms in the

order in which they were presented. Tables D.3 and D.4 list all of the mechanisms sorted

by M while Tables D.5 and D.6 tabulate all of the mechanisms sorted by Ψ. In the sorted

tables, the mechanisms are separated into 16% (sub-class a) and 40% (sub-class b) deflec-

tion mechanisms.

221
 Table D.1 Combined mechanism table

Configuration Sub-Class Primary Pivot Ξ' ex R K1 K2 κ1 κ2 κ3 Φ β Ψ λ M n

lpp a 1 99.7 0.8274 0 0 3.50 - - 0.4537 2.901 1.000 1.097 0.4501 0.5004
a99 1 99.0 0.8018 0 0 3.45 - - 0.4439 2.759 1.046 1.098 0.4373 0.4994
a95 1 95.0 0.7106 0 0 3.28 - - 0.4067 2.279 1.239 1.103 0.3923 0.4952
a90 1 90.0 0.6185 0 0 3.10 - - 0.3653 1.832 1.492 1.109 0.3479 0.4898
lpp b 1 97.6 0.8853 0 0 3.61 - - 0.4773 3.248 1.002 1.094 0.4788 0.5033
b95 1 95.0 0.8595 0 0 3.56 - - 0.4630 3.065 1.052 1.095 0.4683 0.5000
b90 1 90.0 0.8226 0 0 3.49 - - 0.4421 2.812 1.129 1.097 0.4535 0.4949
spp a 1 99.7 0.8274 0 0 18.27 - - 0.4537 15.152 0.039 1.027 2.3511 0.5004
a99 1 99.0 0.8018 0 0 18.02 - - 0.4439 14.412 0.041 1.028 2.2841 0.4994
a95 1 95.0 0.7104 0 0 17.10 - - 0.4066 11.895 0.049 1.029 2.0482 0.4951
a90 1 90.0 0.6187 0 0 16.19 - - 0.3654 9.576 0.059 1.031 1.8177 0.4898
spp b 1 97.6 0.8853 0 0 18.85 - - 0.4773 16.964 0.039 1.027 2.5006 0.5033
b95 1 95.0 0.8595 0 0 18.60 - - 0.4630 16.010 0.041 1.027 2.4460 0.5000
b90 1 90.0 0.8226 0 0 18.23 - - 0.4421 14.686 0.044 1.027 2.3687 0.4949
psp a 2 94.6 1 1 0 - 20.00 - 2.0560 82.242 0.015 1.000 5.6291 0.5062
psp b 2 86.3 1 1 0 - 20.00 - 2.1500 86.000 0.016 1.000 5.4974 0.5164
pl p a 2 94.6 1 1 0 - 3.83 - 2.0561 15.747 0.378 1.088 1.0777 0.5062
a90 2 90.0 0.4387 1 0 - 2.75 - 3.4511 13.677 0.644 1.123 0.8380 0.5115
a85 2 85.0 0.3170 1 0 - 2.52 - 4.4878 14.904 0.698 1.134 0.8214 0.5176
a80 2 80.0 0.2529 1 0 - 2.40 - 5.4987 16.527 0.710 1.141 0.8272 0.5239
pl p b 2 86.3 1 1 0 - 3.83 - 2.1501 16.466 0.409 1.088 1.0525 0.5164
b85 2 85.0 0.7919 1 0 - 3.43 - 2.4473 15.046 0.500 1.098 0.9468 0.5178
b80 2 80.0 0.6043 1 0 - 3.07 - 2.9399 14.487 0.596 1.110 0.8593 0.5233
slp aIo 2 99.8 0.3950 0.1906 0 13.95 6.76 - 0.9573 18.628 0.145 1.086 2.0988 0.5132
a99IO 2 99.0 0.5057 0.2640 0 15.06 5.70 - 1.1290 25.595 0.219 1.092 1.6933 0.5097
a95Io 1 95.0 0.8237 1.6370 0 18.24 4.24 - 4.1829 139.117 0.338 1.107 2.3414 0.5002
a90I 1 93.3 1.5278 15.0000 0 25.28 3.17 - 26.3159 1681.489 0.534 1.126 4.3532 0.5175
a90IO 2 97.7 0.5437 0.3521 0 15.44 5.44 - 1.3688 32.622 0.233 1.095 1.5975 0.5090
slp bIO 2 99.4 0.4323 0.2237 0 14.32 6.34 - 1.0467 21.473 0.181 1.088 1.8373 0.5341
b95IO 1 96.2 0.6248 0.3924 0 16.25 4.98 - 1.4438 38.116 0.294 1.099 1.9768 0.4578
b90Io 1 90.0 0.7267 0.8283 0 17.27 4.55 - 2.5248 75.281 0.331 1.103 2.1734 0.4794
ssp aIo 2 99.8 0.3950 0.1906 0 13.95 20.00 - 0.9573 18.628 0.017 1.036 6.2080 0.5132
a99I 2 99.0 0.7864 0.1000 0 17.86 20.00 - 0.6718 21.440 0.042 1.028 5.6676 0.5066
a95I 2 96.2 0.9182 0.1000 0 19.18 20.00 - 0.7015 25.810 0.048 1.026 5.6339 0.5062
a95IO 2 95.0 0.9563 0.5113 0 19.56 20.00 - 1.5750 60.277 0.022 1.026 5.6304 0.5062
a90IO 2 90.0 1.4688 0.4050 0 24.69 20.00 - 1.3429 81.851 0.028 1.020 5.7279 0.5073
ssp bIo 2 99.4 0.4323 0.2237 0 14.32 20.00 - 1.0467 21.473 0.019 1.035 5.7929 0.5341
b94I 2 94.1 0.3000 0.1000 0 13.00 20.00 - 0.6423 10.854 0.030 1.038 6.3534 0.5372
b90IO 2 90.0 0.8714 0.5343 0 18.71 20.00 - 1.7057 59.736 0.022 1.027 5.5051 0.5168
b90o 2 91.2 0.9323 0.1000 0 19.32 20.00 - 0.7255 27.087 0.052 1.026 5.4994 0.5165
lps aIo 3 93.1 0.7591 0 1.0029 3.37 - 23.17 1.2248 7.257 0.026 1.122 3.7184 0.5137
a99I 3 99.0 2.5750 0 6.4256 6.84 - 13.88 1.4238 34.840 0.241 1.085 1.2616 0.4656
a95I 3 95.0 2.4052 0 4.3688 6.52 - 14.16 1.2692 28.177 0.253 1.087 1.3261 0.4699
a90 1 90.0 2.0960 0 2.0313 5.93 - 14.77 1.0408 19.101 0.287 1.091 1.1869 0.5256
a99IO 3 99.0 2.1623 0 5.1740 6.05 - 14.62 1.4476 27.717 0.173 1.090 1.4370 0.4761
a95IO 3 95.0 2.1623 0 3.6510 6.05 - 14.62 1.2475 23.885 0.211 1.090 1.4370 0.4761
a90IO 3 90.8 2.1623 0 2.4156 6.05 - 14.62 1.0851 20.776 0.278 1.090 1.4370 0.4761
lps bIo 3 83.7 0.8441 0 1.0230 3.53 - 21.85 1.2126 7.895 0.035 1.119 3.1623 0.5331
b99IO 3 99.0 1.9336 0 4.9463 5.62 - 15.17 1.5344 25.282 0.222 1.093 1.7882 0.4250
b95IO 3 95.0 1.9339 0 4.5230 5.62 - 15.17 1.4816 24.419 0.235 1.093 1.7881 0.4249
b90IO 3 90.0 1.9292 0 3.9830 5.61 - 15.18 1.4161 23.263 0.252 1.093 1.7902 0.4254
b95I 1 95.0 0.8561 0 0.0100 3.55 - 21.68 0.4683 3.089 1.053 1.118 0.4670 0.4995
b90I 1 90.0 0.8178 0 0.0100 3.48 - 22.23 0.4472 2.829 1.137 1.120 0.4516 0.4942
sps aIO 3 93.1 0.7591 0 1.0029 17.59 - 23.17 1.2248 37.901 0.028 1.050 3.7183 0.5137
a99I 1 99.3 0.7328 0 0.1845 17.33 - 23.65 0.5711 17.147 0.063 1.050 2.1056 0.4963
a90IO 3 94.6 1.0000 0 1.0022 20.00 - 20.00 1.0292 41.166 0.057 1.050 2.8145 0.5062
sps bIo 3 83.7 0.8441 0 1.0235 18.44 - 21.85 1.2129 41.247 0.037 1.050 3.1623 0.5331
b98Io 3 98.4 0.6528 0 0.2549 16.53 - 25.32 0.6380 17.429 0.031 1.050 3.9715 0.5572
b86IO 3 86.3 1.0000 0 1.0000 20.00 - 20.00 1.0750 43.001 0.062 1.050 2.7487 0.5164
sss a 1 100.0 2.6633 1.0000 12.6700 36.63 20.00 13.75 3.4016 456.482 0.020 1.050 8.2162 0.5324
a99 1 99.4 1.4903 0.3497 8.3820 24.90 20.00 16.71 3.4388 213.264 0.079 1.050 4.2382 0.5168
a95IO 2 95.0 1.3464 1.7047 2.9708 23.46 20.00 17.43 4.6011 253.313 0.021 1.050 5.6882 0.5068
a95I 3 95.6 1.6573 0.4140 15.3423 26.57 20.00 16.03 4.6831 330.679 0.084 1.050 1.7796 0.4888
a90IO 2 91.1 1.5518 0.3970 0.6459 25.52 20.00 16.44 1.4903 97.043 0.031 1.050 5.7582 0.5076
sss b 1 99.5 2.0821 1.0000 9.3816 30.82 20.00 14.80 3.6285 344.684 0.029 1.050 5.2859 0.5883
b99 1 99.0 1.8709 0.6930 7.1497 28.71 20.00 15.34 3.0645 252.583 0.033 1.050 4.7814 0.5768
b90I 3 96.3 1.2420 0.3330 5.4510 22.42 20.00 18.05 3.1967 160.686 0.076 1.050 2.3326 0.4923
b88IO 2 88.4 1.1990 1.8187 3.3349 21.99 20.00 18.34 5.4789 264.926 0.024 1.050 5.5108 0.5172
Configuration Sub-Class Primary Pivot Ξ' ex R K1 K2 κ1 κ2 κ3 Φ β Ψ λ M n

222
 Table D.2 Combined mechanism table

Configuration Sub-Class d Nmax C1 C2 C3 D 1equal D 2equal D 3equal D 1min D 2min D 3min Sub-Class Configuration
lpp a 26.96 a lpp
a99 26.90 a99
a95 26.57 a95
a90 26.04 a90
lpp b 39.79 b lpp
b95 39.68 b95
b90 39.47 b90
spp a 26.96 a spp
a99 26.90 a99
a95 26.57 a95
a90 26.04 a90
spp b 39.79 b spp
b95 39.68 b95
b90 39.47 b90
psp a 27.13 a psp
psp b 40.00 b psp
pl p a 27.13 a pl p
a90 24.03 a90
a85 21.34 a85
a80 19.11 a80
pl p b 40.00 b pl p
b85 39.24 b85
b80 36.46 b80
slp aIo 23.23 1.71 1.00 - 2.54 1.00 - 0.51 1.00 - aIo slp
a99IO 24.97 1.13 1.00 - 1.43 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 - a99IO
a95Io 26.95 1.00 1.92 - 1.00 7.04 - 1.00 1.00 - a95Io
a90I 26.28 1.00 4.82 - 1.00 119.69 - 1.00 1.07 - a90I
a90IO 25.39 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 - a90IO
slp bIO 30.18 1.47 1.00 - 1.98 1.00 - 0.63 1.00 - bIO slp
b95IO 36.92 1.00 1.09 - 1.00 1.28 - 1.00 1.00 - b95IO
b90Io 38.58 1.00 1.47 - 1.00 3.14 - 1.00 1.00 - b90Io
ssp aIo 23.23 5.07 1.00 - 7.52 1.00 - 0.06 1.00 - aIo ssp
a99I 26.85 2.54 1.00 - 11.20 1.00 - 0.68 1.00 - a99I
a95I 27.09 2.18 1.00 - 10.43 1.00 - 1.01 1.00 - a95I
a95IO 27.12 2.09 1.00 - 2.00 1.00 - 0.22 1.00 - a95IO
a90IO 26.43 1.33 1.00 - 2.00 1.00 - 0.84 1.00 - a90IO
ssp bIo 30.18 4.63 1.00 - 6.24 1.00 - 0.06 1.00 - bIo ssp
b94I 23.08 6.67 1.00 - 15.38 1.00 - 0.05 1.00 - b94I
b90IO 39.74 2.30 1.00 - 2.00 1.00 - 0.17 1.00 - b90IO
b90o 39.93 2.15 1.00 - 10.35 1.00 - 1.05 1.00 - b90o
lps aIo 26.77 9.07 - 1.00 6.86 - 1.00 0.01 - 1.00 aIo lps
a99I 23.10 0.68 - 1.00 0.32 - 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 a99I
a95I 23.63 0.79 - 1.00 0.50 - 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 a95I
a90 24.60 1.00 - 0.84 1.00 - 0.82 1.00 - 1.37 a90
a99IO 24.39 1.00 - 1.00 0.47 - 1.00 0.47 - 1.00 a99IO
a95IO 24.39 1.00 - 1.00 0.66 - 1.00 0.66 - 1.00 a95IO
a90IO 24.39 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 a90IO
lps bIo 39.60 7.33 - 1.00 6.05 - 1.00 0.02 - 1.00 bIo lps
b99IO 33.91 0.99 - 1.00 0.55 - 1.00 0.56 - 1.00 b99IO
b95IO 33.91 0.99 - 1.00 0.60 - 1.00 0.61 - 1.00 b95IO
b90IO 33.95 1.00 - 1.00 0.68 - 1.00 0.68 - 1.00 b90IO
b95I 39.66 1.00 - 0.13 1.00 - 0.00 1.00 - 0.73 b95I
b90I 39.44 1.00 - 0.12 1.00 - 0.00 1.00 - 0.98 b90I
sps aIO 26.77 1.74 - 1.00 1.31 - 1.00 0.25 - 1.00 aIO sps
a99I 26.67 1.00 - 0.52 1.00 - 0.14 1.00 - 0.98 a99I
a90IO 27.13 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 a90IO
sps bIo 39.60 1.40 - 1.00 1.16 - 1.00 0.42 - 1.00 bIo sps
b98Io 37.47 2.35 - 1.00 6.01 - 1.00 0.46 - 1.00 b98Io
b86IO 40.00 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 b86IO
sss a 22.82 1.000 1.332 7.099 1.000 1.832 33.744 1.000 0.775 0.094 a sss
a99 26.37 1.000 0.745 2.222 1.000 0.435 12.492 1.000 1.052 1.139 a99
a95IO 26.71 1.462 1.000 2.693 0.500 1.000 2.000 0.160 1.000 0.102 a95IO
a95I 25.93 0.340 0.289 1.000 0.039 0.022 1.000 0.997 0.895 1.000 a95I
a90IO 26.21 1.260 1.000 3.104 1.974 1.000 1.979 0.986 1.000 0.066 a90IO
sss b 32.44 1.000 1.041 4.338 1.000 1.541 19.533 1.000 1.365 0.239 b sss
b99 34.51 1.000 0.936 3.502 1.000 0.995 13.377 1.000 1.215 0.311 b99
b90I 39.35 0.589 0.381 1.000 0.148 0.055 1.000 0.724 0.996 1.000 b90I
b88IO 39.54 1.610 1.000 2.398 0.500 1.000 2.000 0.120 1.000 0.145 b88IO
Configuration Sub-Class d Nmax C1 C2 C3 D 1equal D 2equal D 3equal D 1min D 2min D 3min Sub-Class Configuration

223
 Table D.3 Combined mechanism table sorted by M

Configuration Sub-Class Primary Pivot Ξ'ex R K1 K2 κ1 κ2 κ3 Φ β Ψ λ M n

lpp a90 1 90.0 0.6185 0 0 3.10 - - 0.3653 1.832 1.492 1.109 0.3479 0.4898
lpp a95 1 95.0 0.7106 0 0 3.28 - - 0.4067 2.279 1.239 1.103 0.3923 0.4952
lpp a99 1 99.0 0.8018 0 0 3.45 - - 0.4439 2.759 1.046 1.098 0.4373 0.4994
lpp a 1 99.7 0.8274 0 0 3.50 - - 0.4537 2.901 1.000 1.097 0.4501 0.5004
pl p a85 2 85.0 0.3170 1 0 - 2.52 - 4.4878 14.904 0.698 1.134 0.8214 0.5176
pl p a80 2 80.0 0.2529 1 0 - 2.40 - 5.4987 16.527 0.710 1.141 0.8272 0.5239
pl p a90 2 90.0 0.4387 1 0 - 2.75 - 3.4511 13.677 0.644 1.123 0.8380 0.5115
pl p a 2 94.6 1 1 0 - 3.83 - 2.0561 15.747 0.378 1.088 1.0777 0.5062
lps a90 1 90.0 2.0960 0 2.0313 5.93 - 14.77 1.0408 19.101 0.287 1.091 1.1869 0.5256
lps a99I 3 99.0 2.5750 0 6.4256 6.84 - 13.88 1.4238 34.840 0.241 1.085 1.2616 0.4656
lps a95I 3 95.0 2.4052 0 4.3688 6.52 - 14.16 1.2692 28.177 0.253 1.087 1.3261 0.4699
lps a90IO 3 90.8 2.1623 0 2.4156 6.05 - 14.62 1.0851 20.776 0.278 1.090 1.4370 0.4761
lps a95IO 3 95.0 2.1623 0 3.6510 6.05 - 14.62 1.2475 23.885 0.211 1.090 1.4370 0.4761
lps a99IO 3 99.0 2.1623 0 5.1740 6.05 - 14.62 1.4476 27.717 0.173 1.090 1.4370 0.4761
slp a90IO 2 97.7 0.5437 0.3521 0 15.44 5.44 - 1.3688 32.622 0.233 1.095 1.5975 0.5090
slp a99IO 2 99.0 0.5057 0.2640 0 15.06 5.70 - 1.1290 25.595 0.219 1.092 1.6933 0.5097
sss a95I 3 95.6 1.6573 0.4140 15.3423 26.57 20.00 16.03 4.6831 330.679 0.084 1.050 1.7796 0.4888
spp a90 1 90.0 0.6187 0 0 16.19 - - 0.3654 9.576 0.059 1.031 1.8177 0.4898
spp a95 1 95.0 0.7104 0 0 17.10 - - 0.4066 11.895 0.049 1.029 2.0482 0.4951
slp aIo 2 99.8 0.3950 0.1906 0 13.95 6.76 - 0.9573 18.628 0.145 1.086 2.0988 0.5132
sps a99I 1 99.3 0.7328 0 0.1845 17.33 - 23.65 0.5711 17.147 0.063 1.050 2.1056 0.4963
spp a99 1 99.0 0.8018 0 0 18.02 - - 0.4439 14.412 0.041 1.028 2.2841 0.4994
slp a95Io 1 95.0 0.8237 1.6370 0 18.24 4.24 - 4.1829 139.117 0.338 1.107 2.3414 0.5002
spp a 1 99.7 0.8274 0 0 18.27 - - 0.4537 15.152 0.039 1.027 2.3511 0.5004
sps a90IO 3 94.6 1.0000 0 1.0022 20.00 - 20.00 1.0292 41.166 0.057 1.050 2.8145 0.5062
sps aIO 3 93.1 0.7591 0 1.0029 17.59 - 23.17 1.2248 37.901 0.028 1.050 3.7183 0.5137
lps aIo 3 93.1 0.7591 0 1.0029 3.37 - 23.17 1.2248 7.257 0.026 1.122 3.7184 0.5137
sss a99 1 99.4 1.4903 0.3497 8.3820 24.90 20.00 16.71 3.4388 213.264 0.079 1.050 4.2382 0.5168
slp a90I 1 93.3 1.5278 15.0000 0 25.28 3.17 - 26.3159 1681.489 0.534 1.126 4.3532 0.5175
psp a 2 94.6 1 1 0 - 20.00 - 2.0560 82.242 0.015 1.000 5.6291 0.5062
ssp a95IO 2 95.0 0.9563 0.5113 0 19.56 20.00 - 1.5750 60.277 0.022 1.026 5.6304 0.5062
ssp a95I 2 96.2 0.9182 0.1000 0 19.18 20.00 - 0.7015 25.810 0.048 1.026 5.6339 0.5062
ssp a99I 2 99.0 0.7864 0.1000 0 17.86 20.00 - 0.6718 21.440 0.042 1.028 5.6676 0.5066
sss a95IO 2 95.0 1.3464 1.7047 2.9708 23.46 20.00 17.43 4.6011 253.313 0.021 1.050 5.6882 0.5068
ssp a90IO 2 90.0 1.4688 0.4050 0 24.69 20.00 - 1.3429 81.851 0.028 1.020 5.7279 0.5073
sss a90IO 2 91.1 1.5518 0.3970 0.6459 25.52 20.00 16.44 1.4903 97.043 0.031 1.050 5.7582 0.5076
ssp aIo 2 99.8 0.3950 0.1906 0 13.95 20.00 - 0.9573 18.628 0.017 1.036 6.2080 0.5132
sss a 1 100.0 2.6633 1.0000 12.6700 36.63 20.00 13.75 3.4016 456.482 0.020 1.050 8.2162 0.5324
Configuration Sub-Class Primary Pivot Ξ'ex R K1 K2 κ1 κ2 κ3 Φ β Ψ λ M n
lps b90I 1 90.0 0.8178 0 0.0100 3.48 - 22.23 0.4472 2.829 1.137 1.120 0.4516 0.4942
lpp b90 1 90.0 0.8226 0 0 3.49 - - 0.4421 2.812 1.129 1.097 0.4535 0.4949
lps b95I 1 95.0 0.8561 0 0.0100 3.55 - 21.68 0.4683 3.089 1.053 1.118 0.4670 0.4995
lpp b95 1 95.0 0.8595 0 0 3.56 - - 0.4630 3.065 1.052 1.095 0.4683 0.5000
lpp b 1 97.6 0.8853 0 0 3.61 - - 0.4773 3.248 1.002 1.094 0.4788 0.5033
pl p b80 2 80.0 0.6043 1 0 - 3.07 - 2.9399 14.487 0.596 1.110 0.8593 0.5233
pl p b85 2 85.0 0.7919 1 0 - 3.43 - 2.4473 15.046 0.500 1.098 0.9468 0.5178
pl p b 2 86.3 1 1 0 - 3.83 - 2.1501 16.466 0.409 1.088 1.0525 0.5164
lps b95IO 3 95.0 1.9339 0 4.5230 5.62 - 15.17 1.4816 24.419 0.235 1.093 1.7881 0.4249
lps b99IO 3 99.0 1.9336 0 4.9463 5.62 - 15.17 1.5344 25.282 0.222 1.093 1.7882 0.4250
lps b90IO 3 90.0 1.9292 0 3.9830 5.61 - 15.18 1.4161 23.263 0.252 1.093 1.7902 0.4254
slp bIO 2 99.4 0.4323 0.2237 0 14.32 6.34 - 1.0467 21.473 0.181 1.088 1.8373 0.5341
slp b95IO 1 96.2 0.6248 0.3924 0 16.25 4.98 - 1.4438 38.116 0.294 1.099 1.9768 0.4578
slp b90Io 1 90.0 0.7267 0.8283 0 17.27 4.55 - 2.5248 75.281 0.331 1.103 2.1734 0.4794
sss b90I 3 96.3 1.2420 0.3330 5.4510 22.42 20.00 18.05 3.1967 160.686 0.076 1.050 2.3326 0.4923
spp b90 1 90.0 0.8226 0 0 18.23 - - 0.4421 14.686 0.044 1.027 2.3687 0.4949
spp b95 1 95.0 0.8595 0 0 18.60 - - 0.4630 16.010 0.041 1.027 2.4460 0.5000
spp b 1 97.6 0.8853 0 0 18.85 - - 0.4773 16.964 0.039 1.027 2.5006 0.5033
sps b86IO 3 86.3 1.0000 0 1.0000 20.00 - 20.00 1.0750 43.001 0.062 1.050 2.7487 0.5164
lps bIo 3 83.7 0.8441 0 1.0230 3.53 - 21.85 1.2126 7.895 0.035 1.119 3.1623 0.5331
sps bIo 3 83.7 0.8441 0 1.0235 18.44 - 21.85 1.2129 41.247 0.037 1.050 3.1623 0.5331
sps b98Io 3 98.4 0.6528 0 0.2549 16.53 - 25.32 0.6380 17.429 0.031 1.050 3.9715 0.5572
sss b99 1 99.0 1.8709 0.6930 7.1497 28.71 20.00 15.34 3.0645 252.583 0.033 1.050 4.7814 0.5768
sss b 1 99.5 2.0821 1.0000 9.3816 30.82 20.00 14.80 3.6285 344.684 0.029 1.050 5.2859 0.5883
psp b 2 86.3 1 1 0 - 20.00 - 2.1500 86.000 0.016 1.000 5.4974 0.5164
ssp b90o 2 91.2 0.9323 0.1000 0 19.32 20.00 - 0.7255 27.087 0.052 1.026 5.4994 0.5165
ssp b90IO 2 90.0 0.8714 0.5343 0 18.71 20.00 - 1.7057 59.736 0.022 1.027 5.5051 0.5168
sss b88IO 2 88.4 1.1990 1.8187 3.3349 21.99 20.00 18.34 5.4789 264.926 0.024 1.050 5.5108 0.5172
ssp bIo 2 99.4 0.4323 0.2237 0 14.32 20.00 - 1.0467 21.473 0.019 1.035 5.7929 0.5341
ssp b94I 2 94.1 0.3000 0.1000 0 13.00 20.00 - 0.6423 10.854 0.030 1.038 6.3534 0.5372
Configuration Sub-Class Primary Pivot Ξ'ex R K1 K2 κ1 κ2 κ3 Φ β Ψ λ M n

224
 Table D.4 Combined mechanism table sorted by M

Configuration Sub-Class d Nmax C1 C2 C3 D 1equal D 2equal D 3equal D 1min D 2min D 3min Sub-Class Configuration
lpp a90 26.04 a90 lpp
lpp a95 26.57 a95 lpp
lpp a99 26.90 a99 lpp
lpp a 26.96 a lpp
pl p a85 21.34 a85 pl p
pl p a80 19.11 a80 pl p
pl p a90 24.03 a90 pl p
pl p a 27.13 a pl p
lps a90 24.60 1.00 - 0.84 1.00 - 0.82 1.00 - 1.37 a90 lps
lps a99I 23.10 0.68 - 1.00 0.32 - 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 a99I lps
lps a95I 23.63 0.79 - 1.00 0.50 - 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 a95I lps
lps a90IO 24.39 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 a90IO lps
lps a95IO 24.39 1.00 - 1.00 0.66 - 1.00 0.66 - 1.00 a95IO lps
lps a99IO 24.39 1.00 - 1.00 0.47 - 1.00 0.47 - 1.00 a99IO lps
slp a90IO 25.39 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 - a90IO slp
slp a99IO 24.97 1.13 1.00 - 1.43 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 - a99IO slp
sss a95I 25.93 0.340 0.289 1.000 0.039 0.022 1.000 0.997 0.895 1.000 a95I sss
spp a90 26.04 a90 spp
spp a95 26.57 a95 spp
slp aIo 23.23 1.71 1.00 - 2.54 1.00 - 0.51 1.00 - aIo slp
sps a99I 26.67 1.00 - 0.52 1.00 - 0.14 1.00 - 0.98 a99I sps
spp a99 26.90 a99 spp
slp a95Io 26.95 1.00 1.92 - 1.00 7.04 - 1.00 1.00 - a95Io slp
spp a 26.96 a spp
sps a90IO 27.13 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 a90IO sps
sps aIO 26.77 1.74 - 1.00 1.31 - 1.00 0.25 - 1.00 aIO sps
lps aIo 26.77 9.07 - 1.00 6.86 - 1.00 0.01 - 1.00 aIo lps
sss a99 26.37 1.000 0.745 2.222 1.000 0.435 12.492 1.000 1.052 1.139 a99 sss
slp a90I 26.28 1.00 4.82 - 1.00 119.69 - 1.00 1.07 - a90I slp
psp a 27.13 a psp
ssp a95IO 27.12 2.09 1.00 - 2.00 1.00 - 0.22 1.00 - a95IO ssp
ssp a95I 27.09 2.18 1.00 - 10.43 1.00 - 1.01 1.00 - a95I ssp
ssp a99I 26.85 2.54 1.00 - 11.20 1.00 - 0.68 1.00 - a99I ssp
sss a95IO 26.71 1.462 1.000 2.693 0.500 1.000 2.000 0.160 1.000 0.102 a95IO sss
ssp a90IO 26.43 1.33 1.00 - 2.00 1.00 - 0.84 1.00 - a90IO ssp
sss a90IO 26.21 1.260 1.000 3.104 1.974 1.000 1.979 0.986 1.000 0.066 a90IO sss
ssp aIo 23.23 5.07 1.00 - 7.52 1.00 - 0.06 1.00 - aIo ssp
sss a 22.82 1.000 1.332 7.099 1.000 1.832 33.744 1.000 0.775 0.094 a sss
Configuration Sub-Class d Nmax C1 C2 C3 D 1equal D 2equal D 3equal D 1min D 2min D 3min Sub-Class Configuration
lps b90I 39.44 1.00 - 0.12 1.00 - 0.00 1.00 - 0.98 b90I lps
lpp b90 39.47 b90 lpp
lps b95I 39.66 1.00 - 0.13 1.00 - 0.00 1.00 - 0.73 b95I lps
lpp b95 39.68 b95 lpp
lpp b 39.79 b lpp
pl p b80 36.46 b80 pl p
pl p b85 39.24 b85 pl p
pl p b 40.00 b pl p
lps b95IO 33.91 0.99 - 1.00 0.60 - 1.00 0.61 - 1.00 b95IO lps
lps b99IO 33.91 0.99 - 1.00 0.55 - 1.00 0.56 - 1.00 b99IO lps
lps b90IO 33.95 1.00 - 1.00 0.68 - 1.00 0.68 - 1.00 b90IO lps
slp bIO 30.18 1.47 1.00 - 1.98 1.00 - 0.63 1.00 - bIO slp
slp b95IO 36.92 1.00 1.09 - 1.00 1.28 - 1.00 1.00 - b95IO slp
slp b90Io 38.58 1.00 1.47 - 1.00 3.14 - 1.00 1.00 - b90Io slp
sss b90I 39.35 0.589 0.381 1.000 0.148 0.055 1.000 0.724 0.996 1.000 b90I sss
spp b90 39.47 b90 spp
spp b95 39.68 b95 spp
spp b 39.79 b spp
sps b86IO 40.00 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 b86IO sps
lps bIo 39.60 7.33 - 1.00 6.05 - 1.00 0.02 - 1.00 bIo lps
sps bIo 39.60 1.40 - 1.00 1.16 - 1.00 0.42 - 1.00 bIo sps
sps b98Io 37.47 2.35 - 1.00 6.01 - 1.00 0.46 - 1.00 b98Io sps
sss b99 34.51 1.000 0.936 3.502 1.000 0.995 13.377 1.000 1.215 0.311 b99 sss
sss b 32.44 1.000 1.041 4.338 1.000 1.541 19.533 1.000 1.365 0.239 b sss
psp b 40.00 b psp
ssp b90o 39.93 2.15 1.00 - 10.35 1.00 - 1.05 1.00 - b90o ssp
ssp b90IO 39.74 2.30 1.00 - 2.00 1.00 - 0.17 1.00 - b90IO ssp
sss b88IO 39.54 1.610 1.000 2.398 0.500 1.000 2.000 0.120 1.000 0.145 b88IO sss
ssp bIo 30.18 4.63 1.00 - 6.24 1.00 - 0.06 1.00 - bIo ssp
ssp b94I 23.08 6.67 1.00 - 15.38 1.00 - 0.05 1.00 - b94I ssp
Configuration Sub-Class d Nmax C1 C2 C 3 D 1equal D 2equal D 3equal D 1min D 2min D 3min Sub-Class Configuration

225
 Table D.5 Combined mechanism table sorted by Ψ

Configuration Sub-Class Primary Pivot Ξ'ex R K1 K2 κ1 κ2 κ3 Φ β Ψ λ M n

lpp a90 1 90.0 0.6185 0 0 3.10 - - 0.3653 1.832 1.492 1.109 0.3479 0.4898
lpp a95 1 95.0 0.7106 0 0 3.28 - - 0.4067 2.279 1.239 1.103 0.3923 0.4952
lpp a99 1 99.0 0.8018 0 0 3.45 - - 0.4439 2.759 1.046 1.098 0.4373 0.4994
lpp a 1 99.7 0.8274 0 0 3.50 - - 0.4537 2.901 1.000 1.097 0.4501 0.5004
pl p a80 2 80.0 0.2529 1 0 - 2.40 - 5.4987 16.527 0.710 1.141 0.8272 0.5239
pl p a85 2 85.0 0.3170 1 0 - 2.52 - 4.4878 14.904 0.698 1.134 0.8214 0.5176
pl p a90 2 90.0 0.4387 1 0 - 2.75 - 3.4511 13.677 0.644 1.123 0.8380 0.5115
slp a90I 1 93.3 1.5278 15.0000 0 25.28 3.17 - 26.3159 1681.489 0.534 1.126 4.3532 0.5175
pl p a 2 94.6 1 1 0 - 3.83 - 2.0561 15.747 0.378 1.088 1.0777 0.5062
slp a95Io 1 95.0 0.8237 1.6370 0 18.24 4.24 - 4.1829 139.117 0.338 1.107 2.3414 0.5002
lps a90 1 90.0 2.0960 0 2.0313 5.93 - 14.77 1.0408 19.101 0.287 1.091 1.1869 0.5256
lps a90IO 3 90.8 2.1623 0 2.4156 6.05 - 14.62 1.0851 20.776 0.278 1.090 1.4370 0.4761
lps a95I 3 95.0 2.4052 0 4.3688 6.52 - 14.16 1.2692 28.177 0.253 1.087 1.3261 0.4699
lps a99I 3 99.0 2.5750 0 6.4256 6.84 - 13.88 1.4238 34.840 0.241 1.085 1.2616 0.4656
slp a90IO 2 97.7 0.5437 0.3521 0 15.44 5.44 - 1.3688 32.622 0.233 1.095 1.5975 0.5090
slp a99IO 2 99.0 0.5057 0.2640 0 15.06 5.70 - 1.1290 25.595 0.219 1.092 1.6933 0.5097
lps a95IO 3 95.0 2.1623 0 3.6510 6.05 - 14.62 1.2475 23.885 0.211 1.090 1.4370 0.4761
lps a99IO 3 99.0 2.1623 0 5.1740 6.05 - 14.62 1.4476 27.717 0.173 1.090 1.4370 0.4761
slp aIo 2 99.8 0.3950 0.1906 0 13.95 6.76 - 0.9573 18.628 0.145 1.086 2.0988 0.5132
sss a95I 3 95.6 1.6573 0.4140 15.3423 26.57 20.00 16.03 4.6831 330.679 0.084 1.050 1.7796 0.4888
sss a99 1 99.4 1.4903 0.3497 8.3820 24.90 20.00 16.71 3.4388 213.264 0.079 1.050 4.2382 0.5168
sps a99I 1 99.3 0.7328 0 0.1845 17.33 - 23.65 0.5711 17.147 0.063 1.050 2.1056 0.4963
spp a90 1 90.0 0.6187 0 0 16.19 - - 0.3654 9.576 0.059 1.031 1.8177 0.4898
sps a90IO 3 94.6 1.0000 0 1.0022 20.00 - 20.00 1.0292 41.166 0.057 1.050 2.8145 0.5062
spp a95 1 95.0 0.7104 0 0 17.10 - - 0.4066 11.895 0.049 1.029 2.0482 0.4951
ssp a95I 2 96.2 0.9182 0.1000 0 19.18 20.00 - 0.7015 25.810 0.048 1.026 5.6339 0.5062
ssp a99I 2 99.0 0.7864 0.1000 0 17.86 20.00 - 0.6718 21.440 0.042 1.028 5.6676 0.5066
spp a99 1 99.0 0.8018 0 0 18.02 - - 0.4439 14.412 0.041 1.028 2.2841 0.4994
spp a 1 99.7 0.8274 0 0 18.27 - - 0.4537 15.152 0.039 1.027 2.3511 0.5004
sss a90IO 2 91.1 1.5518 0.3970 0.6459 25.52 20.00 16.44 1.4903 97.043 0.031 1.050 5.7582 0.5076
sps aIO 3 93.1 0.7591 0 1.0029 17.59 - 23.17 1.2248 37.901 0.028 1.050 3.7183 0.5137
ssp a90IO 2 90.0 1.4688 0.4050 0 24.69 20.00 - 1.3429 81.851 0.028 1.020 5.7279 0.5073
lps aIo 3 93.1 0.7591 0 1.0029 3.37 - 23.17 1.2248 7.257 0.026 1.122 3.7184 0.5137
ssp a95IO 2 95.0 0.9563 0.5113 0 19.56 20.00 - 1.5750 60.277 0.022 1.026 5.6304 0.5062
sss a95IO 2 95.0 1.3464 1.7047 2.9708 23.46 20.00 17.43 4.6011 253.313 0.021 1.050 5.6882 0.5068
sss a 1 100.0 2.6633 1.0000 12.6700 36.63 20.00 13.75 3.4016 456.482 0.020 1.050 8.2162 0.5324
ssp aIo 2 99.8 0.3950 0.1906 0 13.95 20.00 - 0.9573 18.628 0.017 1.036 6.2080 0.5132
psp a 2 94.6 1 1 0 - 20.00 - 2.0560 82.242 0.015 1.000 5.6291 0.5062
Configuration Sub-Class Primary Pivot Ξ'ex R K1 K2 κ1 κ2 κ3 Φ β Ψ λ M n
lps b90I 1 90.0 0.8178 0 0.0100 3.48 - 22.23 0.4472 2.829 1.137 1.120 0.4516 0.4942
lpp b90 1 90.0 0.8226 0 0 3.49 - - 0.4421 2.812 1.129 1.097 0.4535 0.4949
lps b95I 1 95.0 0.8561 0 0.0100 3.55 - 21.68 0.4683 3.089 1.053 1.118 0.4670 0.4995
lpp b95 1 95.0 0.8595 0 0 3.56 - - 0.4630 3.065 1.052 1.095 0.4683 0.5000
lpp b 1 97.6 0.8853 0 0 3.61 - - 0.4773 3.248 1.002 1.094 0.4788 0.5033
pl p b80 2 80.0 0.6043 1 0 - 3.07 - 2.9399 14.487 0.596 1.110 0.8593 0.5233
pl p b85 2 85.0 0.7919 1 0 - 3.43 - 2.4473 15.046 0.500 1.098 0.9468 0.5178
pl p b 2 86.3 1 1 0 - 3.83 - 2.1501 16.466 0.409 1.088 1.0525 0.5164
slp b90Io 1 90.0 0.7267 0.8283 0 17.27 4.55 - 2.5248 75.281 0.331 1.103 2.1734 0.4794
slp b95IO 1 96.2 0.6248 0.3924 0 16.25 4.98 - 1.4438 38.116 0.294 1.099 1.9768 0.4578
lps b90IO 3 90.0 1.9292 0 3.9830 5.61 - 15.18 1.4161 23.263 0.252 1.093 1.7902 0.4254
lps b95IO 3 95.0 1.9339 0 4.5230 5.62 - 15.17 1.4816 24.419 0.235 1.093 1.7881 0.4249
lps b99IO 3 99.0 1.9336 0 4.9463 5.62 - 15.17 1.5344 25.282 0.222 1.093 1.7882 0.4250
slp bIO 2 99.4 0.4323 0.2237 0 14.32 6.34 - 1.0467 21.473 0.181 1.088 1.8373 0.5341
sss b90I 3 96.3 1.2420 0.3330 5.4510 22.42 20.00 18.05 3.1967 160.686 0.076 1.050 2.3326 0.4923
sps b86IO 3 86.3 1.0000 0 1.0000 20.00 - 20.00 1.0750 43.001 0.062 1.050 2.7487 0.5164
ssp b90o 2 91.2 0.9323 0.1000 0 19.32 20.00 - 0.7255 27.087 0.052 1.026 5.4994 0.5165
spp b90 1 90.0 0.8226 0 0 18.23 - - 0.4421 14.686 0.044 1.027 2.3687 0.4949
spp b95 1 95.0 0.8595 0 0 18.60 - - 0.4630 16.010 0.041 1.027 2.4460 0.5000
spp b 1 97.6 0.8853 0 0 18.85 - - 0.4773 16.964 0.039 1.027 2.5006 0.5033
sps bIo 3 83.7 0.8441 0 1.0235 18.44 - 21.85 1.2129 41.247 0.037 1.050 3.1623 0.5331
lps bIo 3 83.7 0.8441 0 1.0230 3.53 - 21.85 1.2126 7.895 0.035 1.119 3.1623 0.5331
sss b99 1 99.0 1.8709 0.6930 7.1497 28.71 20.00 15.34 3.0645 252.583 0.033 1.050 4.7814 0.5768
sps b98Io 3 98.4 0.6528 0 0.2549 16.53 - 25.32 0.6380 17.429 0.031 1.050 3.9715 0.5572
ssp b94I 2 94.1 0.3000 0.1000 0 13.00 20.00 - 0.6423 10.854 0.030 1.038 6.3534 0.5372
sss b 1 99.5 2.0821 1.0000 9.3816 30.82 20.00 14.80 3.6285 344.684 0.029 1.050 5.2859 0.5883
sss b88IO 2 88.4 1.1990 1.8187 3.3349 21.99 20.00 18.34 5.4789 264.926 0.024 1.050 5.5108 0.5172
ssp b90IO 2 90.0 0.8714 0.5343 0 18.71 20.00 - 1.7057 59.736 0.022 1.027 5.5051 0.5168
ssp bIo 2 99.4 0.4323 0.2237 0 14.32 20.00 - 1.0467 21.473 0.019 1.035 5.7929 0.5341
psp b 2 86.3 1 1 0 - 20.00 - 2.1500 86.000 0.016 1.000 5.4974 0.5164
Configuration Sub-Class Primary Pivot Ξ'ex R K1 K2 κ1 κ2 κ3 Φ β Ψ λ M n

226
 Table D.6 Combined mechanism table sorted by Ψ

Configuration Sub-Class d Nmax C1 C2 C3 D 1equal D 2equal D 3equal D 1min D 2min D 3min Sub-Class Configuration
lpp a90 26.04 a90 lpp
lpp a95 26.57 a95 lpp
lpp a99 26.90 a99 lpp
lpp a 26.96 a lpp
pl p a80 19.11 a80 pl p
pl p a85 21.34 a85 pl p
pl p a90 24.03 a90 pl p
slp a90I 26.28 1.00 4.82 - 1.00 119.69 - 1.00 1.07 - a90I slp
pl p a 27.13 a pl p
slp a95Io 26.95 1.00 1.92 - 1.00 7.04 - 1.00 1.00 - a95Io slp
lps a90 24.60 1.00 - 0.84 1.00 - 0.82 1.00 - 1.37 a90 lps
lps a90IO 24.39 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 a90IO lps
lps a95I 23.63 0.79 - 1.00 0.50 - 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 a95I lps
lps a99I 23.10 0.68 - 1.00 0.32 - 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 a99I lps
slp a90IO 25.39 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 - a90IO slp
slp a99IO 24.97 1.13 1.00 - 1.43 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 - a99IO slp
lps a95IO 24.39 1.00 - 1.00 0.66 - 1.00 0.66 - 1.00 a95IO lps
lps a99IO 24.39 1.00 - 1.00 0.47 - 1.00 0.47 - 1.00 a99IO lps
slp aIo 23.23 1.71 1.00 - 2.54 1.00 - 0.51 1.00 - aIo slp
sss a95I 25.93 0.340 0.289 1.000 0.039 0.022 1.000 0.997 0.895 1.000 a95I sss
sss a99 26.37 1.000 0.745 2.222 1.000 0.435 12.492 1.000 1.052 1.139 a99 sss
sps a99I 26.67 1.00 - 0.52 1.00 - 0.14 1.00 - 0.98 a99I sps
spp a90 26.04 a90 spp
sps a90IO 27.13 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 a90IO sps
spp a95 26.57 a95 spp
ssp a95I 27.09 2.18 1.00 - 10.43 1.00 - 1.01 1.00 - a95I ssp
ssp a99I 26.85 2.54 1.00 - 11.20 1.00 - 0.68 1.00 - a99I ssp
spp a99 26.90 a99 spp
spp a 26.96 a spp
sss a90IO 26.21 1.260 1.000 3.104 1.974 1.000 1.979 0.986 1.000 0.066 a90IO sss
sps aIO 26.77 1.74 - 1.00 1.31 - 1.00 0.25 - 1.00 aIO sps
ssp a90IO 26.43 1.33 1.00 - 2.00 1.00 - 0.84 1.00 - a90IO ssp
lps aIo 26.77 9.07 - 1.00 6.86 - 1.00 0.01 - 1.00 aIo lps
ssp a95IO 27.12 2.09 1.00 - 2.00 1.00 - 0.22 1.00 - a95IO ssp
sss a95IO 26.71 1.462 1.000 2.693 0.500 1.000 2.000 0.160 1.000 0.102 a95IO sss
sss a 22.82 1.000 1.332 7.099 1.000 1.832 33.744 1.000 0.775 0.094 a sss
ssp aIo 23.23 5.07 1.00 - 7.52 1.00 - 0.06 1.00 - aIo ssp
psp a 27.13 a psp
Configuration Sub-Class d Nmax C1 C2 C3 D 1equal D 2equal D 3equal D 1min D 2min D 3min Sub-Class Configuration
lps b90I 39.44 1.00 - 0.12 1.00 - 0.00 1.00 - 0.98 b90I lps
lpp b90 39.47 b90 lpp
lps b95I 39.66 1.00 - 0.13 1.00 - 0.00 1.00 - 0.73 b95I lps
lpp b95 39.68 b95 lpp
lpp b 39.79 b lpp
pl p b80 36.46 b80 pl p
pl p b85 39.24 b85 pl p
pl p b 40.00 b pl p
slp b90Io 38.58 1.00 1.47 - 1.00 3.14 - 1.00 1.00 - b90Io slp
slp b95IO 36.92 1.00 1.09 - 1.00 1.28 - 1.00 1.00 - b95IO slp
lps b90IO 33.95 1.00 - 1.00 0.68 - 1.00 0.68 - 1.00 b90IO lps
lps b95IO 33.91 0.99 - 1.00 0.60 - 1.00 0.61 - 1.00 b95IO lps
lps b99IO 33.91 0.99 - 1.00 0.55 - 1.00 0.56 - 1.00 b99IO lps
slp bIO 30.18 1.47 1.00 - 1.98 1.00 - 0.63 1.00 - bIO slp
sss b90I 39.35 0.589 0.381 1.000 0.148 0.055 1.000 0.724 0.996 1.000 b90I sss
sps b86IO 40.00 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 1.00 - 1.00 b86IO sps
ssp b90o 39.93 2.15 1.00 - 10.35 1.00 - 1.05 1.00 - b90o ssp
spp b90 39.47 b90 spp
spp b95 39.68 b95 spp
spp b 39.79 b spp
sps bIo 39.60 1.40 - 1.00 1.16 - 1.00 0.42 - 1.00 bIo sps
lps bIo 39.60 7.33 - 1.00 6.05 - 1.00 0.02 - 1.00 bIo lps
sss b99 34.51 1.000 0.936 3.502 1.000 0.995 13.377 1.000 1.215 0.311 b99 sss
sps b98Io 37.47 2.35 - 1.00 6.01 - 1.00 0.46 - 1.00 b98Io sps
ssp b94I 23.08 6.67 1.00 - 15.38 1.00 - 0.05 1.00 - b94I ssp
sss b 32.44 1.000 1.041 4.338 1.000 1.541 19.533 1.000 1.365 0.239 b sss
sss b88IO 39.54 1.610 1.000 2.398 0.500 1.000 2.000 0.120 1.000 0.145 b88IO sss
ssp b90IO 39.74 2.30 1.00 - 2.00 1.00 - 0.17 1.00 - b90IO ssp
ssp bIo 30.18 4.63 1.00 - 6.24 1.00 - 0.06 1.00 - bIo ssp
psp b 40.00 b psp
Configuration Sub-Class d Nmax C1 C2 C3 D 1equal D 2equal D 3equal D 1min D 2min D 3min Sub-Class Configuration

227
228
APPENDIX E GLOSSARY OF TERMS
AND VARIABLES

α The stress factor, a non-dimensionalized parameter where

γζK θ ∆θ
α = -------------------
- . This parameter is used in the stress feasibil-
ρ

ity equation.

β Non-Dimensionalized parameter in force feasibility equa-

γK θ ( R + 1 ) 2 Φ
tion where β = -----------------------------------
ρ

∆y Deflection normal to the CFM input displacement.

γ PRBM characteristic radius factor

κ Parameter used to relate moments of inertias between the

γi ζi Kθ
different flexible segments.  κ i = ----------------
i

 ρi 

229
λ Length parameter used to calculate the actual length from

the PRBM length where ltot = λr tot . This parameter is

mechanism dependent.

µ Ratio of the small-length flexural pivot length over the asso-

ciated PRBM length

Ω A material parameter in the stress feasibility equation where

Sy
Ω = -----
E

ψ (Stiffness Intensity Factor) This parameter summarizes the

stiffness at a given primary pivot stress level and mecha-

nism size. This allows for comparisons in maximum stiff-

nesses between mechanisms.

Ψ (Normalized Stiffness Intensity Factor) This parameter

divides the stiffness intensity factor by the stiffness intensity

factor of the lpp mechanims for the given sub-class. This

normalizes the values with 1 being the highest.

1
ρ Is either --- for fixed-pinned beams or µ for small-length
γ

flexural pivots

230
ζ Defines the ratio between the total PRBM length r tot and a

link length

Ξ The original percent constant-force where the maximum

force is divided by the minimum force.

Ξ' Percent constant-force using the minimum and maximum

known forces (no extrapolation).

Ξ' ex The extrpolated percent constant-force calculated by divid-

ing the extraoplated force at zero displacement by the maxi-

mum force at full displacement.

A A geometeric parameter in the stress feasibility equation

c
where A = -------
r tot

C Ratio of a flexible segment thickness to the primary pivot

thickness.

CFEC Constant-force electrical contact

CFM Constant-force mechanism

Classification Varaibles Those variables that dependent on the mechanism and are

looked up in tables.

231
Configuration Distiguishes between different possible flexible segment

configurations.

Constraint Variable Value Those variable values that are constrained by the design

requirments.

Coupled Variables Those variables that are shared between tow or more of the

principal design equations.

Dequal Ratio of a flexible segment width and the primary pivot

width when thicknesses are equal.

Dmin Ratio of a flexible segment width and the primary pivot

width when thicknesses are maximized.

dNmax The maximum normal displacement percentage which

allows for quick calculations of the maximum normal

deflection.

Displacement Equaiton Main equation used to determine the percent displacement

when doing design of CFMs.

Force Design Equation Main equation used to calculate the force of a CFM. Knowl-

edge of the PRBM is not required to use this equation.

232
 βEI 1
Force Feasibility F = -----------
2
- Equation used to quickly calculate the force
r tot

knowing only the cross section of the first flexible segment,

the material properties, the configuraiton, and the total

PRBM length.

Force Feasible Mechanism Those mechanisms that are guaranteed to produce the

needed force without violating the stress requirments. How-

ever, no guarantee is given that the flexible segment thick-

nesses will satisfy the design constraints.

Guaranteed Stress Feasbile Those mechanisms that are guaranteed to procude the

desired displacement in any part of the design space. How-

ever, no guarantee is given that the need force can be

achieved.

In-plane Orientation In this orientation, all motion takes place in the plane of fab-

rication. This requires that all link and flexible segment

widths be the same.

Isolated Varaibles Those variables that occur only in one of the three equa-

tions.

Kθ PRBM stiffness coefficient

Known Variable Value A variable value that is set by the design requirements.

233
M Multiplier in the power curve fit of α.

n Power in the power curve fit of α.

Out-of-plane Orientation All motion is normal to the plane of fabrication. This

requires that all link and flexible segment thicknesses be the

same.

Principal Equations The three primary equations required to design CFMs.

These equations are combinations of the stress feasibility

equation, force feasibility equation, and other equations

developed.

Primary Pivot The flexible pivot in the CFM with the highest stress.

Stress Design Equation Main equation used to determine the stress within a CFM.

Knowledge of the PRBM is not required to use this equa-

tion.

Ω
Stress Feasibility αA ≤ ------- Equation used to determine the stress feasibility
SF

of a given design.

Stress Feasible Mechanism Those mechanisms that are capable of producing the desired

displacement in part of the design space, but not capable in

234
 other parts of the design space. However, no guarantee is

given that the need force can be achieved.

Sub-class Distinguishes between different sets of constant-force

parameters within a given class and configuration thus spec-

ifying a specific mechanism.

Unknown Variable Value Those variables values that have no information given by

the design requirements.

235
236