8 views

Uploaded by Sander Voss

- Robotics Tutorial
- Design of Machinery: Chapter 1 Introduction Summary
- finite element analysis of transfer floor
- Thesis Principles of Rapid Machine Design
- IMPROVEMENTS IN FEA OF COMPOSITE OVERWRAPPED
- StreesCheck - Getting Started
- TR134_Thrainsson.pdf
- SAEM27-fm-i.pdf
- 2214-6483-1-PB
- jmr_009_05_054504.pdf
- finit elemen
- Wiley 2009 Engineering
- FE Lecture01 Introduction
- 540923_1_MEC3302-CMD-Assignment-1-S1-2014-Version1
- ME 1032 Handout-1-Course Outline 2010
- Problems With Some Common Plate Bending Elements and the Development of a Pseudo Higher Order Plate Bending Element
- A Method for Forward Displacement Analysis of 3-Rrp and 3-Prp Planar Parallel Manipulators
- Simrit 01 - About Simrit (Technical Manual 2007)
- IFEM.Ch22.pdf
- mechanics of solids week 11 lectures

You are on page 1of 9

e-mail: hongzhezhao@gmail.com

Bi Shusheng

e-mail: bishusheng@gmail.com

Yu Jingjun

e-mail: jjyu@buaa.edu.cn

Robotics Institute,

Beihang University,

Beijing 100191, P.R. China

Guo Jun

School of Astronautics,

Beihang University,

Beijing 100191, P.R. China

e-mail: guojunbh@buaa.edu.cn

Design of a Family of

Ultra-Precision Linear Motion

Mechanisms

The parasitic motion of a parallel four-bar mechanism (PFBM) is undesirable for designers. In this paper, the rigid joints in PFBM are replaced with their flexural counterparts,

and the center shift of rotational flexural pivots can be made full use of in order to compensate for this parasitic motion. First, three schemes are proposed to design a family of

ultraprecision linear-motion mechanisms. Therefore, the generalized cross-spring pivots

are utilized as joints, and six configurations are obtained. Then, for parasitic motion of

these configurations, the compensation condition is presented, and the design space of

geometric parameters is given. Moreover, the characteristic evaluation of these configurations is implemented, and an approach to improve their performances is further proposed. In addition, a model is developed to parametrically predict the parasitic motion

and primary motion. Finally, the analytic model is verified by finite element analysis

(FEA), so these linear-motion mechanisms can be employed in precision engineering.

[DOI: 10.1115/1.4007491]

Introduction

have become an active area of research, because some substantial

improvements in performance can be achieved, such as ease of assembly, maintenance-free, no backlash, diminished friction, infinitesimal resolution, and simplified manufacturing process [1,2].

However, in order to overcome some inherent drawbacks, like

small motion range and undesirable parasitic motion, challenges

for the researchers are posed [3,4]. So the complex flexural pivots

were investigated for the purpose that the parasitic error can be

reduced by utilizing the building block approach [5].

As the compliant linear-motion mechanisms (i.e., translational

flexural pivots) are considered, some novel designs were developed deriving from rigid mechanisms, such as Roberts mechanism

[68], Scott-Russel mechanism [9], and orthoplanar linear-motion

spring [10]. Nevertheless, the prior literatures show that the vast

majority of linear-motion mechanisms are derived from the

PFBM. A typical configuration is constructed by two leaf-springs

in parallel, as illustrated in Fig. 1(a). The distributed compliance

was exploited so as to achieve large motion range [11,12]. Then,

several mechanisms of this kind were combined in series or parallel, and the double and quaternary PFBM were developed to

improve the performances [1216]. Meanwhile, a ratio-control lever was used in such mechanism to reduce the errors originating

from manufacturing and assembly tolerances [17,18].

In this paper, the aim is to diminish the parasitic motion arising

from PFBM, but not double or quaternary PFBM. Because the parasitic motion for PFBM is not tractable, as illustrated in Fig. 1(a).

In addition, the intermediate stage of double or quaternary PFBM

possesses an unwanted translational degrees of freedom (DOF)

when the ground and final stage are held fixed. This issue would

be a problem for dynamic actuation and ambient vibrations. Under

this consideration, the conventional joints in PFBM were replaced

with the cartwheel flexural pivots (Fig. 1(b)) by some researchers

[19,20]. However, the center shift of the cartwheel flexural pivot

makes the distance between its moving stage and fixed stage shortened, so the application of this rotational flexural pivot (Fig. 1(b))

will worsen the parasitic motion of PFBM. Even so, some helpful

Contributed by the Mechanisms and Robotics Committee of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF MECHANISMS AND ROBOTICS. Manuscript received February 29,

2012; final manuscript received June 27, 2012; published online September 17,

2012. Assoc. Editor: Yuefa Fang.

information can be achieved from Fig. 1(b), according to the qualitative analysis of this mechanism [21]. To be specific, if a flexural

pivot is used, whose center shift makes the distance between the

two stages increase, the parasitic motion of the compliant PFBM

will be eliminated. For example, the mechanism as shown in

Fig. 1(c) can achieve desired performance.

So the objective of this research is to synthesize the compliant

PFBM, and compensate for the parasitic motion by taking advantage of some rotational flexural pivots. As a typical flexural building block, the generalized cross-spring pivot [22,23] is chosen to

implement a quantitative analysis. Then, six configurations are

presented and the compensation condition of parasitic motion is

developed. Meanwhile, the characteristics of these configurations,

such as the range of motion and manufacturing performance, are

evaluated. Furthermore, taking one configuration as an example,

the model is developed to parametrically predict the parasitic

motion and primary motion. Finally, FEA is carried out, in order

to verify the validity of the developed model.

undesirable but unavoidable, if the mechanism is utilized for rectilinear motion. However, the center shift of the rotational flexural

pivot can be taken advantage of, in order to compensate for the inherent parasitic errors of this PFBM. It is a promising method,

especially for the leaf-type flexural pivots, because large range of

motion and high precision may be achieved simultaneously.

Moreover, since the leaf with distributed compliance plays both

roles of pivot and rigid link, a compact mechanism can be

designed. In order to clarify the compensation principle of parasitic motion, a single kinematic chain of the compliant PFBM is

taken into account, and an equivalent rigid body model is given.

As illustrated in Fig. 2, there are three schemes to accomplish

the requirement of error compensation. The link length is the initial distance between the two pivot points, which is depicted by

Ll. In the y direction, the projection of the link is Lyh. Accordingly,

normalized by a characteristic length of the mechanism L (L will

be defined in Sec. 3), the shortening of the projection dyl can be

expressed as

dyl

Ll Lyh Ll

h2

1 cos h ll 1 cos h ll

L

L

2

C 2012 by ASME

Copyright V

(1)

Fig. 1 The compliant parallel four-bar mechanism combined by flexural building blocks: (a) leaf spring building

block, (b) cartwheel flexural building block, and (c) generalized cross-spring building block

treated as two prismatic joints (the prismatic joint in the x direction is not illustrated in Fig. 2). Thus, the center shift in the y

direction (dyno) can be taken advantage of to compensate for the

shortening of the projection, according to the topological relationship between the link and constraint boundary.

First of all, in order to diminish the parasitic error of the

linear-motion mechanism, the center shift must be in the arrow

direction (as displayed in Fig. 2). More specifically, the instantaneous center of the flexural pivot in scheme I (Fig. 2(a)) must

move towards the moving stage; but in schemes II and III

(Figs. 2(b) and 2(c)), the instantaneous center of the flexural

pivot must move to the fixed stage. Furthermore, when the

direction is satisfied, the magnitude of the center shift can be

taken into consideration. As a result, the dominant term of the

parasitic motion will be diminished if the center shift of a pivot

is the following form.

For scheme I

dyno

dyl ll h2

2

4

(2a)

dyl

ll h2

2

4

(2b)

dyno

pivot to satisfy condition (2a) and (2b). Note also that ll is a normalized parameter, and the dimensions of the link and the pivot

will be limited by each other. Consequently, one of the objectives

for this paper is to harmonize the geometric parameters of the link

PFBM.

Mechanism

Based on the compensation principle proposed in Sec. 2, the

synthesis of the compliant linear-motion mechanism can be

implemented. First, according to a quantitative analysis, the

suitable flexural pivots with desirable parasitic motion are

given. Then, employing the prescribed flexural pivot, some

configurations are proposed based on the three schemes. Moreover, the compensation condition of parasitic motion is

developed.

3.1 Choosing of the Rotational Flexural Pivot. Although

there are too many types of rotational flexural pivot, as summarized by Trease and the co-workers [12], the performances of some

flexural pivots are not good and they are unsuitable to be used in

compliant PFBM. However, as a typical rotational flexural pivot,

the cross-spring pivot [1,2428] is an exception. In order to further improve the performance and expand the application domain,

the generalized cross-spring pivot (Fig. 3), whose intersection

point is at arbitrary position of the leaf-springs [22,23], can be

adopted as the rotational flexural module. Moreover, as a primitive joint, the generalized cross-spring pivot can be combined to

form a complex flexural pivot, especially for the monolithic

arrangement (as shown in Fig. 3(b), the two leaf-springs can be

manufactured in one plate).

Accordingly, for the generalized cross-spring pivot, the characteristics of center shift must be reviewed [23]. First of all, the nondimensional parameters are defined as the following lower case

letters:

Fig. 2 Three schemes is clarified by the equivalent rigid body model of a single kinematic chain (prismatic joints in the x direction are not shown). The dotted line is the initial position, and Ll is referring to

the dotted line: (a) scheme I, (b) scheme II, and (c) scheme III.

Fig. 3 The generalized cross-spring pivot: (a) nonmonolithic arrangement and (b)

monolithic arrangement

mp

dyp

Mp Lp

;

EI

DY

;

Lp

fp

dxp

Fp L2p

;

EI

DX

;

Lp

Pp L2p

EI

2

Lp

dp 12

Tp

pp

and vertical force applied on the moving stage as the external

loads, and their directions are invariable in the space; dxp and dyp

are the center shift of this pivot (DX and DY are depicted in Fig.

4); Lp, Wp, and Tp are the length, width, and thickness of the

beam, respectively, and they are named as shape parameters, I is

the moment of inertia, dp is the square ratio of Lp to Lp; E is

Youngs modulus of the material.

The geometric parameters k and a associated with the intersection point are described in Fig. 4. When the free end and fixed end

of the leaf are A and B, respectively, and the two leaves (or their

extension lines) cross at the point O, the ratio between the directed

line segment AO and AB is define as k. Thus, the center shift can

be expressed as

dxp Cxh p h3p Hxh p Cxf p fp Cxp p pp

(3a)

(3b)

where Cxh_p and Cyh_p are the coefficients of the dominant terms;

Hxh_p and Hyh_p are the higher order terms; Cxf_p and Cyf_p are the

compliances for the horizontal force fp in the x and y directions,

respectively; Cxp_p and Cyp_p are the compliances for the vertical

force pp in the x and y directions, respectively. All these coefficients can be obtained according to Refs. [21,23]. Each coefficient

has two values when the geometric parameter k is in the different

range, (1, 0.5) and (0.5, 1).

In terms of the center shift dyp, the dominant term of dyp,d can

be expressed as the following form, irrespective of the range of

geometric parameter k.

dyp;d

1 2

9k 9k 1 h2

15 cos a

(4)

Mechanisms. According to the model of the generalized crossspring pivot [23], the dominant term of the center shift dyp,d will

be positive, if the geometric parameter k is in the range

(0.127322, 0.872678); but it will be negative when the geometric

parameter k is in the range (1, 0.127322) or (0.872678, 1).

Here, the two types of the pivots are named as I type pivot and II

type pivot, respectively. So the former satisfies the desirable direction for scheme I, but the latter satisfies schemes II and III. In

addition, the magnitude of dyp is of the order of h2. Hence, the

synthesis of the compliant PFBM can be carried out, by employing the generalized cross-spring pivot.

As a result, six configurations are proposed, as schematic illustrated in Fig. 5. The blue lines refer to the leave-springs, and the

black lines denote the rigid bodies. Configuration 1 is developed

from scheme I, and I type pivot is utilized as the flexural building

block. Utilizing II type pivot, configurations 24 are derived from

scheme II, and Configurations 5 and 6 are derived from scheme

III. Although some configurations are essentially identical, they

are still treated separately in consideration of arrangement. For

example, both configurations 5 and 6 are obtained from schemes

III by II type pivot, but they are out-plane and in-plane arrangement, respectively.

Moreover, the geometric parameters l, a, and a (a is shown in

Fig. 4) are defined to describe the configuration of these compliant

linear-motion mechanisms. And the width of these mechanisms L

is chosen as the characteristic length to normalize the parameters.

So the compensation condition of parasitic motion that the geometric parameters must satisfy can be developed.

3.3 The Compensation Condition of Parasitic Motion. The

generalized cross-spring pivot is normalized by the leaf length.

But for the compliant linear-motion mechanism, the nondimensional metrics are defined by its characteristic length L. So the

translation of the normalized parameters needs to be implemented.

First of all, the leaf length for the generalized cross-spring pivot is

Fig. 4

pivot

Lp L=n

(5)

Fig. 5 Six configurations of the compliant linear-motion mechanisms: (a) configuration 1, (b) configuration 2, (c) configuration

3, (d) configuration 4, (e) configuration 5, and (f) configuration 6

expressed as

dyp ndyno ;

dxp ndxno

(6)

and it corresponds to the parameters normalized by L but not Lp.

After the translation of the parameters, dyno,d and dyl,d, which

denote the dominant terms of dyno and dyl, respectively, are formulated and listed in Table 1. In addition, according to Figs. 4

and 5, the relationship of the geometric parameters and the constraint condition are also summarized in Table 1.

Then, the dominant terms of the parasitic motion can be compensated for, in terms of the compensation principle. Configuration 1 complies with Eq. (2a) to diminish the parasitic error, but

the others achieve high precision by making use of Eq. (2b). So

the compensation equations are yielded for all of six

configurations.

Configuration 1

4 30cos2 al2 15 cos2 a2a 1 36a l 36a2 0 (7a)

Table 1

Configuration 2

4 30cos2 al2 15 cos2 a2a 1 36a l 36a2 0

(7b)

Configuration 3

4l2 36a 15 cos2 a1 2a l 36a2 0

(7c)

Configuration 4

4 30 cos2 al2 36a 15 cos2 a2a 1 l 36a2 0

(7d)

Configuration 5

4 30 cos2 al2 15 cos2 a2a 1 36a l 36a2 0 (7e)

Configuration 6

4 30 cos2 al2 36a 15 cos2 a1 2a l 36a2 0 (7f )

dyno,d

dy1,d

Constraint conditiona

k 1 a=l

k 1 a=l

3b

k 1 a=l

k a=l

1 2l a 2

h

2

2a l 1 2

h

2

1 2a 2

h

2

1 2a l 2

h

2

2l a 1 2

h

2

1 2l a 2

h

2

b1 < k < b2 c

2b

9a2 9al l2 h2

15l cos2 a

9a2 9al l2 h2

15l cos2 a

2

9a 9al l2 h2

15l cos2 a

9a2 9al l2 h2

15l cos2 a

2

9a 9al l2 h2

15l cos2 a

9a2 9al l2 h2

15l cos2 a

No.

k 1 a=l

k a=l

0 l a < 1=2

k1

a l > 1=2

k1

k0

a l < 1=2

0 k < b1 or b2 < k 1

l a > 1=2

0 k < b1 or b2 < k 1

0 l a < 1=2

The geometric parameters for all six configurations subject to the condition: 0 < l < 1, a 0.

If monolithic

the condition becomes stricter: 0 < l < 1=2.

pmanufacturing ispconsidered,

c

b1 3 5=6, b2 3 5=6.

b

blocks are fixed on a rotational base. A local coordinate system

that defines loads and displacements will rotate with the base.

This condition defines a virtual base.

5.1.2 Initial Condition. The moving stage of pivot 12 (as

illustrated in Fig. 5(c)) must be in parallel with the x axis of the

global coordinate system at any final time; at the initial time it

must be in parallel with the x12 axis of the local coordinate system. This condition defines a virtual initial position.

According to this equivalent model, the single kinematic chain

is divided into two flexural modules, and the model of the generalized cross-spring pivot can be exploited. Hence, the external loads

on both pivots can be obtained in the local coordinate systems. It

is important to note that the rotational angle h12 is negative.

8

< f11 f1 cosh12 p1 sinh12

p p1 cosh12 f1 sinh12

(14a)

: 11

m11 m1

8

f12 f1 cosh12 p1 sinh12

<

p12 p1 cosh12 f1 sinh12

(14b)

:

m12 m1 f1 1 2l p1 1 2a sinh12

where suffixes 11 and 12 refer to the module number (as illustrated in Fig. 5(c)); suffix 1 denotes the chain number. Then, the

parasitic motion of the kinematic chain can be obtained.

dy1 dy11 dy12 cosh12 dx11 dx12 sinh12

l a1 cosh11 h12 1 2a1 cos h12

(15)

Meanwhile, the primary motion is also yielded as

dx1 dy11 dy12 sinh12 dx11 dx12 cosh12

l a sinh11 h12 1 2a sinh12

(16)

As far as the parasitic motion and primary motion are concerned, the first two terms are the contributions from the center

(14a) and (14b), the forces f11 and f12 are equal and opposite, but

the forces p11 and p12 are entirely identical. So the internal forces

in the chain are eliminated in light of Eqs. (13a) and (13b), and

the following equations are expressed by the loads on the moving

end of the kinematic chain:

dy11 dy12 Cyh 11 h211 h212 Hyh 11 Hyh 12

Cyf 11 Cyf 12 f1 cos h12 p1 sin h12

Cyp 11 Cyp 12 p1 cos h12 f1 sin h12

dx11 dx12

Cxh 11 h311

Cxf

Cxp

h312

(17a)

Hxh 11 Hxh 12

C

11

xf 12 f1 cos h12 p1 sin h12

11 Cxp 12 p1 cos h12 f1 sin h12

(17b)

from the PFBM, the compliant linear-motion mechanism can be

modeled based on the kinematic chain. When the loads are

applied at the middle of the moving stage, the load relationship

between the mechanism and two kinematic chains are obtained.

8

f1 f2 fm

<

p1 p2 pm

(18)

:

m1 m2 p1 p2 s mm

where suffixes m refers to the linear-motion mechanism. Moreover, the following geometric condition must be satisfied:

dxm dx1 dx2 =2

(19)

dym dy1 dy2 =2

Then, the parasitic motion and the primary motion can be

yielded according to Eqs. (15)(17b), and Eq. (19). However, the

loads in Eqs. (17a) and (17b) are unknown, so the load relationship (18) is utilized to solve this problem. For a typical linearmotion mechanism, h12 and h22 are approximately identical, thus

the following expressions can be rearranged, according to Eqs.

(17a) and (17b):

h211 h212 h221 h222 Hyh 11 Hyh 12 Hyh 21 Hyh

Cyf 11 Cyf 12 Cyf 21 Cyf 22

2

Cyp 11 Cyp 12 Cyp 21 Cyp 22

pm cos h12 fm sin h12

2

dx11 dx12 dx21 dx22 Cxh 11 h311 h312 h321 h322 Hxh 11 Hxh 12 Hxh 21 Hxh

Cxf 11 Cxf 12 Cxf 21 Cxf 22

2

Cxp 11 Cxp 12 Cxp 21 Cxp 22

pm cos h12 fm sin h12

2

11

22

(20a)

22

(20b)

parameters of configuration 3 are simulated by FEA

Table 3 Dimensional parameters and Youngs modulus of the

material in the mechanism

L/mm

50

T/mm

W/mm

E/Pa

0.5

0.73 1011

Mechanism No.

Mech 1

Mech 2

Mech 3

p/9

p/6

p/6

0.310741

0.269523

0.210280

0.4

0.45

0.210280

Fig. 7 New configuration is design by using complex flexural pivot: (a) configuration 4 is constructed by primitive flexural pivot and (b) configuration 7 is constructed by primitive flexural pivot

2 30 cos2 al2 18a 15 cos2 a2a 1 l 18a2 0

(10)

The constraint condition for the geometric parameters is

a l < 1=2 a > 0;

l > 0

(11)

manufactured in one plate) is required, the constraint condition

becomes more severe as

a l < 1=4 a > 0;

l > 0

(12)

as illustrated in Fig. 8. When a is zero, the pivot becomes the cartwheel flexural pivot. Under this scenario, the compliant linearmotion mechanism can not be manufactured in one plate, because

l is greater than 1/4 and condition (12) is not satisfied. Being distinct from the design in literature [19], this configuration cannot

achieve monolithic arrangement if the cartwheel flexural pivot is

employed to compensate for the parasitic motion.

As a result, comparing with configuration 4, the new compliant

linear-motion mechanism (configuration 7) has some remarkable

advantages. First, the complemented component is in the blank of

the plate, so the new configuration is more compact. Second, the

rotational angle of the generalized cross-spring pivot will reduce

to a half, if the motion range of the mechanism is identical.

Finally, but most importantly, the drive force is moved away from

the intersection point, which leads to the decreased stiffness and

lower stress level.

Finally, it is worth noting that configuration 7 is only an example to display the method of using the complex flexural pivot.

Some other configurations that are not mentioned in this section

can also be synthesized. However, the difficulties need to be indicated: if the pivots with different geometric parameters and shape

parameters are utilized to combine the complex flexural pivot, the

rotational angles for these flexural building blocks will not be

identical, and Eq. (8) will not be valid.

Case Study

model will be developed to quantitative predict the characteristics

of the mechanism in this section. On the basis of a single kinematic chain and the whole mechanism, the building block method

is taken advantage of to simplify the derivation.

5.1 The Model of a Single Kinematic Chain. First of all,

similarly with Eq. (6), the other nondimensional parameters in the

generalized cross-spring pivot need to be normalized again in

terms of the characteristic length L

mp

mno

;

n

fp

fno

;

n2

pp

pno

;

n2

dp

dno

d

2

n

n2

expressed as the following form on purpose that the physical

attributes are revealed clearly

3

no hno

Hxh

no

Cxf

no fno

Cxp

no pno

(13a)

Cyh no h2no

Hyh

no

Cyf

no fno

Cyp

no pno

(13b)

dxno Cxh

dyno

those in Eqs. (3a) and (3b). But these parameters and coefficients

are normalized by L but not Lp.

The linear-motion mechanism is derived from the PFBM, so a

single kinematic chain is modeled first. In terms of the building

block method, an equivalent model is proposed in order to utilize

the model of the generalized cross-spring pivot. Taking advantage

of this equivalent model, the boundary condition is transformed

into an initial condition and another relaxed boundary condition.

Thus, the first kinematic chain is taken as an example to explain

this manipulation. As shown in Fig. 9, the following conditions

need to be satisfied to fulfill the equivalence of the transformation.

blocks are fixed on a rotational base. A local coordinate system

that defines loads and displacements will rotate with the base.

This condition defines a virtual base.

5.1.2 Initial Condition. The moving stage of pivot 12 (as

illustrated in Fig. 5(c)) must be in parallel with the x axis of the

global coordinate system at any final time; at the initial time it

must be in parallel with the x12 axis of the local coordinate system. This condition defines a virtual initial position.

According to this equivalent model, the single kinematic chain

is divided into two flexural modules, and the model of the generalized cross-spring pivot can be exploited. Hence, the external loads

on both pivots can be obtained in the local coordinate systems. It

is important to note that the rotational angle h12 is negative.

8

< f11 f1 cosh12 p1 sinh12

p p1 cosh12 f1 sinh12

(14a)

: 11

m11 m1

8

f12 f1 cosh12 p1 sinh12

<

p12 p1 cosh12 f1 sinh12

(14b)

:

m12 m1 f1 1 2l p1 1 2a sinh12

where suffixes 11 and 12 refer to the module number (as illustrated in Fig. 5(c)); suffix 1 denotes the chain number. Then, the

parasitic motion of the kinematic chain can be obtained.

dy1 dy11 dy12 cosh12 dx11 dx12 sinh12

l a1 cosh11 h12 1 2a1 cos h12

(15)

Meanwhile, the primary motion is also yielded as

dx1 dy11 dy12 sinh12 dx11 dx12 cosh12

l a sinh11 h12 1 2a sinh12

(16)

As far as the parasitic motion and primary motion are concerned, the first two terms are the contributions from the center

(14a) and (14b), the forces f11 and f12 are equal and opposite, but

the forces p11 and p12 are entirely identical. So the internal forces

in the chain are eliminated in light of Eqs. (13a) and (13b), and

the following equations are expressed by the loads on the moving

end of the kinematic chain:

dy11 dy12 Cyh 11 h211 h212 Hyh 11 Hyh 12

Cyf 11 Cyf 12 f1 cos h12 p1 sin h12

Cyp 11 Cyp 12 p1 cos h12 f1 sin h12

dx11 dx12

Cxh 11 h311

Cxf

Cxp

h312

(17a)

Hxh 11 Hxh 12

C

11

xf 12 f1 cos h12 p1 sin h12

11 Cxp 12 p1 cos h12 f1 sin h12

(17b)

from the PFBM, the compliant linear-motion mechanism can be

modeled based on the kinematic chain. When the loads are

applied at the middle of the moving stage, the load relationship

between the mechanism and two kinematic chains are obtained.

8

f1 f2 fm

<

p1 p2 pm

(18)

:

m1 m2 p1 p2 s mm

where suffixes m refers to the linear-motion mechanism. Moreover, the following geometric condition must be satisfied:

dxm dx1 dx2 =2

(19)

dym dy1 dy2 =2

Then, the parasitic motion and the primary motion can be

yielded according to Eqs. (15)(17b), and Eq. (19). However, the

loads in Eqs. (17a) and (17b) are unknown, so the load relationship (18) is utilized to solve this problem. For a typical linearmotion mechanism, h12 and h22 are approximately identical, thus

the following expressions can be rearranged, according to Eqs.

(17a) and (17b):

h211 h212 h221 h222 Hyh 11 Hyh 12 Hyh 21 Hyh

Cyf 11 Cyf 12 Cyf 21 Cyf 22

2

Cyp 11 Cyp 12 Cyp 21 Cyp 22

pm cos h12 fm sin h12

2

dx11 dx12 dx21 dx22 Cxh 11 h311 h312 h321 h322 Hxh 11 Hxh 12 Hxh 21 Hxh

Cxf 11 Cxf 12 Cxf 21 Cxf 22

2

Cxp 11 Cxp 12 Cxp 21 Cxp 22

pm cos h12 fm sin h12

2

11

22

(20a)

22

(20b)

parameters of configuration 3 are simulated by FEA

Table 3 Dimensional parameters and Youngs modulus of the

material in the mechanism

L/mm

50

T/mm

W/mm

E/Pa

0.5

0.73 1011

Mechanism No.

Mech 1

Mech 2

Mech 3

p/9

p/6

p/6

0.310741

0.269523

0.210280

0.4

0.45

0.210280

Fig. 10 Primary motion versus parasitic motion: (a) Mech 1, (b) Mech 2, and (c) Mech 3

Table 5 Two compliant linear-motion mechanisms are compared according to the FEA data

Mechanism No.

Mech 4

Mech 5

p/3

p/3

0.067406

0

0.16

0.227406

blocks (Fig. 1(b)), which is developed by Duarte and his coworkers [19]; and Mech 6 is constructed by two leaf-springs

(Fig. 1(a)). The geometric parameters for Mech 4 and Mech 5

are listed in Table 5, and the Mech 6 has the same dimension

with the others.

As a result, the parasitic motion of Mech 4 is far less than that

of Mech 5 and Mech 6, even when their dimensions are the same,

as shown in Fig. 11.

Fig. 11 Comparison of parasitic motion for Mech 4Mech 6

Consequently, the parasitic motion and primary motion are modeled to predict the performance of the complaint linear-motion

mechanism. It needs to be emphasized that the internal forces are

entirely eliminated by the load relationship (14a), (14b), and (18),

as well as the geometric condition (19). So the advantages of the

building blocks method are displayed, and this method can be

extensively exploited in the design of complex flexural pivot and

compliant mechanism.

FEA Verification

implemented using commercial package ANSYS, which is competent for large-deflection and nonlinear analysis. The beam3 element, with three motional degrees of freedom on each node, is

used to simulate the deformation. The shape parameters and material properties in all the compliant linear-motion mechanisms are

the same, which are listed in Table 3. Three typical mechanisms

with different geometric parameters are simulated, as listed in

Table 4.

The primary motion versus parasitic motion is simulated for Mech

1Mech 3, as shown in Fig. 10. The horizontal forces for driving

these three mechanisms are equal to the positive payloads (i.e., the

vertical force pm), respectively, as indicated in Fig. 10. Even though

the parasitic motion is influenced significantly by a large payload, its

magnitude is still small enough. So these mechanisms deriving from

configuration 3 are ultraprecise. Meanwhile, the model data are in

good agreement with the data obtained by FEA.

Then, in order to display the advantages of these proposed

configurations, Mech 4 deriving from configuration 7 are compared with other two compliant linear-motion mechanisms.

Here, Mech 5 are combined by four cartwheel flexural building

041012-8 / Vol. 4, NOVEMBER 2012

Conclusions

the compliant linear-motion mechanism, by replacing the rigid

joint in PFBM. Based on three schemes for parasitic motion compensation, six configurations are presented in terms of building

block method. And the characteristics of these mechanisms are

compared and evaluated. First, the range of motion is determined

by the length of link and the angular stroke of flexural pivot. So

the geometric parameter k should be far away from zero to

achieve the small stress level, and the link should be designed as

long as possible. Then, as the manufacturing performance is taken

into account, we suggest exploiting the monolithic generalized

cross-spring pivot. Meanwhile, in order to provide a design tool

for these ultraprecision linear-motion mechanisms, the design

space for geometric parameters l, a, and a is illustrated by the

graph.

For the sake of improving the performance of six configurations, the linear-motion mechanism combined by complex flexural

pivots is also presented. A larger range of motion is achieved;

moreover, the in-plane topologic space is made full use of, and

the mechanism is more compact. So this method is promising and

a plenty of compliant PFBM can be synthesized.

Furthermore, as a case study, the model for configuration 3 is

developed base on the building block method. The internal loads

are eliminated by taking advantage of the load relationship

between the flexural modules and the two kinematic chains. Thus,

the parasitic motion and primary motion can be quantitatively

predicted.

Finally, the validity and effectiveness of the developed model

for configuration 3 are verified by FEA. In addition, the simulation

data display that the parasitic motion for the proposed configuration is diminished greatly. Comparing with the other complaint

PFBM, the advantage of the proposed configurations is prominent.

Consequently, the prospect of this family of compliant linearmotion mechanism in precision engineering is promising.

Transactions of the ASME

Acknowledgment

The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support of

National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos.

51105014, 50975007) and Ph.D. Programs Foundation of Ministry

of Education of China (Grant No. 20091102110023).

References

[1] Howell, L. L., 2001, Compliant Mechanisms, Wiley, New York.

[2] Smith, S. T., 2000, Flexures: Elements of Elastic Mechanisms, Gordon and

Breach Science Publishers, New York, NY.

[3] Paros, J. M., and Weisbord, L., 1965, How to Design Flexure Hinges, Mach.

Des., 37, pp. 151156.

[4] Lobontiu, N., 2002, Compliant Mechanisms: Design of Flexure Hinges, CRC

Press, Boca Raton, FL.

[5] Henein S., Spanoudakis P., Droz S., Myklebust L. I., and Onillon E., 2003,

Flexure Pivot for Aerospace Mechanisms, 10th European Space Mechanisms

and Tribology Symposium, San Sebastian, pp. 14.

[6] Hubbard, N. B., Wittwer, J. W., Kennedy, J. A., Wilcox, D. L., and Howell,

L. L., 2004, A Novel Fully Compliant Planar Linear-Motion Mechanism,

Proceedings ASME IDETC/CIE 2004, Paper No. DETC2004/MECH-57008.

[7] Mackay, A. B., Smith, D. G., Magleby, S. P., Jensen, B. D., and Howell, L. L.,

2012, Metrics for Evaluation and Design of Large-Displacement LinearMotion Compliant Mechanisms, J. Mech. Des., 134(1), p. 011008.

[8] Roman, G. A., and Wiens, G. J., 2007, MEMS Optical Force Sensor Enhancement via Compliant Mechanism, Proceedings ASME IDETC/CIE 2007, Paper

No. DETC2007/MECH-35345.

[9] Wang, Y. C., and Chang, S. H., 2006, Design and Performance of a Piezoelectric Actuated Precise Rotary Positioner, Rev. Sci. Instrum., 77(10), p. 105101.

[10] Parise, J. J., Howell L. L., and Magleby, S. P., 2001, Ortho-Planar LinearMotion Springs, Mech. Mach. Theory, 36(1112), pp. 12811299.

[11] Awtar, S., Slocum, A. H., and Sevincer, E., 2007, Characteristics of BeamBased Flexure Modules, ASME J. Mech. Des., 129(6), pp. 625639.

[12] Trease, B., Moon, Y., and Kota S., 2005, Design of Large-Displacement

Compliant Joints, ASME J. Mech. Des., 127(7), pp. 788798.

[13] Cannon, B. R., Lillian, T. D., Magleby, S. P., Howell, L. L., and Linford, M. R.,

2005, A Compliant End-Effector for Microscribing, Precis. Eng., 29(1), pp.

8694.

[14] Awtar, S., and Slocum, A. H., 2007, Constraint-Based Design of Parallel Kinematic XY Flexure Mechanisms, ASME J. Mech. Des., 129(8), pp. 816830.

[15] Howell, L. L., DiBiasio, C. M., Cullinan, M. A., Panas, R. M., and Culpepper,

M. L., 2010, A Pseudo-Rigid-Body Model for Large Deflections of FixedClamped Carbon Nanotubes, J. Mech. Rob., 2(3), p. 034501.

[16] Gao, Z., and Zhang, D., 2012, Flexure Parallel Mechanism: Configuration and

Performance Improvement of a Compact Acceleration Sensor, J. Mech. Rob.,

4(3), p. 031002.

[17] Spanoudakis P., Schwab P., and Johnson P., 2003, Design and Production of

the METOP Satellite IASI Corner Cube Mechanisms, 10th European Space

Mechanisms and Tribology Symposium.

[18] Henein, S., Kjelberg I., and Zelenika S., 2002, Flexible Bearings for HighPrecision Mechanisms in Accelerator Facilities, Proceedings of NANOBEAM

200226th Advanced ICFA Beam Dynamics Workshop on Nanometre-Size

Colliding Beams.

[19] Duarte, R. M., Howells, M. R., Hussain, Z., Lauritzen, T., McGill, R., Moler, E.

J., and Spring, J., 1997, A Linear Motion Machine for Soft X-Ray Interferometry, Proc. SPIE, 3123, pp. 224232.

[20] Kee-Bong, C., Jae, J. L., and Min, Y. K., 2007, Cartwheel Flexure-Based

Compliant Stage for Large Displacement Driven by a Stack-Type Piezoelectric

Element, International Conference on Control, Automation and Systems 2007,

pp. 27542758.

[21] Zhao, H. Z., Bi, S. S., and Yu, J. J., 2012, A Novel Compliant Linear-Motion

Mechanism Based on Parasitic Motion Compensation, Mech. Mach. Theory,

50, pp. 1528.

[22] Zhao, H. Z., and Bi, S. S, 2010, Stiffness and Stress Characteristics of the

Generalized Cross-Spring Pivot, Mech. Mach. Theory, 45(3), pp. 378391.

[23] Zhao, H. Z., and Bi, S. S., 2010, Accuracy Characteristics of the Generalized

Cross-Spring Pivot, Mech. Mach. Theory, 45(10), pp. 14341448.

[24] Jensen, B. D., and Howell, L. L., 2002, The Modeling of Cross-Axis Flexural

Pivots, Mech. Theory, 37, pp. 461476.

[25] Young, W. E., 1944, An Investigation of the Cross-Spring Pivot, J. Appl.

Mech., 11, pp. 113120.

[26] Haringx, J. A., 1949, The Cross-Spring Pivot as a Constructional Element,

Appl. Sci. Res., A1, pp. 313332.

[27] Zelenika, S., and DeBona, F., 2002, Analytical and Experimental Characterization of High Precision Flexural Pivots Subjected to Lateral Load, Precis.

Eng., 26, pp. 381388.

[28] Wittrick, W. H., 1951, The Properties of Crossed Flexural Pivots and the

Influence of the Point at Which the Strips Cross, Aeronaut. Q., II, pp.

272292.

- Robotics TutorialUploaded byKhan Arshid Iqbal
- Design of Machinery: Chapter 1 Introduction SummaryUploaded byJulianSamayoa
- finite element analysis of transfer floorUploaded bySyed Fahad Ali
- Thesis Principles of Rapid Machine DesignUploaded byMedina José
- IMPROVEMENTS IN FEA OF COMPOSITE OVERWRAPPEDUploaded bySIMULIACorp
- StreesCheck - Getting StartedUploaded byrfnicolas
- TR134_Thrainsson.pdfUploaded byAnonymous dkML2wzU
- SAEM27-fm-i.pdfUploaded byLê Thị Phương Viên
- 2214-6483-1-PBUploaded bykunalji_jain
- jmr_009_05_054504.pdfUploaded byZow Niak
- finit elemenUploaded byadhi.rohadhi
- Wiley 2009 EngineeringUploaded bymerve_acar
- FE Lecture01 IntroductionUploaded byAmeer Janabi
- 540923_1_MEC3302-CMD-Assignment-1-S1-2014-Version1Uploaded byChirag Jain
- ME 1032 Handout-1-Course Outline 2010Uploaded byDilhara Pinnaduwage
- Problems With Some Common Plate Bending Elements and the Development of a Pseudo Higher Order Plate Bending ElementUploaded byJithinRaj
- A Method for Forward Displacement Analysis of 3-Rrp and 3-Prp Planar Parallel ManipulatorsUploaded byRamón Felipe Castaño Salgado
- Simrit 01 - About Simrit (Technical Manual 2007)Uploaded byjo_rz_57
- IFEM.Ch22.pdfUploaded byAdriana Quacquarelli
- mechanics of solids week 11 lecturesUploaded byFlynn Gould
- Chap1xcfgbfdgfdgUploaded bysantha1191
- JD_E1_FEAUploaded byPranay Radke
- Report Project Mathematic ENGineering 2 UTHMUploaded byRaziq Fawwaz
- Introduction to AcousticsUploaded byncharala
- Motion ControlUploaded byRadu Florin Tripon
- CRUZ, JEFFERSON G. PHY10L B2 E102 2Q1718.docxUploaded byJeff Cruz
- Paper CrackUploaded byMatthew Smith
- Meshing GeomUploaded byRajendra Kamble
- RESEARCH PAPER "Study on spline wavelet finite-element method in multi-scale analysis for foundation"Uploaded byamalendu_biswas_1
- 3B 1 A49 p y Methodology CopyUploaded byjoe

- 7.2 DCC - MEP Works TrackingUploaded byMohammed Shakeel
- Extended Kalman Filter_ShoudongUploaded byteju1996cool
- Basic StatisticsUploaded byDoods Galdo
- ASTM C-403.pdfUploaded byrajeshji_000
- ch12Uploaded byGloren Sison- Fuentes
- Theory of metal cutting-Module 1Uploaded byrejeesh_rajendran
- ME6401-SCAD-MSM- By www.LearnEngineering.in.pdfUploaded byYenigalla Gamana
- Soc Verif Udemy Lec 5 Methodologies Sim FormalUploaded byrenju91
- DesUploaded byAjay Giri
- psy 233 course outline (u of s)Uploaded byapi-290174387
- 1 Functions (Mas)Uploaded bySafina Hashim
- Problem Set 3Uploaded byBiren Patel
- Herb Garden DesignUploaded byManuelBrk
- Intake Manifold DesignUploaded byshubhaastro2827
- Interactive Learning Module PID CtrlUploaded byhazel_ena
- 05522228Uploaded byNazi Sweet
- Test and Branch-WithUploaded byYunfei Niu
- Scaffold.pptUploaded byliandu
- learningwithmickeyminnie lesson planUploaded byapi-294491980
- GCE Syllabus B - 01-Mathematics 20071101Uploaded byapi-19473489
- GateUploaded byAnonymous Y3GhNf
- soluciones1_lprogramacionUploaded byGabriel Reiriz Sanchez
- Baseband Sampling – GaussianWavesUploaded byNorozKhan
- Chapter12 Power AmplifiersUploaded byNikunj Shah
- 2016_Limit equilibrium method for rock slope stability analysis by using the Generalized Hoek–Brown criterion.pdfUploaded byAnonymous 0NpgiTF0g
- Solutions to Problems related to Information theoryUploaded byRohit Bhadauria
- EE_L9 to L10_Economic Evaluation of Alternatives_ Present Worth MethodUploaded bysankalpsri
- -go-math-session 1001 and 1002Uploaded byapi-237149878
- TMS Scripter ManualUploaded byMichael
- E 698 - 11Uploaded byruben carcamo