4 views

Uploaded by Fiandjafar

f 167511124938102

- Course 14
- PDF
- Design Optimition.pdf
- Optimization, Pedregal
- 09 - SA5 Analysis of NGMN Requirement 9 - LTE Parameter Optimization.ppt
- Adapting computational optimization concepts from aeronautics to nuclear fusion reactor design.pdf
- The Circle Module One Quiz With Answers
- couplercurve
- RMT_ lesson plan 20161.doc
- Robust Design of Automotive Component Using Optimization Analysis in Nonlinear Domain
- SPE-129126-MS
- IB 03change Axes(8 10)
- Pareto Optimality
- DSCI 3870 Fall 2014 Exam 1 Key
- Abstracts Ws3
- Flow Discharge Modeling in Open Canals Using ANew Fuzzy Modeling Technique (SMRGT)
- Adstock Rate – Deriving With Analytical Methods _ Blog
- Lecture06 IC
- docslide.net_wcdma-optimization-drive-test-analysis.pdf
- 1.1 AutoCad Coordinate System

You are on page 1of 20

1, 2016

generators with planar four-bar and slider-crank

mechanisms examples

P.A. Simionescu

School of Engineering and Computing Sciences,

College of Science and Engineering,

Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi,

Unit 5733,

6300 Ocean Drive,

Corpus Christi, TX 78412, USA

Email: pa.simionescu@tamucc.edu

approximate a function, while simultaneously ensuring good motion

transmission characteristics is discussed. Distinction is made between the

design variables that determine the shape of the input-output (I/O) function of

the mechanism, and the design variables that affect the degree of overlap

between this I/O function and the function to be mechanised, through scaling,

mirroring and rotations in 90° increments. Examples are given of designing the

planar four-bar and slider-crank linkages of a logarithmic scale, and that of a

tangent-function generator. These are performed on modified mechanisms with

an added degree-of-freedom, which substantially simplify the synthesis

problem.

kinematics, slider crank.

‘A restatement of the optimum synthesis of function generators with planar

four-bar and slider-crank mechanisms examples’, Int. J. Mechanisms and

Robotic Systems, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp.60–79.

Texas A&M University in Corpus Christi. He received his BSc from University

Polytechnica of Bucharest, a doctorate in Technical Sciences from the same

university, and a PhD in Mechanical Engineering from Auburn University. He

taught and performed research at several Romanian, British, and American

universities, and worked for 4 years in industry as an Automotive Engineer. His

research interests include kinematics, dynamics and design of multibody

systems, evolutionary computation, CAD, computer graphics, and information

visualisation. So far he has authored over 50 technical papers and has been

granted 7 patents.

Restatement of the optimum synthesis of function generators 61

1 Introduction

kinematics problem (Svoboda, 1943, 1948; Freudenstein, 1955; Hartenberg and Denavit,

1964; Tao, 1965; Suh and Radcliffe, 1978; Simionescu and Beale 2002). Depending on

application, the input and output links of such a mechanism can be imposed certain

maximum displacements, or one or both of these displacements can be adjusted during

the synthesis process. Examples from the first category are steering linkages of

automobiles, which must ensure a correlated pivoting of the steerable wheels in

accordance with the condition of correct turning (https://commons.wikimedia.org/

wiki/ File:Ackerman_Steering_Linkage.gif; https://commons. wikimedia.org/wiki/

File:Bell-Crank_Steering_Linkage.gif; https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rack-

And-Pinion_Steering_Linkage.gif). In this case, the input and output members, i.e., the

steering-knuckles of the left and right wheel have imposed limit turning angles, dictated

by the required minimum radius of turn, by the possible interferences of the wheels with

the car body, and in case of front-wheel drive vehicles, by the angular capabilities of the

constant velocity joints of the front axle.

Figure 1 Four-bar function generator that mechanises the function log(u) with 1≤u≤10 (a) and

slider-rocker function generator that mechanises the function tan(u) with 0≤u≤ 45° (b).

These are scale drawings of two of the numerical results discussed in Section 5 of the

paper. See also the animations (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:

Func_Geen_Log(u).gif) and (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:

TRRR_Func_Geen_Tan(u).gif) (see online version for colours)

62 P.A. Simionescu

The scale mechanisms in Figure 2 belong to the second category. Here, the transmission

ratio between the rack or gear sector and its pinion can be established post synthesis, once

the geometry of the base linkage has been established. This allows the maximum travels

of the input and/or output links to be included among the design variables in the synthesis

problem.

Figure 2 Logarithmic scales consisting of a linkage in series with one or two gear amplifiers.

Scale (a) employs a four-bar, scale (b) employs a slider-rocker, and scale (c) employs a

rocker-slider. Each linkage corresponds to numerical examples discussed in Section 5

In this paper, a revised formulation of the problem of synthesising four-bar and slider-

crank linkages for the generation of functions, using optimisation techniques is presented.

Distinction will be made between the design variables that influence the I/O function of

the mechanism, and the design variables that affect the relative disposition and the degree

of overlap between the graph of the function to be generated and the said I/O function,

through scaling, mirroring, and rotations in 90° increments. The invariances of the I/O

function of the base mechanism with respect to these transformations will also be

observed for a more effective problem formulation. Additional simplifications will be

achieved by defining objective functions that utilise modified mechanisms with

extensible couplers. Such objective functions are easier to formulate, take less central

Restatement of the optimum synthesis of function generators 63

processor unit (CPU) time to evaluate, and additionally provide an extended search space

to the optimisation problem (Simionescu and Beale, 2002).

The idea of using during synthesis of a modified four-bar linkage with a variable-

length coupler was first proposed by Artobolevsky, Levitskii and Cercudinov (1959).

Others researchers have used modified mechanisms with an added degrees of freedom to

synthesise four-bar and six-bar (Stephenson II, Stephenson III, and Watt II) planar

mechanisms, as well as spatial four-bar and spatial slider-rocker mechanisms (Levitskii,

Sarkissyan and Geckian, 1972; Suh and Mecklenburg, 1973; Alizade Mohan Rao and

Sandor, 1975; Avilés, Amezua and Hernandez, 1994; Simionescu and Alexandru, 1995;

Simionescu, Smith and Tempea, 2000; Simionescu and Talpasanu, 2007; Avilés et al.,

2010; Collard, Duysinx and Fisette, 1910).

The problem of synthesising a function generating mechanism has been tackled by many

kinematicians in the past (Svoboda, 1943, 1948; Freudenstein, 1955; Hartenberg and

Denavit, 1964; Tao, 1965; Suh and Radcliffe, 1978; Simionescu and Beale, 2002; Plecnik

and McCarthy, 2011; Mehar, Singh and Mehar, 2015). It is suggested here for the first

time to describe the approximation of a function by a linkage as a curve-fitting problem.

Figure 3(a) shows the plot of the function f(u) = log(u) with 1≤u≤10 that is supposed to

be approximated by some type of linkage mechanism, in particular a four-bar linkage.

For a given set of geometric parameters, the I/O function ψ(ϕ) of the mechanism can

have the shape in Figure 3(b). In the same diagram it is shown in dashed line the variation

of the pressure angle γ, defined as the angle between the velocity vector of the floating

joint of the output-member, and the reaction force delivered to that joint in the absence of

any gravitational or inertia forces.

Figure 3 Synthesis for the generation of functions can be described as best fitting the graph of the

prescribed function (a) with a portion the graph of the I/O function of a mechanism (b)

(see online version for colours)

64 P.A. Simionescu

In case of planar four-bar and slider-crank mechanisms, more frequently used is the

transmission angle, i.e., the complement about 90° of the pressure angle (Volmer and

Jensen, 1962; Balli and Chanda, 2002; Söylemez, 2002). The transmission angle however

does not have a direct equivalent in case of spatial linkage mechanisms (Simionescu,

1999), which can be considered a disadvantage. To avoid joint jamming, pressure angle γ

should not depart more than ±50° from the ideal value of zero, with deviations close to

±60° being sometimes considered acceptable (Hartenberg and Denavit, 1964; Suh and

Radcliffe, 1978).

With reference to Figures 3–6, the synthesis problem can be stated as follows: find a

portion of the I/O curve ψ(ϕ) of the mechanism that closely fits the graph of the function

f(u) to be mechanised. For proper motion transmission characteristics, the portion of the

I/O curve utilised should additionally be associated with favourable pressure angle

values. In the process of best fitting, the graph of the function f(u) with the I/O graph of

the mechanism ψ(ϕ), the following geometric transformations can be applied:

1 horizontal translation, i.e., modify ϕs

2 vertical translation, i.e., modify ψs

3 horizontal scaling, i.e., modify Δϕ

4 vertical scaling, i.e., modify Δψ

5 mirroring about a vertical axis (i.e., change the sign of Δϕ), which is equivalent with

driving the input link in reverse

6 mirroring about a horizontal axis (i.e., change the sign of Δψ), which is equivalent

with switching between the forward and the return strokes of the mechanism, or

changing the closure in case of single loop mechanisms

7 rotations in plane by ±90°. This is equivalent with swapping Δϕ and Δψ (i.e., making

the input link output, and vice versa), followed by changing the sign of either one as

explained at nos. 5 and 6 above.

Note that throughout the paper, index ‘s’ designates the initial position, and index ‘f’

designates the final position, while Δϕ = ϕf − ϕs is the motion range of the input link and

Δψ = ψf − ψs is the motion ranges of the output link: Evidently, in case of the crank-

slider and slider-crank mechanisms, the I/O function ψ(ϕ) will instead be S(ϕ) and ψ(S)

respectively, and the slider motion range will be ΔS = Sf − Ss.

Consequently, it can be distinguished between two types of design variables:

• Variables that describe the disposition and size of the graph of the prescribed

function f(u) relative to the I/O function of the mechanism. These are the

i initial position of the input and output links ϕs and ψs

ii motion ranges Δϕ and Δψ

iii signs of Δϕ and Δψ (positive or negative)

Restatement of the optimum synthesis of function generators 65

• Variables that determine the I/O function of the mechanism. In general, these are the

i link lengths

ii ground-joint location

is equivalent with mirroring the entire mechanism and driving it in reverse.

Motion ranges Δϕ and Δψ will determine the values of the scale factors K1 and K2

(Simionescu, 1999).

φf − φs ψ f −ψ s

K1 = and K 2 = (1)

uf − us F (uf ) − F (us )

where K1 relates a current displacement ϕ of the input member of the mechanism to the

independent variable u, and K2 relates the corresponding output members displacement

ψ(ϕ) to the function value f(u) according to the following equations:

φ (u ) = φs + K1 ⋅ (u − us ) (2)

ψ (u ) = ψ i + K 2 ⋅ ( f (u ) − f (us ) ) (3)

One can notice that for topologically symmetric mechanisms like the four-bar linkage,

swapping Δϕ and Δψ will not reveal additional solutions when a non-monotonic function

f(u) is to be mechanised - see the dashed line graphs in Figures 4(b), (c), and (e). Second,

for functions with symmetric graphs, like odd or even functions over symmetric intervals

about the origin, the transformations shown in thin line in Figures 4(c), (d), and (e) are

redundant, and will not reveal additional solutions either. For non-monotonic functions

like Figure 4(b), (c), and (e), the input-link motion range should be extended to include

both extrema of the I/O function of the mechanism.

As Figures 5 and 6 show, the I/O functions of the planar crank-rocker and crank-

slider mechanisms exhibit invariances with respect to mirroring the entire mechanism

about the OX and OY axes. These are two-by-two equivalent with changing the closure

of the mechanism loop. Versions of the same mechanisms that do not allow a full rotation

of their input links (the non-Grashof linkages) exhibit similar properties with respect to

changing the loop closure.

Since the I/O function of any mechanism with rotational input and output links

(including the four-bar linkage) is a scaling invariant, its link lengths will be normalised

with respect to the input link length, i.e., AB will be assumed equal to one. For the slider-

crank mechanism, a similar normalisation will be applied during the synthesis process,

but with respect to the slider travel range, i.e., ΔS will be assumed equal to one. In case of

the four-bar mechanisms, more common is to normalise the ground link (Freudenstein,

1955), which has the drawback of the search converging to degenerate mechanism

solutions with zero input and output link lengths (Simionescu and Beale, 2002).

66 P.A. Simionescu

Figure 4 Scale, mirror, and rotation transformations applicable in the search for a best

fit between the graph of the function f(u) and a portion of the I/O function of the

mechanism; (a) and (d) correspond to monotonic functions, (b), (c), and

(e) correspond to non-monotonic functions, (c), (d), and (e) correspond to functions

having symmetric graphs over the considered intervals, while (a) and (b) have no

symmetries

Restatement of the optimum synthesis of function generators 67

Figure 5 Invariances of the I/O function ψ(ϕ) and of the pressure angle γ(ϕ) of a crank-rocker

mechanism

68 P.A. Simionescu

Figure 6 Invariances of the transmission function ψ(s) and pressure angle γ(s) of a crank-slider

mechanism

Awareness of the properties discussed above allows one to avoid using redundant design

variables, and also allows to best select the side constraints in an optimisation problem. In

addition, it was found that it is better to specify a reference point (ϕ0,ψ0), with ψ0

calculated using Eq. (3), instead of prescribing the length of the coupler (Simionescu and

Beale, 2002). Such a reference point, which will correspond to an exact point within the

working range of the mechanism, can sometimes be explicitly imposed, for example as

the initial position of the mechanism. The reader is certainly aware that 16 or more

significant digits are used internally by the computer, and any real mechanism with

rounded-off dimensions will not satisfy precisely this reference point. Also the I/O

function of the mechanism will deviate from the one obtained through synthesis. To

Restatement of the optimum synthesis of function generators 69

certain design variables will be restricted right from within the optimisation algorithm to

only a small number of decimals.

functions

Figure 7 depicts a planar four-bar mechanism with unit rocker length (i.e., OA = 1),

equipped with a variable-length coupler AB. This allows any correlation (ϕj,ψj) of the

input and output links to be exactly satisfied by modifying the coupler length in the

amount δABj.

Synthesising an actual four-bar mechanism for the generation of functions requires

minimising the deviation δψ between the imposed output-link motion given by Eq. (3),

and the actual I/O function ψ(ϕ(u)), where ϕ(u) is calculated with Eq. (2). At a control

point uj within the interval [ui…uf] to be mechanised, this deviation will be:

δψ j = ψ (φ (u j )) −ψ ( f (u j )) (4)

For the modified linkage in Figure 7, a change in length δABj = AB − ABj is *

j

Figure 7 Variable length coupler four-bar mechanism shown in a prescribed position j. R*j is the

reaction force inside joint B which is collinear with link AB, and Vj* is the velocity

vector of joint B

four-bar mechanism with rigid coupler is defined as follows:

δψ (u j )

F (...) = max ⋅100% . (5)

j =1…n Δψ

where j = 1…n are discrete control points. Objective function F(…) has the drawback

that it requires a complete displacement analysis of the mechanism for every control

point j, being in addition not defined in the positions where the mechanism cannot be

assembled.

70 P.A. Simionescu

coupler-length variation δABj is related to the exactly calculated output error δψj

according to the following approximate relation (Simionescu and Beale, 2002):

δψ j ≅ δ AB j ( AB ⋅ cos γ ) = δψ

*

j

*

j (6)

where γ *j is the pressure angle at the joint B for the mechanism with adjusted coupler

length. Using this approximation, an alternative objective function is defined, i.e.,

δ AB j 1

F1 (...) = max ⋅ ⋅100% . (7)

j =1… n AB ⋅ cos γ *

j Δψ

which is very easier to evaluate, and in addition returns real values for any point of the

design space, less for Δψ=0. Angle γ *j occurring in Eqs. (6) and (7) can be determined by

subtracting 90° from the angle formed by vectors AB*j and CD*j associated to the

respective links (Figure 7):

Because in a synthesis problem angles γ* are calculated for the adjusted-length coupler,

Eq. (8) provides only an approximation to the actual pressure angle. As the search

progresses towards the minimum of F1 however, this approximation of γ will be

increasingly accurate, and likewise F1 will approximate better the exactly calculated error

function F. This means that during the optimisation process γ* can be used confidently to

verify the imposed limits upon the pressure angle of the mechanism.

The seven parameters that can be adjusted during the optimum synthesis process of

the four-bar (i.e., the variables of the objective functions F and F1) are: link lengths BC

and OC; maximum displacement of the input link Δϕ (positive only); maximum

displacement of the output link Δψ (either positive or negative); initial angles ϕs and ψs

of the input and output links respectively; a number k between 0 and 1 defining an exact

point (ϕ0,ψ0), with ϕ0=ϕs+k⋅Δϕ and ψ0 calculated with Eq. (3). This exact point (ϕ0,ψ0)

will serve to calculate the coupler length AB.

functions

The above derivations valid for the four-bar linkage can be extended to the synthesis of

slider-rocker and rocker-slider function generators (Figures 8 and 9). In these cases, the

link length of the mechanism will be normalised relative to the slider travel, i.e., ΔS will

be assumed equal to one.

Restatement of the optimum synthesis of function generators 71

There are six parameters that can be adjusted during the optimum synthesis process of the

slider-rocker mechanism (Figure 8) as follows: slider eccentricity e; length BC; distance

OC; maximum displacement Δψ and initial angle of the rocker ψs; and a number k

between 0 and 1 serving to define an exact point (S0,ψ0), with S0=SS+k⋅ΔS and with ψ0

calculated using Eq. (3). Same as above, the exact point (S0,ψ0) will be used to determine

the coupler length AB. Of these design variables, e, OC, and Δψ can be either positive or

negative. The objective function similar to F1 employed in synthesising the slider-rocker

function generating mechanism will be:

δ AB j 1

F2 (...) = max ⋅ ⋅100% . (9)

j =1… n AB ⋅ cos γ *

j Δψ

* *

position j, where Rj is the force delivered by coupler AB, and Vj is the velocity

vector of the slider

72 P.A. Simionescu

The design variables of the rocker-slider function generator mechanism in Figure 9 (also

six in number) have been chosen as follows: slider eccentricity e; rocker length OA;

coordinate xBs from where the slider displacement S is measured; maximum input-link

displacement Δϕ (either positive or negative) and its initial angle ϕs; and a number k

between 0 and 1 that defines the exact point (ϕ0,S0) with ϕ0=ϕs+k⋅Δϕ and S0=Ss.

S (u ) = Ss + K 2 ⋅ ( f (u ) − f (us ) ) (10)

Similarly, the exact point (ϕ0,S0) will serve to calculate the coupler length AB. The

variable-length-coupler-based objective function will be in this case:

δ AB j 1

F3 (...) = max ⋅ ⋅100% . (11)

j =1…n cos γ *j ΔS

where the approximate pressure angle γ *j is the angle formed by vectors AB*j associated

to the deformed coupler AB, and a horizontal unit vector i.e.

5 Numerical results

Objective functions F1, F2, and F3 with n = 120 control points subjected to ⎪ γ max

*

⎪ ≤ 45°

have been minimised using a multi-start Nelder and Mead algorithm (Press et al., 2007).

Knowing that any practical function-generator will have rounded-off dimensions, all

linear design variables have been limited to only three decimals right from within the

search algorithm (Simionescu, 2014). Similarly, the angular motion ranges Δϕ and/or Δψ

have been rounded to a multiple of 0.5° by the search algorithm. A post-synthesis

analysis has been finally performed to evaluate the exactly calculated relative error, as

well as the exactly calculated pressure angle γ.

In case of objective function F1, the limits of the design variables and the optimum

solutions found through optimisation for Δϕ > 0 and Δψ > 0 and Δϕ > 0 and Δψ < 0 are

summarised in Table 1. These mechanism solutions are drawn at scale in Figures 1 and

2(a). Their kinematic and performance diagrams are shown in Figure 10.

Table 1 Search domains and solutions of the optimum four-bar generator of function log(u)

with 0 ≤ u ≤ 10 and ⎪ γ max ⎪ ≤ 45°

*

The mechanism in Figures 1 and 10(a) The mechanism in Figures 2(a) and 10(b)

OA 1.0 OA 1.0

0.1 ≤ OC ≤ 2.5 0.451 0.1 ≤ OC ≤ 2.5 2.123

0.1 ≤ BC ≤ 2.5 0.630 0.1 ≤ BC ≤ 2.5 0.671

0 ≤ ϕs ≤ 360° 8.9625° 0 ≤ ϕs ≤ 360° 83.5930°

0 ≤ ψs ≤ 360° 96.7979° 0 ≤ ψs ≤ 360° 276.1691°

60 ≤ Δϕ ≤ 120° 115.50° 60°≤ Δϕ ≤ 120° 86.00°

60 ≤ Δψ ≤ 120° 70.50° –120°≤ Δψ ≤ 60° –60.00°

Restatement of the optimum synthesis of function generators 73

Table 1 Search domains and solutions of the optimum four-bar generator of function log(u)

with 0 ≤ u ≤ 10 and ⎪ γ max ⎪ ≤ 45° (continued)

*

The mechanism in Figures 1 and 10(a) The mechanism in Figures 2(a) and 10(b)

0≤k≤1 0.02253 0≤k≤1 0.39563

AB 0.783 AB 2.647

Approximately maximum 2.162% Approximately maximum error 3.504%

error (F1) (F1)

Exact maximum error 2.305% Exact maximum error 3.776%

⎪γ

*

⎪ ≤ 45° 44.434° ⎪γ *

⎪ ≤ 45° 44.729°

max max

Figure 10 Kinematic and performance diagrams of the four-bar function generator in Figures 1

and 2(a). The dashed ψ(ϕ) curves are the ideal I/O functions, while the dashed error

and pressure angle γ curves are the approximate ones (see online version for colours)

74 P.A. Simionescu

Table 2. The corresponding rocker-slider and slider-rocker mechanisms drawn at scale

are those shown in Figures 2(b) and 2(c), while their kinematic and performance

diagrams are available for comparison in Figures 11.

Table 2 Search domains and of solutions of the optimum slider-rocker and rocker-slider

generators of function log(u) with 0 ≤ u ≤ 10 and⎪ γ max

*

⎪ ≤ 45°

The mechanism in Figures 2(b) and 11(a) The mechanism in Figures 2(c) and 11(b)

ΔS 1.0 ΔS 1.0

Ss 0.0 Ss 0.0

−2.5 ≤ OC ≤ 2.5 0.215 0.2 ≤ OA ≤ 2.5 1.754

0.5 ≤ BC ≤ 2.5 0.707 −1.5 ≤ yB ≤ 1.5 −0.277

−1.5 ≤ yA ≤ 1.5 −0.599 0 ≤ xBs ≤ 360° −1.118

0 ≤ ψs ≤ 360° 318.095° 0 ≤ ϕs ≤ 360° 280.803°

60°≤ Δψ ≤ 120° 60.00° 60°≤ Δϕ ≤ 120° 117.50°

0≤k≤1 0.03400 0≤k≤1 0.79284

AB 0.785 AB 2.034

Approximately maximum error Approximately maximum error 1.615%

5.698%

(F2) (F3)

Exact maximum error (F) 6.427% Exact maximum error (F) 1.619%

⎪γ

*

⎪ ≤ 45° 44.193° ⎪γ *

⎪ ≤ 45° 44.984°

max max

The aforementioned numerical experiments have been repeated for the same objective

functions F1, F2, and F3, same number of control points n and same side constraints, but

for ⎪ γ max

*

⎪ ≤ 60°. The results obtained are gathered in Table 3. The rocker-slider

mechanism exhibits again the best performance, being capable of generating the function

log(u) over the interval 1≤ u ≤10 with a maximum relative error of only 0.037% (Figures

12 and 13 and animation (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:RRRT_Func_Geen_

Log(u).gif)). Interestingly, the number of precision points is only two, contrary to the

expectation that higher precision comes with an increased number of precision points

(Mehar, Singh and Mehar, 2015). Another observation is that the search domain of the

design variable k used to calculate coupler length AB can be reduced from [0…1] to only

[0…0.5] since at least two exact points of the function generating mechanism are

expected to occur in this reduced interval.

Restatement of the optimum synthesis of function generators 75

Figure 11 Kinematic and performance diagrams of the optimum slider-rocker and rocker-slider

function generators in Figures 2(b) and 2(c). The dashed ψ(ϕ) and S(ϕ) curves are the

ideal I/O functions, while the dashed error and pressure angle γ curves are the

approximately calculated ones (see online version for colours)

Table 3 Optimum four-bar, slider-rocker and rocker-slider generators of function log(u) with

0 ≤ u ≤ 10 and ⎪ γ max ⎪ ≤ 60°

*

Rocker-slider mechanism

Four-bar mechanisms Slider-rocker mechanism (Figures 12 and 13)

OA = 1.0 OA = 1.0 ΔS = 1.0 ΔS = 1.0

OC = 0.699 OC = 1.46100 Ss = 0.0 Ss = 0.0

BC = 1.028 BC = 0.677 OC = 1.34100 OA = 2.35400

ϕs = 32.48771° ϕs = 61.5497° BC = 0.51700 yB = –0.49700

ψs = 112.91018° ψs = 273.2961° yA = 0.53400 xBs = –1.15400

Δϕ = 118.50° Δϕ = 96.5° ψs = 178.01804 ϕs = 152.23159

Δψ = 63.00° Δψ = –74.0° Δψ = 60.00° Δϕ = 90.00

AB = 0.68500 AB = 1.85600 AB = 0.98500 AB = 1.84500

F1 = 0.5981% F1 = 1.340% F2 = 4.587% F3 = 0.037%

F = 0.5939% F = 1.383% F = 4.664% F = 0.037%

⎪γ *

max ⎪ = 9.86° ⎪γ *

max ⎪ = 9.94° ⎪γ *

max ⎪ = 59.93° ⎪ γ max

*

⎪ = 59.764°

⎪γmax⎪ = 59.75° ⎪γmax⎪ = 59.29° ⎪γmax⎪ = 56.16° ⎪γmax⎪ = 59.747°

76 P.A. Simionescu

Figure 12 Kinematic and performance diagrams of the optimum slider-rocker and rocker-slider

function generators in Figure 13. Note that the ideal and the actual I/O curves, as well

as the exact and the approximately calculated error and pressure angle curves are near

identical (see online version for colours)

log(u) with 1≤ u ≤10. See also animation (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:

RRRT_Func_Geen_Log(u).gif) (see online version for colours)

An additional set of numerical experiments have been performed for a comparison with

recently reported results obtained using a precision-point method (Mehar, Singh and

Mehar, 2015). These experiments consisted of synthesising planar four-bar, slide-rocker,

Restatement of the optimum synthesis of function generators 77

and rocker-slider mechanisms for the generation of the function tan(u) over the interval

0 ≤ u ≤ 45°, while imposing the pressure angle not to exceed 60°. The results obtained are

summarised in Table 4 and in Figure 14. The slider-rocker mechanism provided the

best solution, with a maximum relative error of only 0.00645%. Figure 1(b) and

animation (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:TRRR_Func_Geen_Tan(u).gif) are

scale representations of this slider-rocker mechanism.

Table 4 Optimum four-bar, slider-rocker and rocker-slider generators of the function tan(u)

with 0 ≤ u ≤ 45° and ⎪ γ max

*

⎪ ≤ 60°

OA = 1.0 ΔS = 1.0 ΔS = 1.0

OC = 2.063 Ss = 0.0 Ss = 0.0

BC = 0.517 OC = 1.77600 OA = 2.37600

ϕs = 207.17832° BC = 0.94600 yB = −0.76100

ψs = 162.61021° yA = −0.51000 xBs = 0.02400

Δϕ = 60° ψs = 356.00137 ϕs = −178.10006°

Δψ = −64° Δψ = 74.5° Δϕ = 61.5°

AB = 2.534 AB = 1.6000 AB = 2.49300

F1 = 0.02530% F2 = 0.006447% F3 = 0.087767%

F = 0.02532% F = 0.006449% F = 0.087789%

⎪γ *

max ⎪ = 58.65° ⎪γ *

max ⎪ = 59.93° ⎪ γ max

*

⎪ = 33.1469°

⎪γmax⎪ = 58.66° ⎪γmax⎪ = 56.16° ⎪γmax⎪ = 33.1570°

Figure 14 Variation with input link displacement of the relative errors and pressure angles of the

four-bar (curves 1), slider-rocker (curves 2) and rocker-slider (curves 3) optimised

generators of the function tan(u) with 0 ≤ u ≤45° (see online version for colours)

78 P.A. Simionescu

6 Conclusions

The planar four-bar, slider-rocker, and rocker-slider mechanisms have been synthesised

for function generation using optimisation techniques. Distinction has been made

between the design variables that determine the shape of the input-output function of the

mechanism, and the design variables that affect the degree of overlap between this and

the function to be mechanised. The latter parameters include the motion ranges and

relative motion of the input and output links. For added simplicity, adjustable-coupler

mechanisms that have an added degree-of-freedom were assumed in the definition of the

respective objective-function. Such objective functions come with the benefit of an

extended design spaces, and are less CPU time intensive in comparison with full

kinematic-analysis-based objective functions. Also accounted for during the synthesis

process was the effect of rounding off of the linear and angular design variables, inherent

to any practical implementation of the respective mechanism solutions. A number of

examples for the generation of logarithm and tangent functions have been presented. The

optimum planar rocker-slider and slider-rocker linkages (which have been overlooked in

the past in favour of the four-bar linkage), emerged as particularly good solutions.

References

Alizade, R.I., Mohan Rao, A.V. and Sandor, G.N. (1975) ‘Optimum synthesis of four-bar and

offset slider–crank planar and spatial mechanism using the penalty function approach with

inequality and equality constraints’, Transactions of the ASME, Journal of Engineering for

Industry, Vol. 97, No. 3, pp.785–790.

Artobolevsky, I.I., Levitskii, N.I. and Cercudinov, S.A. (1959) Synthesis of Planar Mechanisms,

Fizmatghiz, Moscow (in Russian).

Avilés, R., Amezua, E. and Hernandez, A. (1994) ‘An energy-based general method for the optimal

synthesis of mechanisms’, ASME Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 116, No. 1, pp.127–136.

Avilés, R., Vallejo, J., de Bustos, I.F., Aguirrebeitia, J. and Ajuria, G. (2010) ‘Optimum synthesis

of planar linkages using a strain–energy error function under geometric constraints’,

Mechanism and Machine Theory, Vol. 45, No. 1, pp.65–79.

Balli, S.S. and Chanda, S. (2002) ‘Transmission angle in mechanisms (triangle in mech)’,

Mechanism and Machine Theory, Vol. 37, No. 2, pp.175–195.

Collard, J-F., Duysinx, P. and Fisette, P. (1910) ‘Optimal synthesis of planar mechanisms via an

extensible-link approach’, Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, Vol. 42, No. 3,

pp.403–415.

Freudenstein, F. (1955) ‘Approximate synthesis of four-bar linkages’, Transactions of the ASME,

Vol. 77, No. 8, pp.853–861.

Hartenberg, R.S. and Denavit, J. (1964) Kinematic Synthesis of Linkages, McGraw-Hill, New York,

NY.

Levitskii, N.I., Sarkissyan, Y.L. and Geckian, G.S. (1972) ‘Optimum synthesis of for-bar function

generating mechanism’, Mechanism and Machine Theory, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp.387–398.

Mehar, K., Singh, S. and Mehar, R. (2015) ‘Optimal synthesis of four-bar mechanism for function

generation with five accuracy points’, Inverse Problems in Science and Engineering, Vol. 23,

No. 7, pp.1222–1236.

Plecnik, M.M., McCarthy, J.M. (2011) ‘Five position synthesis of a slider-crank function

generator’, Proc. of the ASME 2011 DETC, Paper DETC2011-47581 2011, Aug. 28–31, 2011,

Washington, DC, pp.317–324.

Restatement of the optimum synthesis of function generators 79

Press, W.H., Teukolsky, S.A., Vetterling, W.T. and Flannery, B.P. (2007) Numerical Recipes: The

Art of Scientific Computing, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Simionescu, P.A. (1999) Contributions to the Optimum Synthesis of Linkage Mechanisms with

Applications, Doctoral Dissertation, Polytechnic University of Bucharest.

Simionescu, P.A. (2014) Computer-aided Graphing and Simulation Tools for AutoCAD Users,

Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, FL.

Simionescu, P.A. and Alexandru, P. (1995) ‘Synthesis of function generators using the method of

increasing the degree of freedom of the mechanism’, Proc. 9th World Cong. Theor. Mach.

Mech., 29 August–5 September, Milan, Vol. 1, pp.139–143.

Simionescu, P.A. and Beale, D.G. (2002) ‘Optimum synthesis of the four-bar function generator in

its symmetric embodiment: the Ackermann steering linkage’, Mechanism and Machine

Theory, Vol. 37, No. 12, pp.1487–1504.

Simionescu, P.A. and Talpasanu, I. (2007) ‘Synthesis and analysis of the steering system of an

adjustable tread-width four-wheel tractor’, Mechanism and Machine Theory, Vol. 42, No. 5,

pp.526–540.

Simionescu, P.A., Smith, M.R. and Tempea, I. (2000) ‘Synthesis and analysis of the two loop

translational input steering mechanism’, Mechanism and Machine Theory, Vol. 35, No. 7,

pp.927–943.

Söylemez, E. (2002) ‘Classical transmission-angle problem for slider–crank mechanisms’,

Mechanism and Machine Theory, Vol. 37, No. 4, pp.419–425.

Suh, C.H. and Mecklenburg, A.W. (1973) ‘Optimal design of mechanisms with the use of matrices

and least squares’, Mechanism and Machine Theory, Vol. 8, No. 4, pp.479–495.

Suh, C.H. and Radcliffe, C.W. (1978) Kinematics and Mechanisms Design, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.

Svoboda, A. (1943) Mechanism for Use in Computing Apparatus, US Patent 2,328,306

Svoboda, A. (1948) Computing Mechanisms and Linkages, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Tao, D.C. (1965) Applied Linkage Synthesis, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

Volmer, J. and Jensen, P.W. (1962) ‘Four bar power linkages’, Product Engineering, Nov. 12,

1962, pp.71–76.

- Course 14Uploaded byupradeep7
- PDFUploaded bystdropbox
- Design Optimition.pdfUploaded byHüseyin Kalkan
- Optimization, PedregalUploaded bymjcarri
- 09 - SA5 Analysis of NGMN Requirement 9 - LTE Parameter Optimization.pptUploaded byinfo vista
- The Circle Module One Quiz With AnswersUploaded byM J Rhoades
- couplercurveUploaded byKevin Basto
- SPE-129126-MSUploaded bysanty222
- Adapting computational optimization concepts from aeronautics to nuclear fusion reactor design.pdfUploaded byE-Yang Chong
- RMT_ lesson plan 20161.docUploaded byVjay Narain
- Robust Design of Automotive Component Using Optimization Analysis in Nonlinear DomainUploaded byendra79
- IB 03change Axes(8 10)Uploaded byeamcetmaterials
- Pareto OptimalityUploaded byBaqer Merchant
- DSCI 3870 Fall 2014 Exam 1 KeyUploaded byGary Chen
- Abstracts Ws3Uploaded byalin444444
- Flow Discharge Modeling in Open Canals Using ANew Fuzzy Modeling Technique (SMRGT)Uploaded byAll Entertainment
- Adstock Rate – Deriving With Analytical Methods _ BlogUploaded bybashdeep
- Lecture06 ICUploaded bynavdin
- docslide.net_wcdma-optimization-drive-test-analysis.pdfUploaded byAnonymous 8IDNRlwQB
- 1.1 AutoCad Coordinate SystemUploaded byZaka Awan
- A Multibranch Exchange Method for Distribution Loss MinimizationUploaded byminteka
- pagni read 463 assignment 6Uploaded byapi-301232294
- Annie7Uploaded byshantidsa
- Lecture 2Uploaded byRobert M. Mitchell
- Macroeconomic Policy and the Optimal Destruction of VampiresUploaded byBuse Kaplan
- 00728298 an Evolutionary Algorithm for the Optimal Design of Induction MotorsUploaded byEngr Rb
- Magdalene Marinaki PhD, Markos Papageorgiou PhD Auth. Optimal Real-time Control of Sewer NetworksUploaded byAnonymous WkbmWCa8M
- OperationsUploaded byKenKdw
- 2125Uploaded byLivia Marsa
- QA Lecture2 LP 1Uploaded byAhmed Hussein

- Meng 2013Uploaded byFiandjafar
- Usd 827969Uploaded byFiandjafar
- 1Uploaded byFiandjafar
- skripsiUploaded byFiandjafar
- Mohammed 2013Uploaded byFiandjafar
- Dry Block Heater.pdfUploaded byFiandjafar
- Nam Dar 2013Uploaded byFiandjafar
- f 101175112642938Uploaded byFiandjafar
- f 101175112642938Uploaded byFiandjafar
- Tuning Material and Component Properties to Redu 2015 Case Studies in MechanUploaded byFiandjafar
- Editorial Board 2016 Case Studies in Mechanical Systems and Signal ProcessinUploaded byFiandjafar
- 1-s2.0-S1877705814010492-mainUploaded byFiandjafar
- Numerical Investigation of Linear Particl 2016 Case Studies in Mechanical SyUploaded byFiandjafar
- A Comparative Study of Adaptive Filters in de 2016 Case Studies in MechanicaUploaded byFiandjafar
- Design Simulation and Comparison of Co 2016 Case Studies in Mechanical SystUploaded byFiandjafar
- Content List 2016 Case Studies in Mechanical Systems and Signal ProcessingUploaded byFiandjafar
- Canuto 2013Uploaded byFiandjafar
- avci2013Uploaded byFiandjafar
- Analysis of Tri-Star Frame in Stair Climbing Hand TruckUploaded byFiandjafar
- f 231115104129768Uploaded byFiandjafar
- f 104671123119582Uploaded byFiandjafar
- Ruk Kuman i 2014Uploaded byFiandjafar
- Pal 2014Uploaded byFiandjafar
- Mariani 2014Uploaded byFiandjafar
- Hamza h 2014Uploaded byFiandjafar
- Ceccarelli 2014Uploaded byFiandjafar
- Orsino 2013Uploaded byFiandjafar

- Matrix DivisionUploaded byChristian Flores
- AlgorithmUploaded bypriya
- lecture10.pdfUploaded byniraj
- 1ST Quarter Exam Math 8Uploaded byAlfredo L. Cariaso
- A Critical Review of Established Methods of Structural Topology OptimizationUploaded bykadir
- Decimal LsUploaded byZerihun Ibrahim
- MATLAB Intro RavichandranUploaded byrenji
- Resume OF DR. S.YADAVUploaded bySunil Yadav
- mgfUploaded byJuhi Taqwa Famala II
- Analytic Solutions to PDE'sUploaded bysudarsan77
- S2-PRHm3.pdfUploaded bybomtozor
- ch 05 - Halliday Exercícios Resolvidos 8 Ed.Uploaded byMaurício Matos
- sp12Uploaded byPatrick Sibanda
- Introduction to BiomechanicsUploaded byandrea_macaluso
- gr4mtap-indvUploaded bymaricel1979
- Curve Fitting with MathemaricaUploaded byomitsaras
- Studenmund_Ch02_v2Uploaded bytsy0703
- Position Analysis of MechanismsUploaded byTalha Naeem Rao
- CasioSharp Vol 2aUploaded bytranduclong
- Circle TangencyUploaded byovikbasu
- Girsanov, numeraires, and all that.pdfUploaded byLe Hoang Van
- Statistics 2008Uploaded byAmeer Bakhsh
- Consolidated Textbook Requirement for SY 2011-2012Uploaded byLeonil Estaño
- Algebra 1Uploaded byKelly Hardy
- Chapter 3- Functions With Solution20 Jun2013Uploaded byAzwa Nadhira
- Maple SimulationUploaded byThanh Nhan Le
- Higher Order DeterminantsUploaded byKanda Agung Kusuma
- SAT ACT LogarithmsUploaded byYb Andik Adi Cahyono
- MATHSUploaded byMohd Khairun
- PrimerUploaded bymidhat