See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/258010028

A Pseudo-Rigid-Body Model approach for the

design of compliant mechanism springs for
prescribed force-deflections

CONFERENCE PAPER · AUGUST 2011

DOI: 10.1115/DETC2011-47590

CITATION READS

1 49

2 AUTHORS, INCLUDING:

Mark B Colton
Brigham Young University - Provo Main Cam…
39 PUBLICATIONS 339 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate, Available from: Mark B Colton
letting you access and read them immediately. Retrieved on: 30 December 2015
 Proceedings of the ASME 2011 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences &
Computers and Information in Engineering Conference
Proceedings of the ASME 2011 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences &
IDETC/CIE 2011
Computers and August
Information in 2011,
28-31, Engineering Conference
Washington, DC, USA
IDETC/CIE 2011
August 30-September 2, 2011, Washington D.C., USA

DETC2011-4
DETC2011-47590

A PSEUDO-RIGID-BODY MODEL APPROACH FOR THE DESIGN OF COMPLIANT

MECHANISM SPRINGS FOR PRESCRIBED FORCE-DEFLECTIONS

Levi C. Leishman and Mark B. Colton

Department of Mechanical Engineering
Brigham Young University
Provo, Utah 84602
Email: levileishman@gmail.com, colton@byu.edu

ABSTRACT
Compliant mechanism springs offer a variety of benefits
for applications where nonlinear force responses are desired.
Designing a compliant mechanism spring with a prescribed
force response is a unique challenge with many design vari-
ables. This paper introduces a method, based on the Pseudo-
Rigid-Body Model (PRBM) for large beam deflections, to syn-
thesize three- and four-link compliant mechanisms that exhibit
prescribed force-deflection responses. The designer prescribes
the target force-deflection curve, the number of links the spring
is to have, and bounds for the spring’s link lengths and torsional
spring constants. The method uses a genetic algorithm rou-
tine to search for promising designs and a direct search method
to further refine the configuration to achieve the desired force-
deflection curve. Experimental results illustrate the methods
ability to generate springs whose force-deflection curves approx-
imate the target curves. The results also suggest that inclusion
of more complex configurations may lead to more accurate de-
signs. It is shown how the method can be used to design springs
that closely mimic the behavior of zero-free-length springs, and a
discussion of how the method can be extended to design springs
that behave similarly to pre-tensioned springs is presented.
INTRODUCTION
The design of springs to achieve desired force-deflection
curves is a problem that has been well defined for specific force-
deflections such as constant force or constant spring rate. Theory
for the design of the helical, washer, beam, and constant force
springs have been developed into a well defined science over the
last 300 years [1]. The majority of these theories produce springs
with constant spring rates or constant force outputs. The spring’s
deflection range is very dependent on the type of spring that is
designed and its undeflected length (free-length). While these
designs are extremely useful they are unable to meet the needs of
applications that require a specific nonlinear force-deflection re-
sponse or that have limited physical space available for the spring
with the desired deflection range to be implemented.
The physical space a spring requires is a challenge that can
be overcome in many designs through the use of pulleys and off-
set springs [2]. The addition of the pulleys and cables that attach
the spring to the system add friction and additional compliance
that reduce the overall effectiveness of the spring. There are also
many applications in which this method is unfeasible due to chal-
lenges with manufacturing. For example, microelectromechan-
ical systems (MEMS) provides a special challenge due to their
size and method with which they are manufactured. Many tra-
ditional theories for spring design are not easily transferred to
the design of springs to be used in MEMS, and manufacturing
MEMs springs based on traditional theories may be impossible.
Compliant mechanisms have proven useful in spring designs
that require small free-lengths and large deflection ranges [3–7].
The spring designs have been produced using the two leading
design methodologies for compliant mechanisms: the Pseudo-
Rigid-Body Model (PRBM) and structural optimization meth-
ods. These approaches have led to the creation of new types of

1 Copyright

c 2011 by ASME
springs with useful force-deflection relationships, as well as the
capability to specify a prescribed force-deflection response using
the structural optimization techniques [6, 7]. While it has been
shown that the Pseudo-Rigid-Body Model can be utilized to de-
sign constant force springs [4], little has been done to outline a
methodology that can be used to generate compliant mechanism
springs for any prescribed force-deflection response based on the
PRBM.
This paper presents the initial work on a PRBM-based
methodology for the design of compliant mechanism springs that
follow a prescribed force-deflection response. This work is mo-
tivated by the need for the non-linear force responses and zero-
free-length (ZFL) springs to statically balance mechanisms using
compliant members as the balancing springs [2,8–10]. This work
outlines the initial work towards designing compliant mecha-
nism springs using the PRBM that will have the required force-
deflection responses that can be integrated into compliant joints
to create statically balanced compliant mechanisms (SBCMS).
Related Work
Compliant mechanisms are mechanisms that obtain some
or all of their motion through the flexion of its compliant el-
ements. The design of these mechanisms is typically accom-
plished through three main methodologies. The Pseudo-Rigid-
Body Model (PRBM) is a kinematic approach to the design of
compliant mechanisms where the flexible members of the mech-
anism are modeled as rigid links and torsional springs [11]. In
this approach a flexible member’s PRBM is dependent on the
loading and deflections in which it will undergo. The basic mod-
els of this method are presented in [11]. Structural Optimization
methods utilize optimization theory and finite element tools to
create structures with the desired size, shape, topology, or any
other objective related to compliant mechanism design. Many
methods have been developed to do this and some of the ap-
proaches are explained in [12–14]. The third method is a building
block approach. For this approach the basic building blocks are
based on the instant centers of each compliant block, or on the as-
sembly of multiple flexible building blocks and are summarized
in [15].
The capability to optimize a spring for a given force-
deflection is apparent in structural optimization methods and can
be completed through the construction of the proper objective
function. Other methods have been presented and have recently
been revisited in which optimization routines are used to design
compliant mechanism springs with distributed compliance for
prescribed force-deflection responses. Parkinson [16] presented
a parametric approach to the design of compliant mechanisms
using splines as the design elements being analyzed in a finite
element analysis (FEA) package. Compliant mechanism designs
that yielded constant force and prescribed path following were
demonstrated. More recently Jutte expanded the idea of using
2 Copyright
splines as the design element for a compliant mechanism spring
into a methodology for the design of a spring for a prescribed
force-deflection response [6, 7]. The method again used a FEA
package to compute the objective of the optimization but used a
genetic algorithm as the optimization routine. Springs were de-
signed for various force-deflection functions and proved to match
the predicted models with a high level of accuracy.
Other methods for the design of a prescribed force deflec-
tion response have been used and have yielded designs with rigid
segments [4, 17, 18]. In [4, 17] the designs were optimized for
a constant force and were not shown to extend to the design of
mechanisms for any prescribed force. A building block approach
was used in [18] to generate a statically balanced mechanism
through the optimization of each element of the design until the
output force was zero over the mechanism’s range of motion.
Only in [4] has the PRBM been utilized for the design of a spring
for a given response and did not require the use of an FEA pack-
age in the optimization. Rather the PRBM parameters were the
design variables for the optimization and the resulting designs
were able to approximate the desired force-deflection.
Overview
Compliant mechanism springs are advantageous for many
applications where unique force responses are required and space
requirements make the use of traditional springs difficult or im-
possible. This paper presents the initial work on a PRBM-based
methodology for the design of compliant mechanism springs that
follow a prescribed force-deflection response. While other meth-
ods have been developed for the design of compliant mechanism
springs, the reliance on finite element analysis software for the
analysis of the spring adds complexity to the model and the de-
sign process. By using the PRBM, the methodology for the de-
sign of compliant mechanism springs gives the designer an intu-
itive feel for the design as it relates to its mechanical advantage
and overall stiffness.
In this work the PRBMs for three- and four-link springs are
presented and their force-deflection responses are derived for its
two dimensional rectilinear motion. An optimization routine is
defined in terms of the PRBM and the objective of the optimiza-
tion is presented detailing how the optimal spring designs are
found to follow a prescribed force-deflection response. Experi-
mental results from prototypes are compared to the predicted val-
ues for the designs. The designs prove to approximate the target
force-deflection responses and the performance and limitations
of the optimization are discussed.
PSEUDO-RIGID BODY MODEL FOR COMPLIANT
SPRINGS
Using the Pseudo-Rigid-Body Model to design compliant
mechanism springs allows the springs to be analyzed using tradi-
c 2011 by ASME
 KT3
Fin r4
γ θ4
r4 λ

β
r1
r1 r3
r3 δ θ2

KT1 θ1

φ r2
r2
KT2
θ3

FIGURE 1. PRBM FOR COMPLIANT MECHANISM SPRINGS FIGURE 3. RIGID-LINK FOUR-BAR MECHANISM
WITH THREE LINKS.

KT4 With the springs defined for the PRBM, the force response
Fin of the springs due to a displacement can be found using kine-
r5 matic relations. For every displacement r1 that the spring can
r4 be subjected to there is one position that will have the lowest en-
ergy state for the configurations of springs that were investigated.
KT3
This is where the links in the spring will reside with only a dis-
r1 placement load applied. For the case of the three-link spring we
KT1 see in Fig. 1 that it resembles a four bar mechanism for any given
r3 displacement and will behave as such at each displacement, if the
ground link was rigid. The ground link is defined as r1 and its
r2 length is equal to the free length of the spring plus the amount
KT2 the spring is displaced. The position of each link in the spring
can then be found for any given angle of r2 in reference to the
horizontal plane using Eqn. (1 - 6). Where δ , β , φ , λ , θ1 , θ2 , θ3 ,
and θ4 are defined in Fig. 3.
FIGURE 2. PRBM FOR COMPLIANT MECHANISM SPRINGS
WITH FOUR LINKS
1
δ = (r12 + r22 − 2r1 r2 cos(θ2 − θ1 )) 2 (1)

tional kinematic relationships and the force output of the mecha-

nism is readily found using either newtonian methods or the prin-
r12 + δ 2 − r22
ciple of virtual work [11]. The PRBM requires that a torsional β = arccos (2)
spring be placed at each joint that contains a flexible member 2δ r1
and that the mechanism be modeled by rigid links. Each indi-
vidual spring constant, KT n is found by using the equation for
that specific type of flexible element that the spring is represent- r32 + δ 2 − r42
ing. Figures 1 and 2 show the PRBM for the two spring types φ = arccos( ) (3)
2δ r3
presented in this work. Our objective is to design the compliant
mechanism spring using the PRBM so that the Fin for the mech-
anism at prescribed displacements (r1 ) of the spring matches a
r42 + δ 2 − r32
specified target force. It is important to point out that there are λ = arccos( ) (4)
many types of flexible members that can be used in these types of 2δ r4
springs and will follow the same modeling principles that will be
presented here if they are designed such that they have the same
PRBM. θ3 = φ − (β − θ1 ) (5)

3 Copyright
c 2011 by ASME
 θ4
given displacement the angles of links r2 and r5 are to be found.
r5 In addition to this, it must be accounted for that the five bar mech-
r4 θ5 anism may be constructed two different ways. For our purposes,
the two assemblies are called open and crossed and follow the
θ3 kinematic convention similar to the a four-bar for this labeling.
The definition of the link angles is shown in Fig. 4. To find the
θ1 position of each link in the spring, a line from the end of r2 to
r3 r5 is defined by first finding the vertical and horizontal change
going from the end of r2 to r5 , and then calculating the angle of
r2 this line.
θ2

dx = r5 cos θ5 − r2 cos θ2 (9)

FIGURE 4. ANGLE DEFINITIONS FOR THE FOUR-LINK

SPRING’S PRBM dx = r5 sin θ5 − r2 sin θ2 + r1 (10)

θ4 = π − λ − (β − θ1 ) (6) 1
d = (dx2 + dy2 ) 2 (11)

For the three-link spring design, angles of the links are measured
following kinematic conventions for a four-bar mechanism. To
find the equilibrium configuration for a given displacement of dy
θd = arctan (12)
the spring we need to know the potential energy stored within dx
the spring. For the three-link spring PRBM shown in Fig. 1 the
potential energy is given by Equation (9) refers to the change in horizontal position from the
end of r2 to r5 , and Eqn. (10) defines the vertical change. Equa-
tions (11, 12) then define the magnitude and angle with respect
1
V = (KT1 (ψ1 )2 + KT2 (ψ2 )2 + KT3 (ψ3 )2 ), (7) to horizontal of the line.
2 The positions of the additional links of the spring are found
by solving for the angles from the triangle formed by the line and
where the remaining two links. For the open configuration the angles
are
ψ1 = θ1 − θ1o
ψ2 = θ2 − θ2o − (θ3 − θ3o ) (8) r32 + d − r42
θ3 = arccos + θd (13)
ψ3 = θ4 − θ4o − (θ3 − θ3o ) 2dr3

and
and KT n is the torsional spring constant for the flexible mem-
ber, θn is the deflected angle and θno is the undeflected angle of r42 + d − r32
the nth link. The equilibrium configuration is found by solving θ4 = − arccos + θd + π. (14)
2dr4
Eqn. (7) for the angle of r2 that results in the lowest potential
energy with the given displacement. This is to be done at each
The angles for the crossed configuration are
displacement value to fully describe how the spring is deflecting
through a range of displacements.
To find the four-link spring kinematics, the same approach r32 + d − r42
θ3 = − arccos + θd (15)
is taken as in the three link spring case, but defining its position 2dr3
for a given displacement is more challenging due to the addi-
tional link. The four-link spring at a given displacement will and
have the kinematic behavior of a five bar mechanism, which is
a two degree of freedom mechanism according to the Gruebler’s r42 + d − r32
equation [19]. To solve for the springs equilibrium position for a θ4 = arccos + θd + π. (16)
2dr4

4 Copyright
c 2011 by ASME
 The potential energy of the four-link spring from Fig. 2 can Equation (22) can be expanded by substituting in from Eqn. (7)
now be defined as for a three link spring to give

1
V = (KT1 (ψ1 )2 + KT2 (ψ2 )2 + KT3 (ψ3 )2 + KT4 (ψ4 )2 ) (17) ∂ ψ1 ∂ ψ2 ∂ ψ3
2 δWsp = (KT1 (ψ1 ) + KT2 (ψ2 ) + KT3 (ψ3 ) ) · δ r1
∂ r1 ∂ r1 ∂ r1
(24)
where By substituting in from Eqn. (19, 23, 24) and setting the virtual
work done by the system to zero, the magnitude of the force input
ψ1 = θ1 − θ1o into the system for a given displacement is found to be,
ψ2 = θ2 − θ2o − (θ3 − θ3o ) (18)
ψ3 = θ4 − θ4o − (θ3 − θ3o ) (KT1 (ψ1 ) ∂∂ψr 1 + KT2 (ψ2 ) ∂∂ψr 2 + KT3 (ψ3 ) ∂∂ψr 3 )
1 1 1
ψ4 = θ5 − θ5o − (θ4 − θ4o ). Fin = . (25)
(−r2 sin θ2 ∂∂ θr 2 − r3 sin θ3 ∂∂ θr 3 + r4 sin θ4 ∂∂ θr 4 )
1 1 1

Force Response for the Compliant Mechanism Springs

The output force for the three- and four-link springs for a
given displacement is found using the principle of virtual work.
This method utilizes energy methods to solve for conservative
forces acting on a system through the calculation of the virtual
work done by a virtual displacement. The virtual work done by
an input force F~in over a virtual displacement δ~z, is
δWF = F~in · δ~z.
This expression describes the force required to deflect the three-
link spring any given displacement as it is defined in Eqn. (20)as
long as it does not elastically deform any flexible member of the
spring. This expression then can be evaluated to see if the spring
has a desirable force-displacement function. The same approach
was taken for a four link spring with the PRBM shown in Fig. 2.
The magnitude of the input force required to displace that spring
a given displacement is given by,
(19)

In the case of the compliant mechanism springs defined here, ~z (KT1 (ψ1 ) ∂∂ψr 1 + KT2 (ψ2 ) ∂∂ψr 2 + KT3 (ψ3 ) ∂∂ψr 3 + KT4 (ψ4 ) ∂∂ψr 4 )
1 1 1 1
Fin =
is equal in magnitude to r1 and can be defined in terms of the (−r2 sin θ2 ∂∂ θr 2 − r3 sin θ3 ∂∂ θr 3 + r4 sin θ4 ∂∂ θr 4 + r5 sin θ5 ∂∂ θr 5 )
1 1 1 1
spring’s links and link angles. For a three-link spring ~z is given (26)
as For the Eqn. (25,26) the partial derivatives can be found numer-
ically using the difference of the values of the angles for each
~z = r2 sin θ2 + r3 sin θ3 − r4 sin θ4 (20) displacement and dividing them by the change in r1 .

The force required to displace the springs is found from the total
work of the system which is PRESCRIBED FORCE-DISPLACEMENT OPTIMIZATION
In the previous section the method of finding the required
force to displace a compliant mechanism spring was outlined.
δWtot = δWF − δWsp (21)
The models in Eqn. (25,26) show the designer how each element
of the design effects the resulting force-deflection response of the
where spring. The goal of this work is to use those models to manipu-
late the designs such that a prescribed force can be supplied and
∂V the designer can generate a spring that approximates the target
δWsp = · δ r1 . (22)
∂ r1 response.
In order to find the optimal design of a compliant mechanism
V is the potential energy of the spring and δ r1 is the virtual dis- spring, an optimization algorithm was developed that utilizes the
placement it undergoes in the direction of the displacement of strengths of a genetic algorithm to move through the highly com-
the spring. Equation (19) can be expanded for the three link case plex and nonlinear design space of the spring. Initially, a direct
to make the work done by F~in be in terms of the same virtual search algorithm was solely used to find an optimal design for the
displacement as in Eqn. (22). This is done by differentiating ~z springs but it quickly became apparent that the ability to choose
shown in Eqn. (20) with respect to r1 to obtain initial conditions that would lead to a suitable design was dif-
ficult and made the exploration of the entire design space very
∂ θ2 ∂ θ3 ∂ θ4 time consuming. A genetic algorithm (GA) was added to the
δ~z = (r2 cos θ2 + r3 cos θ3 − r4 cos θ4 )δ r1 (23) front end of the direct search to act as a filter for many unfeasible
∂ r1 ∂ r1 ∂ r1

5 Copyright

c 2011 by ASME
and unsuccessful starting positions for the algorithm. The GA
also is able to jump out of the many local minima that the direct
search would fall into and allow for more of the design space to
be explored.
Chromosomes were initialized for the GA and the variables
chosen were the same as the design variables used for the di-
rect search optimization. The design variables were chosen
in a manner so that the number of the variables would be the
smallest possible while still allowing for the design space to be
flexible enough for an optimal design to be found for the de-
sired force displacement. The chromosomes for the two types
of springs were initialized using variables from the spring de-
sign and where defined as CH3L = [θ2o , r2 , r3 , r4 , KT1 , KT2 , KT3 ]
and CH4L = [θ2o , θ5o , r2 , r3 , r4 , r5 , KT1 , KT2 , KT3 , KT4 ,C]. The C in
CH4L defines whether the spring design is in an open or closed
configuration. Each gene was randomly assigned a value within
the bounds of the optimization and was repeated for each child in
the population. Parents for the next generation were chosen from
the top 25% of designs. The children were generated through a
copy of the best parent, cross over, and mutation. For this study
the cross over rate was set to 20%, mutation rate of the angle gene
was set to 40%, and for the link lengths a mutation rate was set
to 98%. With each generation of the GA the chromosomes were
compared against the bounds of the optimization and parame-
ters that were outside of the bounds were set to be the value of
the closest bound. After this constraint operation was completed
the children for that generation were evaluated and then ranked.
Upon the completion of twenty generations the best design was
sent to a direct search optimization routine within MATLAB.
Optimization Objective Function
The primary objective of the optimization is to minimize the
error in the force-deflection curve of the proposed spring design
when compared to the target force-deflection. Additional cost
functions were added to ensure that the generated spring designs
were feasible for manufacturing, functionality, and that the de-
sign stayed within the limitations of the model that was being
optimized. Thus the objective function for the optimization con-
sists of a force-deflection error function, an assembly cost func-
tion, and a PRBM limitation cost function.
Force-Deflection Error Function After a spring de-
sign’s motion is characterized for the deflection it will undergo,
its force output is calculated for each given displacement us-
ing Eqn. (25) for a three-link spring or Eqn. (26) for a four-link
spring. The error function is then calculated by taking the abso-
lute value of the difference between the desired and actual force
of the spring at a given displacement and summing it for each
6 Copyright
point on the target force-deflection:
m
EFD = ∑ |Fdesi − Fini | (27)
i=1
where m is the number of target points specified in the supplied
target force-deflection. It should be pointed out that the number
of control targets will greatly affect how well the algorithm is
able to match the desired force deflection. If the user supplies few
points for a simple function there is a possibility that the algo-
rithm will generate spring designs that exactly pass through the
target points but do not behave favorably between those points.
Thus the designer must supply a sufficient number of points to
adequately define the shape of the force-deflection curve so that
the algorithm is constrained to find designs that better approxi-
mate the target curve between points with more accuracy.
Assembly Cost Function Due to the randomly gener-
ated designs within the genetic algorithm, there is a possibility
that it will not be possible to assemble certain designs. Also cer-
tain combinations of link lengths will results in a spring design
that will not be able to undergo the desired displacements. In
these instances the equations used to define the spring’s kine-
matics begin to return imaginary results. In order to avoid such
designs the Assembly Cost Function (ACF) was implemented to
penalize designs that are impossible to assemble or unable to un-
dergo the required displacements. This function checks if the
design does not meet the necessary criteria and assigns a large
penalty for the spring design. If either condition is met, the
penalty is assessed, if not EACF is set to zero.
PRBM Limitation Cost Function This cost function
was implemented to ensure that the proposed designs stayed
within the limits of the PRBM. According to [11] every Pseudo-
Rigid Body Model is only accurate for deflections less than a cer-
tain angle. To account for this a cost function was created that pe-
nalized designs that required the PRBM for the spring to have its
flexible elements undergo deflections that are outside of the mod-
els accuracy limits. For this function the maximum deflection for
each joint is found and compared to the limits of the PRBM. If
the maximum deflection exceeds the maximum allowable angle
of deflection (θmax ) the design is penalized proportional to the
amount in which each joint angle is greater that θmax . If the joint
experiences deflections less than θmax , its cost value is set to zero.
The PRBM Limitation Cost Function (LCF) is thus defined as
n
ELCF = Λ ∑ (max(ψi ) − θmax ) (28)
i=1
c 2011 by ASME
 0.6

0.5

0.4

Force (N)
0.3

0.2

0.1
Model Predicted Force
Recorded Force
0

FIGURE 5. EXPERIMENTAL SETUP FOR TESTING THE −0.1

0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04 0.045
SPRING’S FORCE-DEFLECTION RESPONSE Spring Deflection (m)

FIGURE 6. PREDICTED AND MEASURED RESPONSE OF A

where n is the number of joints in the spring design, ψ is defined THREE-LINK SPRING DESIGNED TO DISPLAY A PARABOLIC
for the three- and four-link springs in Eqn. (8,18), and Λ is used FORCE-DEFLECTION
to weight the function to the level desirable to the designer. The
larger the value assigned to Λ results in a greater cost for the
spring’s design that exceeds these limits.
The objective of the optimization is to minimize the summa-
tion of these three functions and is given as

Fob j = min (EFD + EACF + ELCF ) (29)

θ ,r,KT ,C

where θ , r, KT , and C represent the bounds on the input angles,

link lengths, torsional spring rates, and the configuration of the
spring(open or closed) for a given spring design. In the case of
the three-link spring the value of C is constant.
RESULTS
Three spring designs were generated, manufactured and
tested. One spring design is for a three-link spring with a tar-
get force-deflection curve that resembles that of a second order
spring function defined as, F = Kx2 . A four-link design was
tested with a target function of a spring with a constant spring
rate so that F = Kx. The final spring design was generated with
a target force-deflection for a zero-free length (ZFL) spring. A
ZFL spring is a classification of a linear spring that has a force
output proportional to its entire length, meaning that it has no
physical length when undeflected. Every spring was manufac-
tured out of a polypropylene sheet with thickness of 0.00627 m.
The designs were tested using a 5 lb load cell mounted on a linear
actuator with a position transducer situated on a level counter top
as shown in Fig. 5. The springs were pulled at a rate of 0.0005
m/s to approximate static displacements. Position and force data
were recorded using LabVIEW.
Figure 6 shows the response of the three-link spring mod-
eled to be a parabolic spring and the prototype is shown in Fig.
FIGURE 7. PROTOTYPE SPRING DESIGNED TO APPROXI-
MATE A PARABOLIC SPRING FUNCTION
7. Figures 8 and show the response for the linear spring in Fig. 9.
Figure 10 displays the results of a compliant mechanism approx-
imating a ZFL spring which is shown in Fig. 11. In all of the re-
sponses it is seen that the magnitude of the spring’s responses is
less upon their return to their free-length. This is due to the hys-
teretic behavior of polypropylene. While each spring displays a
high error in their approximations, the shape of the target force-
deflection curves are apparent. Table 1 displays the specified
input angle(s) (θ ), pseudo-rigid link lengths (r), and the spring
constants (K) for the springs.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
Three spring designs are presented that were created through
the use of the Pseudo-Rigid-Body Model. Each spring’s force-
deflection response was found experimentally and compared

7 Copyright
c 2011 by ASME
 1.2 2.5

1 2

0.8 1.5
Force (N)

Force (N)
0.6 1

0.4 0.5

0.2 0 Model Predicted Force

Model Predicted Force Recorded Force
Recorded Force Objective ZFL Spring Force
0 −0.5

0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07
Spring Deflection (m) Total Length of Spring (m)

FIGURE 8. PREDICTED AND MEASURED RESPONSE OF A FIGURE 10. PREDICTED AND MEASURED RESPONSE OF
THREE-LINK SPRING DESIGN TO DISPLAY A CONSTANT A FOUR-LINK SPRING THAT APPROXIMATES A ZERO-FREE-
SPRING RATE LENGTH SPRING

FIGURE 9. PROTOTYPE SPRING DESIGNED TO APPROXI- FIGURE 11. PROTOTYPE SPRING DESIGNED TO APPROXI-
MATE A SPRING WITH A CONSTANT SPRING RATE MATE A ZERO-FREE-LENGTH SPRING

against predicted responses from their respective Pseudo-Rigid-
Body Models. While hysteresis effects dominate in each spring
due a plastic material used for the spring, the responses still ap-
proximate the shape and magnitude of the target response. In
the case of the three-link spring with a parabolic force-deflection
curve in Fig. 6 it is seen that the hysteresis is not as promi-
nent. This is due to the low stresses that occurred in this partic-
ular spring through its given displacements. Future testing with
metallic material will be done to further investigate the accuracy
of these models and expand on these initial tests for these spring
designs. The metal will not display the level of hysteresis that
the plastic springs do and will better display the force-deflection
curve a spring will have. Future work will include additional
experiments to validate that the model’s kinematics are represen-
tative of the kinematics of the springs.
Constraints on spring stresses were not implemented into the
optimization routine. This was due to the numerous types of
compliant elements that can be employed while using the PRBM
and their unique stress calculations. Future work will include
developing a method for estimating the potential stresses in the
design and implementing a penalty function into the optimiza-
tion for stresses that are not conducive to a high number of dis-
placement cycles. Thus the flexibility the method gives to the
designer in ability to chose the types of elements that are imple-
mented comes at the cost that stresses can not be solved for until
an initial design is created and may require an iterative approach
to achieve the acceptable stresses.
Additional error in the spring’s responses can be attributed
to the assumptions made while using the PRBM. The model used
in this work assumed that the compressive and tensile loads were

8 Copyright

c 2011 by ASME
TABLE 1. PSEUDO-RIGID BODY MODEL PARAMETERS FOR
PROTOTYPE SPRINGS
SpringType θ (rad) r K
Link Lengths(m) Sp. Const.( Nm )
F = Kx2 pi 0.045,0.045, 0.2257,0.0285,
0.0545 0.08225
F = K∆x 3.393, 0.0414,0.0529, 0.0845,0.0225,
2.753 0.0532, 0.0451 0.134,0.2274,0.009
F = Kx pi 0.05,0.01, 0.01366,0.45,
0.0935 0.394
such that they would not alter the path that the flexible mem-
bers would follow as they are deformed. The effect of the reac-
tion forces at the pseudo joints may alter the position of the link
lengths and the energy stored in the spring. If these forces cause
additional deflection of the elements the spring’s equilibrium po-
sition would change from that which is predicted by the model
presented here. Care must be taken when using cantilever beam
elements in the spring as their loading conditions greatly effect
the types of deflection the element experiences [11] and the ac-
curacy of the PRBM presented. As the spring moves through its
range of motion, the cantilever element would undergo extensive
changes in how forces are transmitted to it through the constant
changing of angles and thus invalidate assumptions that are made
for the design of the element based on its loading conditions.
This method of compliant spring design is accompanied
with many limitations, but if used properly it can be a power-
ful tool in the design of compliant mechanisms. First, the con-
centrated areas of compliance constituting the torsional springs
greatly limit the springs design for an extended range of motion.
This is due not only to the PRBM’s limitation on the angle of
deflection for a flexible member but also the amount of stress the
area experiences. The high stresses that are seen for the springs
contributes to the method’s limitation in producing large force
springs with a large range of deflection. As the thickness of
the flexible members must increase to obtain higher forces and
this additional material increases the bending stresses within the
spring. There are many elements within the PRBM that can be
used to reduce this effect (long flexible beams instead of small-
length-flexural pivots), but these elements do not guarantee a suf-
ficient reduction in stress throughout the spring design to see sig-
nificant increase in the spring’s force output. Additionally they
may add to the inaccuracy of the model as described in the previ-
ous paragraph. While more springs can be implemented to over-
come these limitations, the complexity of the model increases for
9 Copyright
each additional joint.
By using a genetic algorithm to initially explore the design
space for the spring many local minima are avoided in the op-
timization search. However with a design space with as many
variables as these springs do, it is difficult to ensure a better so-
lution is not achievable. The method as presented performs con-
sistently in generating spring designs that closely approximate
a target force-deflection response, with the limitations as stated
previously, but still will fall into a local minimum and be unable
to climb out to find a more feasible solution. This is in great
part due to the complexity of the design space and the objective
function that is presented in this work.
The design of the zero-free-length spring is of particular in-
terest and it should be noted that though the simulated response
in Fig. 10 does not approximate the target response throughout
the entire range of motion, it does follow it with great accuracy
through the majority of the spring’s deflection. Thus in appli-
cations where a ZFL spring is needed, but will not require the
spring to operate in the range where the approximation is poor,
this compliant mechanism spring proves to be a suitable replace-
ment. Additionally this behavior can be used in pre-tensioned
springs as well. If a target force-deflection response is supplied
the design method will produce designs that will approximate the
pre-tensioned spring through a good portion of its range of mo-
tion. Modifications that can be made to limit the displacement
needed to reach the target force-deflection would be to weight the
initial portion of the target response more heavily in the calcula-
tion of the objective function and the optimization would place a
higher weight on that portion to find solutions that would mini-
mize the error over those initial displacements.
Future work in this area will include the expansion of the
method to design compliant mechanism springs for prescribed
force-deflections here to include more links in the PRBMs for
the springs and to explore the limitations on what types of force-
deflection curves those springs can approximate. Additionally,
the limitations outlined previously will be further investigated to
better outline angle limits for the PRBM in the spring designs and
how to reduce the stresses found in the flexible members to al-
low for higher force outputs for the springs. Also the method will
be expanded to analyze the springs as non-linear torsion springs.
Spring designs will be generated and implemented that will be
designed for the static balancing of a compliant joint. These
springs will attach to the joint so that the resulting balanced joint
will be fully compliant, creating a statically balanced compliant
mechanism.
REFERENCES
[1] Associated Spring Corp., 1957. Springs, a Bibliography.
Associated Spring Corp., Bristol, CT.
[2] Herder, J. L., 2001. “Energy-free Systems; Theory, Con-
ception and Design of Statically Balanced Spring Mech-
c 2011 by ASME
 anisms”. PhD Thesis, Deflt University of Technology, in complinat mechancisms: An overview”. In Proceedings
Netherlands. of the ASME International Design Engineering Technical
[3] Edwards, B. T., Jensen, B. D., and Howell, L. L., 1999. “A Conference, IDETC2009.
pseudo-rigid-body model for functionally binary pinned- [16] Parkinson, M. B., Howell, L. L., and Cox, J. J., 1997. “A
pinned segments used in complinat mechansims”. In Pro- parametric approach to the optimization-based design of
ceedings of the ASME Design Engineering Technical Con- compliant mechanisms”. In Proceedings of the ASME De-
ference, DETC1999. DETC99/DAC-8644. sign Engineering Technical Conference, DETC1997. Paper
[4] Howell, L. L., Midha, A., and Murphy, M. D., number 3763.
1994. “Dimensioanl synthesis of compliant constant- [17] Pedersen, C. B. W., Fleck, N. A., and Anathasuresh, G. K.,
force slider mechanisms”. In Proceedings of the ASME 2006. “Design of a compliant mechanism to modify an
Design Engineering Technical Conference, DETC1994. actuatorcharacteristic to deliver a constant output force”.
DETC98/MEMD-71. ASME Journal of Mechanical Design, 128(5), pp. 1101–
[5] Parise, J. J., Howell, L. L., and Magelby, S. P., 2001. 1112.
“Ortho-planar linear-motion springs”. Mechanism Machine [18] G. Radaelli, J. G., and Herder, J. L., 2010. “An energy
Theory, 36, pp. 1281–99. approach to static balancing of systems with torsion stiff-
[6] Jutte, C. V., and Kota, S., 2008. “Design of nonlin- ness”. In Proceedings of the ASME International Design
ear springs for prescribed load-displacement funcitions”. Engineering Technical Conference, IDETC2010.
ASME Journal of Mechanical Design, 130(081403), Au- [19] Norton, R. L., 2008. Design of Machinery. McGraw-Hill,
gust. New York, NY.
[7] Jutte, C. V., and Kota, S., 2010. “Design of single, mul-
tiple, and scaled nonlinear springs for prescribed nonlin-
ear responses”. ASME Journal of Mechanical Design,
132(011003), January.
[8] Herder, J. L., and van den Berg, F. P. A., 2000. “Statically
balanced compliant mechanisms (SBCM’S), and example
and prospectus”. In Proceedings of the ASME Design
Engineering Technical Conference, DETC2000/MECH-
14144.
[9] Morsch, F. M., and Herder, J. L., 2010. “Design of a
generic zero stiffness compliant joint”. In Proceedings
of the ASME International Design Engineering Technical
Conference, IDETC2010.
[10] Leishman, L. C., Ricks, D. J., and Colton, M. B., 2010.
“Design and evaluation of statically balanced compliant
mechanisms for haptic interfaces”. In Proceedings of
the ASME Dynamic Systems and Controls Conference,
DSCC2010.
[11] Howell, L. L., 2001. Compliant Mechanisms. John Wiley
and Sons, New York, NY.
[12] Frecker, M. I., Kikuchi, N., and Kota, S., 1996. “Optimal
synthesis of compliant mechnanisms to satisfy kinematic
and structural requirements-preliminary results”. In Pro-
ceedings of the ASME Design Engineering Technical Con-
ference, DETC1996. DETC96/DAC-1497.
[13] Nishiwaki, S., Frecker, M. I., Min, S., and Kikuchi, N.,
1998. “Topology optimization of compliant mechanisms
using the homogenization method”. International Journal
for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 42, pp. 535–559.
[14] Sigmund, O., 1997. “On the design of compliant mecha-
nisms using topology optimization”. Mechanical Structural
Mechanics, 25(4), pp. 495–526.
[15] Gallego, J., and Herder, J. L., 2009. “Synthesis methods

10 Copyright
c 2011 by ASME