ELLIPTIC INTEGRAL APPROACH TO LARGE DEFLECTION IN

CANTILEVER BEAMS: THEORY AND VALIDATION

by
Arpit Samir Shah

A Thesis
Submitted to the Faculty of Purdue University
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the degree of

Master of Science in Engineering

Department of Motorsports Engineering at IUPUI

Indianapolis, Indiana
August 2024
THE PURDUE UNIVERSITY GRADUATE SCHOOL
STATEMENT OF COMMITTEE APPROVAL

Dr. Hamid Dalir, Chair

Department of Engineering Technology

Dr. Andres Tovar

Department of Mechanical and Energy Engineering

Dr. Sarah Koskie

Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering

Approved by:
Dr. Hamid Dalir

2
Dedicating this thesis to my parents: Rajeshri Shah and Samir Shah

3
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to give my sincere gratitude to my advisor Dr Hamid Dalir, for his support
and guidance for my thesis. I am thankful for the opportunity to work with him and look forward
to more in future.
I want to thank Dr. Andres Tovar for his guidance and support for my writing and helping
me in my academic career.
Lastly, I would like to thank Dr Sarah Koskie for her valuable time in my journey
researching for my thesis.

4
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................................... 7

LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................ 8
ABSTRACT.................................................................................................................................... 9
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 10
1.1 Definition and Advantage: ............................................................................................. 10
1.2 Compliant mechanisms offer several advantages ........................................................... 10
1.3 Applications of Compliant Mechanisms ........................................................................ 12
1.3.1 Industrial Tools ....................................................................................................... 12
1.3.2 Robotics and Biomechanics .................................................................................... 12
1.3.3 Medical Devices ...................................................................................................... 12
1.3.4 Everyday Products................................................................................................... 13
1.4 Flexible Beams in Modern Applications ........................................................................ 13
1.4.1 Archery Industry ..................................................................................................... 13
1.4.2 Prosthetics Industry ................................................................................................. 13
1.4.3 Other Examples ....................................................................................................... 14
1.5 Aim of This Study .......................................................................................................... 15
LITERATURE REVIEW ...................................................................................................... 16
METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................ 18
3.1 Elliptic Integrals ............................................................................................................. 18
3.2 Theoretical formulation .................................................................................................. 21
VALIDATION OF THEORETICAL MODEL..................................................................... 26
4.1 Validation Strategy ......................................................................................................... 26
4.2 Model implementation in python ................................................................................... 27
4.3 Finite Element Analysis (FEA) ...................................................................................... 28
4.4 Beam Model ................................................................................................................... 28
4.5 Setup ............................................................................................................................... 28
4.6 Comparison of load-deflection curves ............................................................................ 28
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS .................................................................................................. 35
5.1 Sensitivity Analysis of Deflection with respect to Width (w) and Height (h) ............... 37

5
 5.1.1 Key Insight: ............................................................................................................. 38
5.2 Sensitivity Analysis of Deflection with respect to Length (L) and Height (h) .............. 38
5.2.1 Explanation.............................................................................................................. 38
5.2.2 Key Insight: ............................................................................................................. 39
5.3 Sensitivity Analysis of Deflection with respect to Load (P) and Height (h) .................. 39
5.3.1 Explanation.............................................................................................................. 39
5.3.2 Key Insight: ............................................................................................................. 40
5.4 Importance of Normalization ......................................................................................... 40
5.5 Benefits of Normalization: ............................................................................................. 40
5.6 Derivative plot for deflection ......................................................................................... 40
5.7 Error Analysis of Load-Deflection Curves ..................................................................... 43
5.8 RMSE Error Plot ............................................................................................................ 43
5.9 Vertical Deflection Error Analysis ................................................................................. 44
5.10 Horizontal Deflection Error Analysis ............................................................................. 45
5.11 Summary Error Analysis ................................................................................................ 45
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ................................................................................... 47
6.1 Key Findings .................................................................................................................. 47
6.2 Implications .................................................................................................................... 48
6.3 Future Research .............................................................................................................. 49
6.4 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 49
APPENDIX A ............................................................................................................................... 50
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 54

6
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Tip deflection: Analytical vs FEA (free tip slope) ......................................................... 29

Table 2: Tip deflection: Analytical vs FEA (fixed tip slope) ....................................................... 30
Table 3: Tip deflection: Analytical vs FEA (Inclined beam) ....................................................... 32
Table 4: Tip deflection: Analytical vs FEA (Tapered beam) ....................................................... 33
Table 5: RMSE error summary ..................................................................................................... 46

7
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Rigid-body (top) and compliant (bottom) mechanisms [2] ........................................... 10

Figure 2: Compliant gripper [3] .................................................................................................... 11
Figure 3: Compliant stapler [4] ..................................................................................................... 11
Figure 4: Prosthetic leg beam model [8] ....................................................................................... 14
Figure 5: Second order elliptic integrals for different amplitudes. ............................................... 20
Figure 6: Deflected configuration of thin beam ............................................................................ 21
Figure 7: Beam deflection for 1 inflection point. ......................................................................... 27
Figure 8: Horizontal deflection vs Load (for free tip slope) ......................................................... 30
Figure 9: Vertical deflection vs Load (fixed tip slope) ................................................................. 31
Figure 10: Horizontal deflection vs Load (fixed tip slope)........................................................... 31
Figure 11:Vertical deflection vs Load (inclined beam) ................................................................ 32
Figure 12: Horizontal deflection vs Load (inclined beam) ........................................................... 33
Figure 13: Vertical deflection vs Load (tapered beam) ................................................................ 34
Figure 14: Horizontal deflection vs Load (tapered beam) ............................................................ 34
Figure 15: Deflection vs Elastic modulus for different loads ....................................................... 35
Figure 16: Deflection vs height for different loads ....................................................................... 36
Figure 17: Deflection vs width for different loads........................................................................ 36
Figure 18: Deflection vs length for different loads ....................................................................... 36
Figure 19: Contour plot for Deflection vs Width and Height ....................................................... 37
Figure 20: Contour plot for Deflection vs Length and Height...................................................... 38
Figure 21: Contour plot for Deflection vs Load and Height ......................................................... 39
Figure 22: Derivative plot for deflection vs width........................................................................ 41
Figure 23: Derivative plot of deflection vs height ........................................................................ 41
Figure 24: Derivative plot of deflection vs load ........................................................................... 42
Figure 25: RMSE error for vertical deflections vs Load for different beam configurations. ....... 44
Figure 26: RMSE error for horizontal deflections vs Load for different beam configurations. ... 45

8
 ABSTRACT

This thesis investigates the large deflection behavior of cantilever beams under various
configurations and loading conditions. The primary objective is to uset an analytical model using
elliptic integrals to solve the second-order non-linear differential equations that govern the
deflection of these beams. The analytical model is implemented in Python and compared against
Finite Element Analysis (FEA) results obtained from ANSYS, ensuring the accuracy and
reliability of the model.
The study examines multiple beam configurations, including straight and inclined beams,
with both free and fixed tip slopes. Sensitivity analysis is conducted to assess the impact of key
parameters, such as Young’s modulus, beam height, width, and length, on the deflection behavior.
This analysis reveals critical insights into how variations in material properties and geometric
dimensions affect beam performance.
A detailed error analysis using Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) is performed to compare
the analytical model's predictions with the FEA results. The error analysis highlights any
discrepancies, demonstrating the robustness of the analytical approach. The results show that the
analytical model, based on elliptic integrals, closely matches the FEA results across a range of
configurations and loading scenarios.
The insights gained from this study can be applied to optimize the design of cantilever
beams in various engineering applications, including prosthetics, robotics, and structural
components.
Overall, this research provides a comprehensive understanding of the large deflection
behavior of cantilever beams and offers a reliable analytical tool for engineers to predict beam
performance under different conditions. The integration of Python-based numerical methods with
classical elliptic integral solutions presents a useful approach that enhances the precision and
applicability of beam deflection analysis.

9
 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Definition and Advantage:

Rigid body mechanisms have commonly been used to transfer force or motion as per the intended
purpose. These involve interactions between rigid components called links and joints and are of
two types: revolute and prismatic. While these offer precision and strength in high-stress
environments, the mechanical complexity and wear due to the interaction of moving parts demand
frequent maintenance and can limit design flexibility. For this reason, compliant mechanisms have
been developed, achieving force and motion transmission through the elastic deformation of their
components instead of joints [1].

Figure 1: Rigid-body (top) and compliant (bottom) mechanisms [2]

1.2 Compliant mechanisms offer several advantages

• Reduced part count: By eliminating the need for multiple rigid components and joints,
compliant mechanisms simplify the overall design, resulting in fewer parts.
• Reduced assembly time: The simplified design leads to quicker and more efficient
assembly processes, as there are fewer components to connect and align.
• Less wear and tear: The absence of sliding or rolling contacts between rigid parts
significantly reduces wear and tear, enhancing the longevity and reliability of the
mechanism.

10
• Reduced need for lubrication: Since there are no moving joints that require lubrication,
maintenance is minimized, and the mechanisms can operate in environments where
traditional lubrication might be problematic.
• Improved mechanical precision: The elastic deformation inherent in compliant
mechanisms allows for more precise control of motion and force transmission, enhancing
overall mechanical performance.
• Enhanced ergonomics and manufacturability: The streamlined design not only
improves ergonomic factors by reducing weight and complexity but also enhances
manufacturability, making it easier to produce and integrate into various applications.

Figure 2: Compliant gripper [3]

Figure 3: Compliant stapler [4]

11
 1.3 Applications of Compliant Mechanisms

Compliant mechanisms have found diverse applications across various fields, showcasing their
versatility and efficiency:

1.3.1 Industrial Tools

• Compliant Pliers: Designed by L.L. Howell and A. Midha [5], these pliers use flexible
members instead of traditional joints to achieve motion, offering an innovative solution to
reduce part count and assembly time while enhancing mechanical precision.
• Compliant Stapler: Developed by G.K. Ananthasuresh and Laxminarayana Saggere [6],
this one-piece stapler relies on elastic deformation to function, eliminating the need for
multiple parts and joints. This design not only simplifies manufacturing but also
improves durability by reducing wear and tear.

1.3.2 Robotics and Biomechanics

• Compliant Grippers: Utilized in robotic hands, these grippers adapt to different shapes
and sizes of objects, providing a versatile and efficient grasping mechanism. The
flexibility inherent in compliant designs allows for better adaptation and reduces the need
for precise alignment, thereby enhancing functionality in dynamic environments.
• Bio-inspired Compliant Wrist: Reported by Pietro Bilancia et al. [7], this wrist design
mimics the flexibility and adaptability of human wrists, enhancing the range of motion
and dexterity in robotic applications. The use of compliant mechanisms in such designs
improves ergonomics and reduces the complexity associated with traditional jointed
mechanisms.

1.3.3 Medical Devices

• Prosthetic Legs: Modern prosthetic legs incorporate compliant beams to mimic the
natural flexibility and resilience of human limbs. The use of compliant beams in
prosthetics improves the wearer's comfort and mobility by allowing smooth, elastic
movement and reducing the impact forces during walking or running. This approach also

12
 reduces the need for frequent maintenance and lubrication, enhancing the overall user
experience.

1.3.4 Everyday Products

• Flexible Electronics: Compliant mechanisms are employed in the design of flexible

electronic devices, such as foldable smartphones and wearable sensors, enhancing their
durability and user experience. These devices benefit from the inherent flexibility and
reduced mechanical complexity of compliant designs, making them more robust and
adaptable to various forms and functions.

1.4 Flexible Beams in Modern Applications

1.4.1 Archery Industry

The archery industry has blossomed into a multi-million dollar sector with numerous
manufacturers competing to design and manufacture the fastest, lightest, quietest, and most cost-
competitive compound bows. Modern archery manufacturers use the best available technology to
remain competitive and enhance their products' performance. A significant portion of a compound
bow's performance is determined by the limb/cam combination. Developing a model that describes
the relationship between limb deflection and cam action could provide insights into the inner
workings of this system and reveal areas for improvement. Although this relationship is complex
due to several unknown variables, such a model could revolutionize compound bow performance.

1.4.2 Prosthetics Industry

The prosthetics industry has seen remarkable advancements, with modern prosthetic legs
integrating the latest technology to enhance mobility and comfort for users. A key component in
these designs is the cantilever beam, which acts as a compliant structure to mimic the natural
flexibility and resilience of human limbs. The use of cantilever beams in prosthetics improves the
wearer's comfort by allowing smooth, elastic movement and reducing the impact forces during
walking or running. Developing a detailed model of the load-deflection relationship in these beams

13
is crucial for optimizing prosthetic leg designs, ensuring better performance and a more natural
gait for the user [8].

Figure 4: Prosthetic leg beam model [8]

1.4.3 Other Examples

Compliant mechanisms, in only the last two or three decades, have revitalized the area of
mechanism design with abundant opportunities for creativity and innovation. They have found
applications in multiple disciplines such as biotechnology, micro-electromechanical systems
(MEMS), mechanical devices, aerospace, and origami applications, to name a few. Recognized as
one of the three “research trends that we can expect to persist into the future [4],” compliant
mechanisms continue to drive innovation across various fields.
Examples include:

• Compliers Fish Hook Remover: A CAD rendering in figure 1a of Compliers shows a

fish hook remover with three small-length flexural pivots (SLFPs) and one rolling point
of contact.
• Michelin Tweel™ Airless Tire: Featuring fixed-guided compliant segments, this tire
provides energy storage while maintaining structural integrity [9].
• Fully-Compliant Crimping Mechanisms by AMP, Inc.: These mechanisms include
two versions with fixed-guided compliant segments, optimizing the crimping process.

14
 • Fully-Compliant Gripper by Byers and Midha: This gripper, featuring initially-curved
SLFPs and a fixed-guided compliant segment, provides near-parallel grasping capability
[10].
• Out-of-Plane Compliant Restrainer: Consists of four fully compliant mechanisms, each
with two fixed-guided compliant segments, providing structural support and flexibility
[11].

These examples, along with many others, demonstrate the versatility and effectiveness of
compliant mechanisms in a wide range of applications, further detailed in recent compilations [12].

1.5 Aim of This Study

This study aims in designing flexible beams by addressing the large deflections of cantilever beams
made of linear elastic material subjected to a constant force applied at a constant angle to the free
end. The goal of this study is to create a program in Python that solves the second-order, non-linear
differential equation governing the behavior of a deflected beam and to compare the results with
ANSYS FEA simulations, thereby building confidence in the program's accuracy and its potential
applications in various fields. Parametric and sensitivity analysis conducted helps understand the
beam behavior better, making it useful for optimizing them.

15
 LITERATURE REVIEW

Cantilever beams have been analyzed in various cases where the proportionality between
the applied load and deflection can be found [13] but these are for small deformation cases. For
large deformation, various methods have been developed. Srinivasan [14] used the Ritz-Galerkin
technique to obtain free vibration of simply supported beams. Ray and Bert [15] presented
analytical values of frequencies as function of amplitude to beam thickness. Lee et al [16] used the
Runge-Kutta-Falsi method to investigate a cantilever beam with variable cross section. Baker [17]
got the large deflection curves by utilizing weighted residual solutions of the Bernoulli-Euler
bending moment equation. Dado and AL-Sadder [18] used the technique based on integrated least
square error of the governing equation in which a polynomial is used for the angle of rotation.
Shvartsman [19] investigated large deflection of cantilever beams by reduction in nonlinear two-
point boundary value problem to an initial value problem. AL-Sadder and AL-Rawi [20]
developed quasi finite difference method for large deflection of cantilever beams subjected to
distributed and concentrated loads in both vertical and horizontal directions. Considering beams
of non-linear materials, Lewis and Monasa [21] studied the deflection of beam subjected to load
at free end using fourth order Runge-Kutta method. K. Lee [22] studied the effects of combined
loading using Butchers fifth order Runge-Kutta method. Rezazadeh [23] created a model that uses
non-linear finite difference method to solve the non-linear equation. Antman [24] studied lateral
buckling of beam subjected to flexure and torsion. Belendez et al. [25] used the Runge-Kutta-
Felhberg method to analyze large deflection in beam under the combined load of uniformly
distributed load and point load at the free end. Frisch-Fay [26] used elliptic integrals to solve
cantilever beams under two concentrated loads. Barten [27] and Bisshopp and Drucker [28] also
did the same using elliptic integrals for point load at free end.
Other methods include the use of elliptic integral solution [14] [29] used for point load at
free end. Holst et al. [30] solved for fixed guided beams by superimposing axial deflection on the
elliptic integral solution. Saxena and Kramer [31] implemented a numerical integration approach
utilizing Gauss-Chebyshev quadrature formulas to address the Bernoulli-Euler beam equation.
Banerjee and colleagues [32] utilized a semi-analytical technique, specifically the Adomian
decomposition method, to analyze significant deflection in cantilever beams under non-standard
loading conditions. Expanding on this, Tolou and Herder [33] refined the Adomian decomposition

16
method for assessing large deflections in compliant mechanisms. Lan [34] introduced an approach
that combines the global coordinate model with an incremental linearization technique, effectively
simplifying the complex nonlinear deflection issue into manageable linear stages.
In this thesis, the elliptic integral solution (EIS) method has been used as it is considered
to be the most accurate method to analyze thin beam large deflection. Many people have used this
method for different conditions, such as Bisshopp and Drucker [28] developed an elliptic integral
solution for beams under vertical loads. Howell and Lyon, among others [12] [35] [36] [37],
presented elliptic integral solutions for specific loading cases that do not produce an inflection
point in a beam. In contrast, Kimball and Tsai [38] formulated an elliptic integral solution for large
deflection scenarios that include an inflection point. These methods are constrained by the slope θ
of the deflected beam, which is limited to 𝜋+𝜃≤ ℎ < 𝜋π+θ ≤ h < π where θ indicates the direction
of the end force. Shoup and others [39] [40] provided solutions for undulating and nodal elastica
using elliptic integrals. Chen and Zhang [41] derived an elliptic integral solution to calculate strain
energy in large-deflection beams and applied this solution to evaluate the accuracy of the Pseudo-
Rigid-Body Model (PRBM). Elliptic integrals were also employed to address the fixed-guided
beam problem, where two inflection points might occur [42] [43] [30].

17
 METHODOLOGY

3.1 Elliptic Integrals

The following shows the general forms of the incomplete elliptic integrals, based on which
the non-linear equations of the beam will be solved. The variables mentioned in the equations, 𝛾
and t are the amplitude and the modulus respectively.

First Order :

𝛾
𝑑∅
𝐹(𝛾, 𝑡) = ∫
0 √1 − 𝑡 2 sin⁡(∅)

Second Order:

𝛾
𝐸(𝛾, 𝑡) = ∫ √1 − 𝑡 2 𝑠𝑖𝑛⁡(∅) ⁡𝑑∅
0

𝜋
A special case is considered when 𝛾 = , in which case the integrals are considered to be
2

complete and are expressed as 𝐹(𝑡) and 𝐸(𝑡)

Since the elliptic integrals cannot be expressed in simple trigonometric terms, its solution
is expressed as an infinite series.

18
 The following equations show the solution for complete integrals, wherein k is t and ∅ is
θ.

First order elliptic integral:

∞ 2
π π (2n − 1)‼ 2n
K = F ( , t) = ⁡ ∑ [ ] t
2 2 (2n)‼
n=0

Figure 5: First order elliptic integrals for different amplitudes.

19
Second order elliptic integral:

∞ 2
π π (2n − 1)‼ t 2n
E = E ( , t) = ⁡ [1 − ⁡ ∑ [ ] ]
2 2 (2n)‼ 2𝑛 − 1
n=0

Figure 5: Second order elliptic integrals for different amplitudes.

20
 3.2 Theoretical formulation

A long, slender prismatic cantilever beam with a rectangular cross-section made of linear elastic
material is modeled. Consider a cantilever beam (figure 2) of length L with a concentrated force
ηP applied at the free end. In this scenario, a and b are the horizontal and vertical displacements at
the free end, respectively, and θ0 represents the maximum slope of the beam at the tip. The
constant angle at which the force is applied is denoted by⁡∅, measured positively counterclockwise
from the horizontal axis. The origin of the Cartesian coordinate system is set at the fixed end of
the beam, with (x,y) representing the coordinates of point A. The arc length of the beam, s, is
measured from the fixed end to point A.

Figure 6: Deflected configuration of thin beam

The Euler-Bernoulli Theory (EBT) for beams is used here. While the original theory is based on
the small deflection assumption, the theory is modified in this study to accommodate for large
deformation. The original EBT holds some assumptions which holds true even here and are stated
below:

• Axial strains are negligible, meaning any change in length is a small fraction of the original
length, rendering the beam inextensible.
• The cross-section of the beam remains constant along its length, so the effect of Poisson’s
Ratio, or the ratio of axial elongation to lateral contraction, can be neglected.
• The Bernoulli-Euler theorem is valid, stating that the curvature of the beam is proportional
to the bending moment.
• The deflection due to the weight of the beam is negligible.

21
 • Bending does not change the length of the beam.
• While bending is a three-dimensional problem, the difference between the length and the
other dimensions of the beam allow us to consider it as one-dimensional.
• The beam strain remains within the elastic limit.
• Cross-sections perpendicular to the neutral axis remain perpendicular after deformation.

We use the governing equation of EBT that relates flexural rigidity and curvature to the moment
(4.1) and summing the moments about point A (4.2).

dθ
−M = EI (4.1)
ds

M = P ∗ (a − x) + nP ∗ (b − y) (4.2)

Where the applied force ηP⁡is resolved into the x and y component as nP and P respectively. Then
on differentiating the equations (4.1) and (4.2) with respect to s, we get (4.3) which uses the
trigonometric relations (4.4) to relate cartesian deflections to slope and arc length.

d2 θ
EI = ⁡ −Pcos(θ) + nPsin(θ) (4.3)
d2 s

dθ dθ dx dθ
=⁡ = ⁡ cosθ⁡
ds dx ds dx
(4.4)
dθ dθ dy dθ
=⁡ = ⁡ sinθ⁡
ds dy ds dy

The equation (4.3) obtained is difficult to solve due to the presence of cos(θ) and sin(θ) terms,
and hence it becomes important to simplify the equation so that closed form solution can be
obtained. To achieve this, the equation is multiplied by the curvature on both sides and using the
𝑑
relations (4.5), (4.6), (4.7), a first order differential in the form of 𝑑𝑠 (𝑦) = 0 is derived and is used

for further calculations.

d 1 dθ 2 dθ d2 θ
( EI ( ) ) = EI ( ) ( 2 ) (4.5)
ds 2 ds ds d s

22
 d dθ
(Psin(θ)) = Pcos(θ) ( ) (4.6)
ds ds

d dθ
(nPcos(θ)) = −nPsin(θ) ( ) (4.7)
ds ds
The final differential equation is:

d 1 dθ 2
( EI ( ) + Psin(θ) − nPcos(θ) = 0) (4.8)
ds 2 ds

After integrating (4.8) with respect to s, and applying boundary condition of θ(x)𝑥=𝐿 = θ0 and
dθ
( ds ) = 0, we get (4.9) and expressed in terms of slope, (4.10) is obtained.
𝑥=𝐿

1 dθ 2
EI ( ) + Psin(θ) − nPcos(θ) = M0 + Psin(θ0 ) − nPcos(θ0 ) (4.9)
2 ds

dθ 2P
= ⁡ (√ ) (√− sin(θ) + ncos(θ) + sin(θ0 ) − ncos(θ0 ) + k)
ds EI (4.10)
M 2
0
Where k = ⁡ 2PEI

Using (4.10) and separating θ and s on either side, we get the integrals (4.11) and a non-
dimensional load parameter α is introduced.

P L 1 θ0
1
√ ∫ ds = ( ) ∫ dθ
EI 0 √2 0 √(− sin(θ) + ncos(θ) + λ)
(4.11)
PL2
where α = √ EI

and ⁡λ = ⁡ sin(θ0 ) − ncos(θ0 ) + k

And to get the non-dimensional horizontal deflection (a/L) and vertical deflection (b/L), the
relations (4.4) is used to get (4.12)

23
 θ0
a cos(θ)
=⁡∫ dθ
L 0 √(− sin(θ) + ncos(θ) + λ)
(4.12)
θ0
b sin(θ)
=⁡∫ dθ
L 0 √(− sin(θ) + ncos(θ) + λ)

These equations (4.11) and (4.12) are the main integrals that will be used to solve for the large
deflection of the beam, and the method applied to solve these is using elliptic integrals of the first
order and second order.

To convert equation (4.11) into elliptic integrals of the first order, necessary substitutions were
made to change the limits between 0 and θ0 to 𝛾1 ⁡to⁡𝛾2.

Let 1 + sin(θ) = 2(t 2 )sin2 (γ) (4.13)

Where t is given by
λ + η⁡ (4.14)
t =⁡√
2η

And on substituting θ as 0 and θ0 in equation (4.13) corresponding to the slope at the fixed end
and free end, we get 𝛾1 ⁡and⁡𝛾2 ⁡given by (4.15)

𝜂−𝑛
𝛾1 = ⁡ 𝑠𝑖𝑛−1 √
𝜆+𝜂
(4.15)
𝜂 + 𝑠𝑖𝑛(𝜃0 ) − 𝑛𝑐𝑜𝑠(𝜃0 )
𝛾2 = ⁡ 𝑠𝑖𝑛−1 √
𝜆+𝜂

These equations (4.11) and (4.12) in terms of elliptic functions of first order and second order are
given by (4.16)

24
 f
α =⁡ (4.16)
√𝜂
a 1
=⁡ [−nηf + 2nηe + ⁡ √2ηc]
L α(η5/2) )
b 1 (4.17)
=⁡ [ηf − 2ηe + ⁡n√2ηc]
L α(η5/2) )

Where:
f = F(γ2 , t) – F(γ1 , t)
e = E(γ2 , t) – E(γ1 , t)
c = √λ + n − ⁡ √λ − sin(θ0 ) + ncos(θ0 )

25
 VALIDATION OF THEORETICAL MODEL

To validate the analytical model developed for predicting the large deflection behavior of
cantilever beams, a comprehensive comparative analysis using finite element analysis (FEA) via
ANSYS was conducted. This validation process is critical to demonstrate the reliability and
accuracy of the analytical approach against a well-established numerical method.

4.1 Validation Strategy

The validation strategy involves a systematic comparison of both vertical and horizontal deflection
results obtained from the analytical model and FEA across various beam configurations and
loading orientation. Specifically, the following cases were analyzed:

1. Straight Cantilever Beam with Free Tip Slope

This represents a conventional cantilever beam that allows the tip slope of the beam to
change as per the applied load.

2. Straight Cantilever Beam with Fixed Tip Slope

This represents a special case for beam deflection where the tip slope or tip orientation is
restricted. It is commonly known as guided beam deflection and is often used in
mechanisms wherein the non-fixed end of the beam is attached to another part and doesn’t
have free tip slope.

An important point to note here is the presence of inflection point, which signifies zero
moment at that point. Ideally, the tip slope increases with application of load, but due to
restriction, an internal moment is created in the beam and in some cases (such as when the
tip slope is equal to the slope at the free end), an inflection point is created in the beam –
which further affects its vertical and horizontal deflection characteristics.

26
 Figure 7: Beam deflection for 1 inflection point.

3. Inclined Cantilever Beam with Free Tip Slope

This represents the force applied at an angle on the tip of cantilever beam. Using this
analysis, we can analyze not only vertical loads but also inclined loads on a cantilever beam
which is often the case in real life applications.

4. Tapered Cantilever Beam with Free Tip Slope

In this case a tapered beam is considered with constant width and changing height from the
fixed end to the free end. Since area moment of inertia of a rectangular cross section is
proportional to the cube of height, studying the height shows the significance of this study
compared to if the width was being varied.

4.2 Model implementation in python

To solve the large deflection of the cantilever beam as per the equations discussed above, python
was used owing to its high computational capabilities and optimization libraries such as scientific
python (scipy).
We need to find the tip slope (theta0) of the beam and since it is a function of the first order elliptic
integral, isolating the variable and finding its value directly is not possible. For this we use the
minimize feature of the scipy library, wherein equation (4.16) is converted to
f
α −⁡ = 0 , and the value of (θ0 is found by minimizing this equation). Using the tip slope, we
√𝜂

27
use equations (4.17) to get the vertical and horizontal tip deflections of the beam. The code used
to implement these equations is given in the appendix.

4.3 Finite Element Analysis (FEA)

FEA simulations were performed using ANSYS, a widely recognized tool for numerical analysis.
Each beam configuration was modeled with appropriate boundary conditions and subjected to
various load values. The deflection results from these simulations serve as a reference for
comparing the analytical model.

4.4 Beam Model

The beam model used for this study have the following properties:
Length = 10mm, Breadth = 1mm, Width = 1mm, Elastic modulus = 71000 MPa, Loads = 0N to
100N. And the mesh size of 0.05mm was used to ensure convergence and simulation accuracy.

4.5 Setup

Aluminum was used, which exhibits linear elastic properties, and allows one to perform large
deflection analysis. For the loading conditions, the loads were applied in increments as the
changing geometry during deflection also changes the beam stiffness and sudden change in
application of load would cause convergence errors.

4.6 Comparison of load-deflection curves

The deflection results from both the analytical model and FEA are presented for each beam
configuration. Detailed graphs illustrate the deflection-load relationships, highlighting the
agreement and any discrepancies between the two methods. The comparison covered a load range
beyond what is typically possible for the given geometry, emphasizing the model's robustness
under extreme conditions.

28
The deflection-load curves for vertical and horizontal deflections across all beam configurations—
straight cantilever beams with both free and fixed tip slopes, inclined cantilever beams with free
tip slopes, and tapered cantilever beams with free tip slopes—show a strong correlation between
the analytical and FEA results. This demonstrates the accuracy and reliability of the analytical
model for various geometries and loading conditions. The trends observed in the deflection data
match well between the two methods, confirming the model’s applicability and robustness for
different beam configurations and validating its effectiveness for both vertical and horizontal
deflection predictions. Shown below are the graphs compared for both the analytical and FEA
model.

Straight Cantilever Beam with Free Tip Slope

• The analytical model closely follows the FEA results, indicating high accuracy.
• The theoretical model deviates significantly at higher loads, highlighting the non-linear
behavior not captured by the linear model.

Table 1: Tip deflection: Analytical vs FEA (free tip slope)

Tip Load Vertical deflection Horizontal deflection
FEA Analytical FEA Analytical
0 0.000 0.000 0 0.000
10 0.618 0.570 0.043 0.026
20 1.121 1.128 0.112 0.103
30 1.628 1.665 0.245 0.225
40 2.187 2.174 0.392 0.386
50 2.621 2.649 0.58 0.578
60 3.048 3.088 0.815 0.793
70 3.500 3.490 1.04 1.024
80 3.832 3.857 1.288 1.264
90 4.155 4.190 1.526 1.508
100 4.491 4.492 1.734 1.752

29
 Figure 8: Vertical deflection vs Load (for free tip slope)

Figure 8: Horizontal deflection vs Load (for free tip slope)

Straight Cantilever Beam with Fixed Tip Slope

Table 2: Tip deflection: Analytical vs FEA (fixed tip slope)

Tip Load Vertical deflection Horizontal deflection
FEA Analytical FEA Analytical
0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 0.145 0.141 0.001 0.001
20 0.290 0.282 0.004 0.005
30 0.431 0.422 0.009 0.011
40 0.572 0.562 0.016 0.019
50 0.717 0.701 0.027 0.030
60 0.846 0.839 0.039 0.042
70 0.988 0.977 0.053 0.057
80 1.126 1.113 0.069 0.075
90 1.278 1.248 0.091 0.094
100 1.410 1.381 0.108 0.115

30
 Figure 9: Vertical deflection vs Load (fixed tip slope)

Figure 10: Horizontal deflection vs Load (fixed tip slope)

31
Inclined Cantilever Beam with Free Tip Slope

Table 3: Tip deflection: Analytical vs FEA (Inclined beam)

Tip Load Vertical deflection Horizontal deflection
FEA Analytical FEA Analytical
0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
10 0.545 0.588 0.020 0.018
20 1.178 1.162 0.070 0.076
30 1.643 1.730 0.182 0.178
40 2.170 2.280 0.334 0.315
50 2.739 2.811 0.517 0.492
60 3.282 3.297 0.725 0.700
70 3.730 3.750 0.949 0.922
80 4.112 4.168 1.182 1.167
90 4.473 4.520 1.421 1.411
100 4.655 4.783 1.658 1.633

Figure 11:Vertical deflection vs Load (inclined beam)

32
 Figure 12: Horizontal deflection vs Load (inclined beam)

Tapered Cantilever Beam with Free Tip Slope

Table 4: Tip deflection: Analytical vs FEA (Tapered beam)

Tip Load Vertical deflection Horizontal deflection
FEA Analytical FEA Analytical
0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0
10 0.998 1.043 0.082 0.082
20 1.785 1.876 0.310 0.308
30 2.557 2.644 0.627 0.626
40 3.285 3.298 0.976 0.982
50 3.820 3.925 1.348 1.347
60 4.256 4.442 1.704 1.699
70 4.644 4.844 2.003 2.008
80 4.979 5.124 2.273 2.293
90 5.268 5.362 2.486 2.529
100 5.510 5.545 2.652 2.77

33
 Figure 13: Vertical deflection vs Load (tapered beam)

Figure 14: Horizontal deflection vs Load (tapered beam)

34
 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

To further validate the robustness of the analytical model, a sensitivity analysis was conducted.
Key parameters such as Young’s modulus, beam height, and width were systematically varied to
assess their impact on deflection predictions. The analysis revealed that:

• Deflection is highly sensitive to changes in Young’s modulus, with significant variations

observed even for minor changes.
• Beam height initially has little effect on deflection. However, its influence becomes
significant in the mid-range, before becoming less impactful again.
• Beam width has great effect right from the start, but as width increases, its impact decreases,
and beyond a certain width, the deflection is not much affected by the change in width.
• Increase in length, increases the beam deflection as one would expected from beam
behavior.

Figure 15: Deflection vs Elastic modulus for different loads

35
Figure 16: Deflection vs height for different loads

Figure 17: Deflection vs width for different loads

Figure 18: Deflection vs length for different loads

36
Combined sensitivity analysis for combined change in input variables

The provided contour plots are critical in understanding how various parameters influence the
deflection of a beam. By conducting a sensitivity analysis, we can determine which parameters
have the most significant impact on deflection, aiding in the optimization of beam design for
various applications. Here, a detailed explanation of each graph and discuss the importance of
normalization in the analysis is given.

5.1 Sensitivity Analysis of Deflection with respect to Width (w) and Height (h)

Figure 19: Contour plot for Deflection vs Width and Height

This plot demonstrates how the deflection of a beam varies with changes in its width and height.
The color gradient, ranging from dark purple (low deflection) to yellow (high deflection),
illustrates the sensitivity of deflection to these parameters.

• High Deflection Region: The top left corner (small height and width) shows the highest
deflection. This indicates that beams with small cross-sectional dimensions are more
susceptible to bending.
• Low Deflection Region: As we move towards the bottom right corner (large height and
width), the deflection decreases significantly. This suggests that increasing either the
height or width reduces deflection, with height having a more pronounced effect.

37
5.1.1 Key Insight:

• Height is a critical factor in reducing deflection. Even a small increase in height results in
a significant decrease in deflection.
• Width also affects deflection, but its impact is less substantial compared to height.

5.2 Sensitivity Analysis of Deflection with respect to Length (L) and Height (h)

Figure 20: Contour plot for Deflection vs Length and Height

5.2.1 Explanation

This plot shows the variation in deflection with changes in beam length and height. The sensitivity
of deflection to these parameters is depicted through the color gradient.

• High Deflection Region: The right side of the plot (long beam length) shows higher
deflection, especially when the height is small.
• Low Deflection Region: The deflection decreases significantly as the height increases,
even for longer beams.

38
5.2.2 Key Insight:

• Beam height is the most influential factor in reducing deflection. Increasing the height
dramatically lowers deflection, regardless of beam length.
• Beam length influences deflection but increasing the height can effectively mitigate the
deflection caused by longer lengths.

5.3 Sensitivity Analysis of Deflection with respect to Load (P) and Height (h)

Figure 21: Contour plot for Deflection vs Load and Height

5.3.1 Explanation

This plot illustrates how deflection varies with changes in the applied load and beam height.
The color gradient indicates the sensitivity of deflection to these parameters.

• High Deflection Region: The top right corner (high applied load and small height)
shows the highest deflection.
• Low Deflection Region: As the height increases, the deflection decreases significantly,
even under higher loads.

39
5.3.2 Key Insight:

• The applied load directly affects deflection, with higher loads causing greater deflection.
• Increasing beam height significantly reduces deflection, demonstrating the importance of
height in mitigating the effects of high loads.

5.4 Importance of Normalization

Normalization is a crucial step in sensitivity analysis, particularly when dealing with

parameters that have different units and scales. Normalizing the data ensures that the variations in
different parameters are comparable and that their effects on the output are measured on a common
scale. This process involves scaling the parameters so that they have a mean of zero and a standard
deviation of one or scaling them to a range between 0 and 1.

5.5 Benefits of Normalization:

• Comparability: Normalization allows for the direct comparison of the effects of

different parameters, making it easier to identify which parameters have the most
significant impact on the output.
• Stability: Normalized data tends to improve the stability and performance of
numerical algorithms, reducing the risk of computational errors.
• Clarity: By presenting the data on a common scale, normalization enhances the
clarity of the analysis, making it easier to interpret the results.

5.6 Derivative plot for deflection

The derivative plots for deflection are shown to understand the rate of change in deflection
as the input variables change. The input variables considered here are width(figure ), height and
load.

40
 Figure 22: Derivative plot for deflection vs width

This plot illustrates the sensitivity of beam deflection with respect to changes in the width.
As shown, the rate of change of deflection with respect to width decreases significantly as the
width increases. Initially, for smaller widths, the deflection is highly sensitive to changes in
width. However, as the width increases beyond a certain point, the impact on deflection
diminishes.
Key Insight: Width has a considerable effect on deflection at lower values, but as the
width increases, its influence reduces, indicating that beyond a certain width, increasing the
width further does not significantly affect the deflection.

Figure 23: Derivative plot of deflection vs height

41
 This plot shows the sensitivity of beam deflection with respect to changes in the height of
the beam. The rate of change of deflection with respect to height initially increases, peaks, and
then decreases as the height increases. This indicates that at certain mid-range heights, the
deflection is most sensitive to changes in height.
Key Insight: Beam height is a critical factor influencing deflection. There is an optimal
range where changes in height have the most significant impact on deflection. Beyond this range,
the sensitivity decreases, meaning that further increasing the height has a reduced effect on
deflection.

Figure 24: Derivative plot of deflection vs load

This plot depicts the sensitivity of beam deflection with respect to changes in the applied load. The
rate of change of deflection with respect to load initially increases slightly, peaks, and then
decreases as the load increases. This behavior suggests that at certain load levels, the deflection is
most sensitive to changes in load.
Key Insight: The applied load directly affects deflection, with a noticeable peak sensitivity at mid-
range loads. Beyond this point, the sensitivity decreases, indicating that further increases in load
have a diminishing effect on the rate of deflection change.

These derivative plots provide valuable insights into how the deflection of the beam responds to
variations in key parameters, guiding the optimization of beam design to achieve desired
performance characteristics

42
 5.7 Error Analysis of Load-Deflection Curves

Quantitative error metrics were employed to measure the discrepancies between the
analytical and FEA results. Despite the load range exceeding typical limits for the given geometry,
the trends observed in both the vertical and horizontal deflection data matched well between the
two methods. Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) were calculated for each configuration, providing
a clear quantitative assessment of the model’s accuracy.
To validate the accuracy of the analytical model developed for predicting the large deflection
behavior of cantilever beams, a comprehensive error analysis was conducted across various
configurations. This analysis compares the deflection predictions of the analytical model against
those obtained from Finite Element Analysis (FEA). The objective is to demonstrate the reliability
of the analytical model and identify any discrepancies.

5.8 RMSE Error Plot

The provided RMSE (Root Mean Square Error) plots illustrate the deflection errors between
the numerical (FEA) results and the analytical model (Elliptic Integral) across different
configurations. These plots effectively communicate the model's accuracy.

Since the FEA analysis were performed for stepped incremental loads from 0N to 100N,
deflection for the similar loads were compared of the elliptic integral method, despite it being a
continuous curve from 0N to 100N. This results in the fluctuating nature of the error plots.

• The RMSE error is highest at lower loads and decreases as the load increases, with some
fluctuations.
• The errors are generally within acceptable ranges, indicating that the analytical model is
quite accurate compared to the numerical FEA results.

43
 5.9 Vertical Deflection Error Analysis

Figure 25: RMSE error for vertical deflections vs Load for different beam configurations.

This plot shows the RMSE error for vertical deflection under various load conditions for
different beam configurations. Key observations include:
• The free tip slope configuration shows higher initial errors that decrease with increasing
load.
• The fixed tip slope configuration maintains relatively low errors across all loads.
• The inclined beam configuration exhibits moderate errors with consistent fluctuations.
• The tapered beam configuration shows moderate errors that shows increased error at
certain points.

44
 5.10 Horizontal Deflection Error Analysis

Figure 26: RMSE error for horizontal deflections vs Load for different beam configurations.

This plot shows the RMSE error for horizontal deflection under various load conditions for
different beam configurations. Key observations include:

• The free tip slope configuration shows higher errors initially that stabilize at higher
loads.
• The fixed tip slope configuration maintains the lowest error values consistently.
• The inclined beam configuration demonstrates a steady increase in error with load.
• The tapered beam configuration shows moderate errors that increase after a certain
point.

5.11 Summary Error Analysis

To provide a concise summary of the errors for all configurations, a table is included that lists the
RMSE values for each deflection case. This table allows for a quick comparison of the model's
performance.

45
 Table 5: RMSE error summary
Configuration RMSE
Vertical deflection Horizontal deflection
Straight Beam (Free Tip Slope) 0.05 0.10
Straight Beam (Fixed Tip Slope) 0.05 0.05
Tapered Beam (Free Tip Slope) 0.25 0.10
Inclined Beam (Free Tip Slope) 0.10 0.05

The error analysis revealed the following insights:

• The analytical model (Elliptic Integral) closely matches the FEA results across most
configurations, with RMSE values remaining within acceptable ranges.
• The fixed tip slope configuration consistently shows the lowest errors, indicating the
model's high accuracy in this scenario.
• The free tip slope and inclined beam configurations exhibit higher errors, particularly at
lower loads, suggesting areas for potential improvement.
• The tapered beam configuration shows moderate errors, which peak at mid-range loads,
highlighting the complexities in modeling varying cross-sections.

The error analysis, represented through RMSE plots and a summary table, effectively
communicates the accuracy of the analytical model. These plots illustrate key findings and support
the validation of the analytical model across various configurations. The provided error plots
demonstrate the model's reliability and identifying areas for potential improvement.

46
 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

The analysis of cantilever beams with variable cross-sections under different loading
conditions has provided valuable insights that validate the effectiveness of the developed analytical
model using elliptic integrals. This section synthesizes the key findings, discusses the implications,
and suggests potential areas for future research.

6.1 Key Findings

• Validation of Analytical Model: The comparison between the analytical model and FEA
simulations demonstrated strong agreement across various configurations. The results
indicated that the elliptic integral approach accurately captures the large deflection
behavior of cantilever beams. The RMSE values were within acceptable ranges for most
configurations, highlighting the high accuracy of the analytical model. Notably, the fixed
tip slope configuration consistently exhibited the lowest errors, underscoring the model's
robustness in scenarios with restricted tip slopes.

• Sensitivity Analysis: The sensitivity analysis revealed that deflection is highly sensitive
to changes in Young's modulus, beam height, and width. Specifically:
• Young's Modulus: Significant variations in deflection were observed even
with minor changes in Young's modulus, emphasizing the critical role of the
material's elastic properties in beam deflection.
• Beam Height: Initially, beam height had little effect on deflection, but its
influence became significant in the mid-range before tapering off. This non-
linear relationship suggests that optimizing beam height is crucial for
managing deflection.
• Beam Width and Length: The width had a pronounced effect initially, which
diminished as the width increased. Conversely, beam length consistently
affected deflection, aligning with traditional beam theory expectations.

47
• Error Analysis: The RMSE error plots highlighted the discrepancies between the
analytical and FEA results. While the analytical model generally matched the FEA
results, higher errors were noted at lower loads for the free tip slope and inclined beam
configurations. These discrepancies suggest that while the model is robust, it may require
adjustments for specific loading conditions, particularly at low load levels.

6.2 Implications

• Practical Applications: The validated analytical model provides a reliable tool for
predicting the deflection behavior of cantilever beams in practical applications. This is
particularly valuable in fields such as prosthetics, where precise deflection predictions are
critical for designing comfortable and functional limbs.
• Design Optimization: The sensitivity analysis offers insights that can guide the design
optimization of cantilever beams. By understanding the impact of material properties and
geometric dimensions on deflection, engineers can make informed decisions to enhance
the performance and reliability of beam-based structures.
• Material Selection: The findings underscore the importance of selecting appropriate
materials with optimal elastic properties to manage deflection effectively. This has
significant implications for industries that rely on compliant mechanisms and beam
structures, such as aerospace, robotics, and medical devices.

48
 6.3 Future Research

• Extended Load Conditions: Future research could explore the analytical model's
performance under more complex loading conditions, including dynamic loads and
varying load distributions. This would enhance the model's applicability to a broader
range of real-world scenarios.
• Non-Linear Material Models: Investigating the model's accuracy with non-linear material
properties would provide deeper insights into the deflection behavior of beams made
from advanced materials, such as composites and smart materials.
• Three-Dimensional Analysis: Extending the current two-dimensional analysis to three
dimensions could capture additional deflection behaviors, particularly for beams
subjected to torsional loads and multi-axis forces.
• Integration with Finite Element Methods: Combining the analytical model with finite
element methods could offer a hybrid approach that leverages the strengths of both
techniques, providing more comprehensive solutions for complex beam configurations.

6.4 Conclusion

The implementation and comparison of the analytical model using elliptic integrals
represents a significant advancement in predicting large deflection behaviors of cantilever
beams. The robust agreement with FEA results, coupled with sensitivity and error analyses,
highlights the model's potential for practical applications and design optimization. Future
research directions promise to expand the model's capabilities, paving the way for its broader
adoption in engineering and industrial applications.

49
 APPENDIX A

Python code

# Load vs Deflection theta0 = free

import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
from scipy.optimize import fsolve
from scipy import special
from scipy.optimize import minimize

# Beam geometric and material properties

E = 70000
w = 1
h = 1
I = (w*(h**3))/12

L = 10

# Definitions of alpha, a/L and b/L

def alfa(tx):

eta = np.sqrt(1+(n**2))
lam = np.sin(tx) - (n*np.cos(tx)) + k

endang = np.sin(tx) - (n*np.cos(tx))

g2 = np.sqrt((eta + endang)/(lam + eta))

g1 = np.sqrt((eta - n)/(lam + eta))

t1 = (lam + eta)/(2*eta)
t = np.sqrt(t1)

g11 = np.arcsin(g1)
g22 = np.arcsin(g2)

50
f2 = special.ellipkinc(g22,t**2)
f1 = special.ellipkinc(g11,t**2)
fc = special.ellipkinc(np.pi/2,t**2)

val = F/np.sqrt(eta)

return val

def aL(tx):

alfa1 = alfa(tx)

eta = np.sqrt(1+(n**2))
lam = np.sin(tx) - (n*np.cos(tx)) + k

endang = np.sin(tx) - (n*np.cos(tx))

g2 = np.sqrt((eta + endang)/(lam + eta))

g1 = np.sqrt((eta - n)/(lam + eta))

t1 = (lam + eta)/(2*eta)
t = np.sqrt(t1)

g11 = np.arcsin(g1)
g22 = np.arcsin(g2)

f2 = special.ellipkinc(g22,t**2)
f1 = special.ellipkinc(g11,t**2)
fc = special.ellipkinc(np.pi/2,t**2)

e2 = special.ellipeinc(g22,t**2)
e1 = special.ellipeinc(g11,t**2)
ec = special.ellipeinc(np.pi/2,t**2)

c = np.sqrt(lam + n)

v1 = (-n*eta*F) + (2*n*eta*E) + (np.sqrt(2*eta)*c)

v2 = (alfa1)*(eta**(5/2))

val = v1/v2

return val

51
def bL(tx):

alfa1 = alfa(tx)

eta = np.sqrt(1+(n**2))
lam = np.sin(tx) - (n*np.cos(tx)) + k

endang = np.sin(tx) - (n*np.cos(tx))

g2 = np.sqrt((eta + endang)/(lam + eta))

g1 = np.sqrt((eta - n)/(lam + eta))

t1 = (lam + eta)/(2*eta)
t = np.sqrt(t1)

g11 = np.arcsin(g1)
g22 = np.arcsin(g2)

f2 = special.ellipkinc(g22,t**2)
f1 = special.ellipkinc(g11,t**2)
fc = special.ellipkinc(np.pi/2,t**2)

e2 = special.ellipeinc(g22,t**2)
e1 = special.ellipeinc(g11,t**2)
ec = special.ellipeinc(np.pi/2,t**2)

c = np.sqrt(lam + n)

v1 = (eta*F) - (2*eta*E) + (n*np.sqrt(2*eta)*c)

v2 = (alfa1)*(eta**(5/2))

val = v1/v2

return val

# objective to get end angle for alpha

def obj1(x):
v1 = alfa(x)
v2 = alpha_p

val = (v1-v2)**2
return val

52
# Moment factor at tip
k = 0.0

# Orientation of applied load (n = 1/tan(phi))

n = 0

p_list = np.linspace(0.0,100,11)

HDEF = []
VDEF = []
VTH = []
ANG = []
for i in range(len(p_list)):
p = p_list[i]

alpha_p = np.sqrt((p*(L**2))/(E*I))

# Define the bounds for theta0

bounds = [(1e-3,np.pi/2.001)]

# Initial guess
x0 = 0

# Minimize the objective function (obj1) to get tip angle

result = minimize(obj1, x0, method='SLSQP', bounds=bounds,tol= 1e-10)

end_ang = result.x[0]
ANG.append(end_ang)

hdef = L - aL(end_ang)*L
HDEF.append(hdef)

vdef = bL(end_ang)*L
VDEF.append(vdef)

# PLots for vertical deflection (VDEF) and horizontal deflection (HDEF)

plt.plot(p_list,HDEF);
plt.plot(p_list,VDEF);

53
 REFERENCES

1. Midha, A., T.W. Norton, and L.L. Howell, On the nomenclature, classification, and
abstractions of compliant mechanisms. 1994.
2. Lan, C.-C. Computational Models for Design and Analysis of Compliant Mechanisms.
2005.
3. Canfield, S. and M.I. Frecker. Design of compliant mechanisms for amplification of
induced strain actuators. in International Design Engineering Technical Conferences
and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference. 1999. American Society of
Mechanical Engineers.
4. Pucheta, M.A. and A. Cardona, Design of bistable compliant mechanisms using
precision–position and rigid-body replacement methods. Mechanism and Machine
Theory, 2010. 45(2): p. 304-326.
5. Howell, L.L. and A. Midha, A method for the design of compliant mechanisms with
small-length flexural pivots. 1994.
6. Ananthasuresh, G.K. and L. Seggere, A one-piece compliant stapler. 1995.
7. Bilancia, P., et al., Design of a bio-inspired contact-aided compliant wrist. Robotics and
Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, 2021. 67: p. 102028.
8. Tabucol, J., et al., Structural fea-based design and functionality verification methodology
of energy-storing-and-releasing prosthetic feet. Applied Sciences, 2021. 12(1): p. 97.
9. Grabianowski, E., How the Tweel Airless Tire Works. Retrieved November, 2007. 20: p.
2013.
10. Byers, F. and A. Midha. Design of a compliant gripper mechanism. in Proceedings of the
2nd National Applied Mechanisms & Robotics Conference. 1991.
11. Finch, N., et al., Compliant Micro-Restrainer. Senior Design Project Report, A. Midha,
Advisor, ME, 2002. 261.
12. Howell, L.L., et al., Handbook of compliant mechanisms. 2013: Wiley Online Library.
13. Gere, J.M. and S. Timoshenko, Mechanics ofmaterials. Wadsworth, Belmont, CA, 1984.
14. Srinivasan, A., Large amplitude-free oscillations of beams and plates. AIAA Journal,
1965. 3(10): p. 1951-1953.

54
15. Visner, J.C., Analytical and experimental analysis of the large deflection of a cantilever
beam subjected to a constant, concentrated force, with a constant angle, applied at the
free end. 2007, University of Akron.
16. Lee, B.K., J.F. Wilson, and S.J. Oh, Elastica of cantilevered beams with variable cross
sections. International Journal of Non-Linear Mechanics, 1993. 28(5): p. 579-589.
17. Baker, G., On the large deflections of non-prismatic cantilevers with a finite depth.
Computers & structures, 1993. 46(2): p. 365-370.
18. Dado, M. and S. Al-Sadder, A new technique for large deflection analysis of non-
prismatic cantilever beams. Mechanics research communications, 2005. 32(6): p. 692-
703.
19. Shvartsman, B., Large deflections of a cantilever beam subjected to a follower force.
Journal of Sound and Vibration, 2007. 304(3-5): p. 969-973.
20. Al-Sadder, S. and R.A.O. Al-Rawi, Finite difference scheme for large-deflection analysis
of non-prismatic cantilever beams subjected to different types of continuous and
discontinuous loadings. Archive of Applied Mechanics, 2006. 75: p. 459-473.
21. Lewis, G. and F. Monasa, Large deflections of cantilever beams of non-linear materials
of the Ludwick type subjected to an end moment. International Journal of Non-Linear
Mechanics, 1982. 17(1): p. 1-6.
22. Lee, K., Large deflections of cantilever beams of non-linear elastic material under a
combined loading. International Journal of Non-Linear Mechanics, 2002. 37(3): p. 439-
443.
23. Rezazadeh, G., A comprehensive model to study nonlinear behavior of multilayered
micro beam switches. Microsystem Technologies, 2008. 14: p. 135-141.
24. Antman, S.S., Large lateral buckling of nonlinearly elastic beams. Archive for rational
mechanics and analysis, 1984. 84: p. 293-305.
25. Beléndez, T., et al., Numerical and experimental analysis of large deflections of
cantilever beams under a combined load. Physica scripta, 2005. 2005(T118): p. 61.
26. Frisch-Fay, R., Large deflections of a cantilever under two concentrated loads. 1962.
27. Barten, H., On the deflection of a cantilever beam. Quarterly of Applied Mathematics,
1944. 2(2): p. 168-171.

55
28. Bisshopp, K. and D. Drucker, Large deflection of cantilever beams. Quarterly of applied
mathematics, 1945. 3(3): p. 272-275.
29. Ibrahimbegović, A., On finite element implementation of geometrically nonlinear
Reissner's beam theory: three-dimensional curved beam elements. Computer methods in
applied mechanics and engineering, 1995. 122(1-2): p. 11-26.
30. Holst, G.L., G.H. Teichert, and B.D. Jensen, Modeling and experiments of buckling
modes and deflection of fixed-guided beams in compliant mechanisms. 2011.
31. Saxena, A. and S.N. Kramer, A simple and accurate method for determining large
deflections in compliant mechanisms subjected to end forces and moments. 1998.
32. Banerjee, A., B. Bhattacharya, and A. Mallik, Large deflection of cantilever beams with
geometric non-linearity: Analytical and numerical approaches. International Journal of
Non-Linear Mechanics, 2008. 43(5): p. 366-376.
33. Tolou, N. and J. Herder, A seminalytical approach to large deflections in compliant
beams under point load. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2009. 2009.
34. Lan, C.-C., Computational models for design and analysis of compliant mechanisms.
2005, Citeseer.
35. Lyon, S.M., L.L. Howell, and G.M. Roach. Modeling flexible segments with force and
moment end loads via the pseudo-rigid-body model. in ASME International Mechanical
Engineering Congress and Exposition. 2000. American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
36. Lyon, S.M. and L.L. Howell. A simplified pseudo-rigid-body model for fixed-fixed
flexible segments. in International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and
Computers and Information in Engineering Conference. 2002. American Society of
Mechanical Engineers.
37. Howell, L.L. and J.N. Leonard, Optimal loading conditions for non-linear deflections.
International journal of non-linear mechanics, 1997. 32(3): p. 505-514.
38. Kimball, C. and L.-W. Tsai, Modeling of flexural beams subjected to arbitrary end loads.
J. Mech. Des., 2002. 124(2): p. 223-235.
39. Shoup, T.E. and C.W. McLarnan, On the use of the undulating elastica for the analysis of
flexible link mechanisms. 1971.
40. Shoup, T.E., On the use of the nodal elastica for the analysis of flexible link devices.
1972.

56
41. Chen, G. and A. Zhang. Accuracy evaluation of prbm for predicting kinetostatic behavior
of flexible segments in compliant mechanisms. in International Design Engineering
Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference.
2011.
42. Zhao, J., et al., Post-buckling and snap-through behavior of inclined slender beams.
2008.
43. Zhao, J., et al., A bistable threshold accelerometer with fully compliant clamped-clamped
mechanism. IEEE Sensors Journal, 2010. 10(5): p. 1019-1024.

57