Compliant Mechanisms

Presented By:

Ravi Agrawal, Binoy Shah, and Eric Zimney

Northwestern University Compliant Mechanisms ME 381 – Fall 2004

 Outline
• Working Principal
• Advantages and Disadvantages
• Compliance in MEMS devices
• Design and Optimization
• Analysis: Static and Dynamic
• Example Devices
• Conclusion

Northwestern University Compliant Mechanisms ME 381 – Fall 2004

 Working Principle
Compliant Mechanism: A flexible structure that elastically deforms without
joints to produce a desired force or displacement.

• Deflection of flexible
members to store energy in
the form of strain energy
• Strain energy is same as
elastic potential energy in
in a spring
• Since product of force and
displacement is a constant.
There is tradeoff between
force and displacement as
shown in fig on left.

Northwestern University Compliant Mechanisms ME 381 – Fall 2004

 Macro-scale Examples
Non-compliant crimp Non-compliant wiper

Compliant crimp Compliant wiper

Northwestern University Compliant Mechanisms ME 381 – Fall 2004

 Benefits of Compliant Mechanisms
Advantages
1. No Joints
2. No friction or wear
3. Monolithic
4. No assembly
5. Works with piezoelectric, shape-memory
alloy, electro-thermal, electrostatic, fluid
pressure, and electromagnetic actuators

Disadvantages
1. Small displacements or forces
2. Limited by fatigue, hysteresis, and creep
3. Difficult to design

Northwestern University Compliant Mechanisms ME 381 – Fall 2004

 Compliance for MEMS
Non-Compliant
Actuator - Old
Design

Compliant Actuator – New design

Features Impact
Monolithic and Planer -Suitable for microfabrication
-No assembly (a necessity for MEMS)
-Reduced size
-Reduced cost of production
Joint-less -No friction or wear
-No lubrication needed
Small displacements or - Useful in achieving well controlled force or motion at the micro
forces scale.

Northwestern University Compliant Mechanisms ME 381 – Fall 2004

 Definitions
u out
• Geometric Advantage: GA
u in

Fout
• Mechanical Advantage: MA 
Fin

• Localized Verses Distributed Compliance

Northwestern University Compliant Mechanisms ME 381 – Fall 2004

 Design of Distributed Compliant
Mechanisms
• Topology Synthesis
– Develop kinematic design to meet input/output
constraints.
– Optimization routine incompatible with stress
analysis.
• Size and Shape Optimization
– Enforce Performance Requirements to determine
optimum dimensions.

Northwestern University Compliant Mechanisms ME 381 – Fall 2004

 Topology Synthesis
• Energy Efficiency Formulation
– Objective function:

work out  F t u t dt

out out
 
work in  F t u t dt
in in

– Optimization Problem:

max 

ai ,min  ai  ai ,max

V  Volume 1
Max Re source
Northwestern University Compliant Mechanisms ME 381 – Fall 2004
 Size and Shape Optimization
• Performance Criteria:
– Geometric/Mechanical Advantage
– Volume/Weight
– Avoidance of buckling instabilities
– Minimization of stress
concentrations
• Optimization Problem:
max 
ai ,min  ai  ai ,max
V  Volume 1
Max Re source
 F  1   u  1 
h1   out    1 or h1   out   1
F
 in   MA  u
 in   GA 

FS 
i 1
 max

Northwestern University Compliant Mechanisms ME 381 – Fall 2004

 Stress Analysis
• Size and shape refinement
– Same Topology
– Optimized dimensions of the
beams
– Uniformity of strain energy
distribution
• Methods used
– Pseudo rigid-body model
– Beam element model
– Plane stress 2D model

Northwestern University Compliant Mechanisms ME 381 – Fall 2004

 Dynamic Analysis
• Methods Used
– FEM Tools
• Example of Stroke Amplifier
– First four natural frequencies
are as 3.8 kHz, 124.0 kHz,
155.5 kHz and 182.1 kHz
– Fundamental frequency
dominates
• Dynamic characteristics
– Frequency ratio vs
Displacement Ratio
– Frequency ratio vs GA

Northwestern University Compliant Mechanisms ME 381 – Fall 2004

 More MEMS applications
Double V-beam HexFlex
suspension for Nanomanipulator
Linear Micro
Actuators

(Saggere & Kota 1994) (Culpepper, 2003)

V-beam The Self

Thermal Actuator Retracting Fully-
with force Compliant
amplification Bistable
Mechanism

(Hetrick & Gianchandani, 2001) (L. Howell, 2003)

http://www.engin.umich.edu/labs/csdl/video02.html

Northwestern University Compliant Mechanisms ME 381 – Fall 2004

 Contacts
• Universities
Institution Lab Faculty
1 Univ. of Michigan Compliant Systems Design Sridhar. Kota
Laboratory
2 Brigham Young University Compliant Mechanism Research Larry L. Howell

3 Univ. of Illinois at Chicago Micro Systems Mechanisms and Laxman Saggere

Actuators Laboratory
4 Univ. of Penn Computational Design G. Ananthasuresh

5 MIT Precision Compliant Systems Lab Martin L. Culpepper

6 Technical University of Denmark Topology optimization Ole Sigmund

• Industry
– FlexSys Inc
– Sandia National Lab

Northwestern University Compliant Mechanisms ME 381 – Fall 2004

 Conclusion
• Stores potential energy and outputs displacement or
force
• Monolithic – no joints, no assembly, no friction
• Small but controlled forces or displacements
• Can tailor design to performance characteristics.
• Performance dependent on output
• Difficult to design
• Examples: HexFlex Nanomanipulator,
MicroEngine, Force Amplifier

Northwestern University Compliant Mechanisms ME 381 – Fall 2004