COMPLIANT MECHANISM

Seminar Report
By
GHATIKACHALA RAO D
(USN: 1BI12ME036)
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the award of degree of
Bachelor of Engineering
In
Mechanical Engineering
Of

Visvesvaraya Technological University

Belgaum
Under the guidance of
Dr. B.N Ravikumar
Professor
Department of Mechanical Engineering
Bangalore Institute of Technology
Bangalore - 560 004

DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

BANGALORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

BANGALORE 560004
Batch 2012 - 2016

BANGALORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

K.R.RAOD VISVESWARAPURA, BANGALORE 560 004

DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that the Seminar entitled Compliant Mechanism carried out by
Mr. Ghatikachala Rao D, bearing the University Seat Number 1BI12ME036, a
bonafide student of Bangalore Institute of Technology in the partial fulfillment for the
award of Bachelor of Engineering in Mechanical Engineering of the Visvesvaraya
Technological University, Belgaum during the year 2012 - 2016. It is certified that all
corrections/suggestions indicated for internal assessment have been incorporated in the
report deposited in the departmental library. The Project report has been approved as it
satisfies the academic requirements in respect of project work prescribed for the said
degree.
GUIDE
Dr.B.N Ravikumar
Professor
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Bangalore Institute of Technology,
Bangalore 560004

Head, Department of Mechanical Engineering

Bangalore Institute of Technology,
Bangalore 560004,

Principal
Bangalore Institute of Technology,
Bangalore-560004

DECLARATION
I, Mr. Ghatikachala Rao D bearing the University Seat Number (USN)
1BI12ME036 of VIII Semester B. E in Mechanical Engineering, Bangalore Institute of
Technology, Bangalore do hereby declare that the work being presented in this
Seminar Report entitled Compliant Mechanism is an authentic record of the work
that has been carried out independently by me during my VIII Semester B. E in
Mechanical Engineering at Bangalore Institute of Technology, Bangalore under the
supervision of my guide Dr.B.N Ravikumar, Professor , Department of Mechanical
Engineering, Bangalore Institute of Technology.
The work contained in this report has not been submitted in part or full to any
other university or institution or professional body for the award of any degree or diploma
or any fellowship.

Place: Bangalore
Date:

Name: Ghatikachala Rao D

USN: 1BI12ME036

Signature

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I like to express my gratitude to all who have supported me, motivated me and driven me
to carry out this seminar report. They have helped me by their continuous guidance,
advice without which my report bears no significance.

I am grateful to my guide, Dr. B.N.Ravikumar, Professor, Department of Mechanical

Engineering, Bangalore Institute of Technology, for his continuous help and outreach in
preparation for the topic of interest and the proceedings.

I am indebted to Dr.T.Jagadish, Head of Department, Mechanical Department , Bangalore

Institute of Technology , for giving me the opportunity to conduct a seminar on any of the
latest trends in the Realm of Mechanical Engineering.

My deepest gratitude to Dr.A.G.Nataraj , Principal , Bangalore Institute of Technology

for providing the necessary infrastructure and the scope for us to progress both technically
and in these four years of our education.

It is my esteemed duty and responsibility to thank all the teachers, who are indispensable
in my journey of life. I thank them whole-heartedly for their relentless effort of moulding
me into a better person.

Finally, I thank my parents and The Lord for all the support and relentless help.

GHATIKACHALA RAO D

SYNOPSIS
Traditional Rigid Body mechanisms consist of a number of components to
implement their functions. Therefore they face problems such as backlash, wear,
and increase in part-count, weight, assembly cost and time, regular maintenance.
Reducing these problems will help in increasing mechanism performance and cost
reduction. Recently, there are several examples of compliant mechanisms that
have been designed and widely used in various fields such as for adaptive
structures, biomedical, hand-held tools, and robotics. However, the largest
challenge was relative difficulty in analysing and designing compliant
mechanisms. Two approaches known in the literature for the systematic synthesis
of compliant mechanisms are the Pseudo Rigid Body Approach and the structural
optimization based approach.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 MECHANISMS
1.2 COMPLIANT MECHANISMS
1.3 COMPARISON BETWEEN COMPLIANT AND NON COMPLIANT
MECHANISM
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
CHAPTER 3: TYPES OF COMPLIANT MECHANISMS
3.1 LUMPED COMPLIANCE
3.2 DISTRIBUTED COMPLIANCE
3.3 LAMINA EMERGENT MECHANISM
CHAPTER 4: DESIGN METHODOLOGY OF COMPLIANT MECHANISMS
4.1 DESIGN SYNTHESIS APPROACHES
4.1.1. PSEUDO - RIGID BODY BASED APPROACH
4.1.1.1 PSEUDO RIGID BODY MODEL FOR LUMPED
COMPLIANCE
4.1.1.2 PSEUDO RIGID BODY MODEL FOR DISTRIBUTED
COMPLIANCE
4.1.2. STRUCTURAL OPTIMIZATION APPROACH
4.1.2.1 OPTIMIZATION
4.1.2.2 OBJECTIVE FUNCTION FORMULATION
4.1.2.3 THE DESIGN PARAMTERIZATION
4.1.2.4 THE SOLUTION METHOD
CHAPTER 5: APPLICATIONS
CHAPTER 6: REFERENCES

1. INTRODUCTION
6

1.1 Mechanisms
In kinematics, a mechanism is a means of transmitting, controlling, or constraining
relative movement [1]. The central theme for mechanisms is rigid bodies connected
together by joints. A mechanism is a mechanical device used to transfer or transform
motion, force, or energy. Traditional rigid-body mechanisms consist of rigid links
connected at movable joints.

The portion of a reciprocating engine shown in Figure 1.1a is an example. The linear
input is transformed to an output rotation, and the input force is transformed to an output
torque. As another example, consider the vice grips shown in Figure 1.1b.This
mechanism transfers energy from the input to the output. Since energy is conserved
between the input and output (neglecting friction losses), the output force may be much
larger than the input force, but the output displacement is much smaller than the input
displacement.

(a)
FIG 1.1a: Portion of Reciprocating engine

(b)
FIG 1.1b: Vice Grips

A kinematic joint (also called kinematic pair) is a connection between two or more links,
7

which allows some relative motion between the connected links [2] Kinematic joints can
be classified in different ways such as contact, degree of freedom, the number of links
joined.

The type of contact between the connected links can be point, line or surface. Joints with
surface contact are called lower pairs. The term higher pair is for joints with point or line
contact because of the zero area of point or line and the high contact stress.
The number of degrees of freedom allowed by a joint can be one, two, three, four or five.
The number of links joined by a joint can be two or more. Joint order is defined as the
number of links joined minus one.

1.2 Compliant Mechanisms

Traditional rigid body mechanisms consist of rigid links connected at joints and are
capable of transmitting the force or motion because of which they experience
disadvantages such as backlash, wear and requirement of lubrication. This made way for
the inception of Compliant Mechanisms. A compliant mechanism can be defined as
monolithic flexible structure, which uses elastic deformation to achieve force and motion
transmission. Compliant mechanisms rely on the deflection of its flexible members to
store energy in the form of strain energy. This stored energy is similar to the potential
energy in a deflected spring. Thus compliant mechanisms can be used to easily store
and/or transform energy that can be released at a later time or in a different manner.

The challenge in compliant mechanisms is to keep all of the mechanisms elements well
within the linear elastic regime.
Compliant mechanisms are single-piece flexible structures that deliver the desired motion
8

by undergoing elastic deformation as opposed to rigid body motions of conventional

mechanisms [1] It gains some or all of its motion from the relative flexibility of its
members rather than from rigid body joints alone [1] Such mechanism, with built-in
flexible segments, is simpler and replaces multiple rigid parts, pin joints and add-on
springs. Hence, it can often save space and reduce costs of parts, materials and assembly
labour
There are many familiar examples of compliant mechanisms designed in single-piece that
replaced rigid link mechanisms; Fig. 1.2 shows complaint mechanisms used commonly
[1]. Traditional rigid body mechanisms consist of rigid links connected at movable joints
and are capable of transforming linear motion into rotation or force in to torque.
Compliant mechanisms rely on the deflection of flexible members to store energy in the
form of strain energy. This stored energy is similar to the potential energy in a deflected
spring. Thus compliant mechanisms can be used to easily store and/or transform energy
that can be released at a later time or in a different manner.

FIG 1.2: Examples of Compliant Mechanisms usage in Backpack Latch and Shampoo
Containers
An example of a compliant crimping mechanism is shown in Figure 1.3. This is a
compliant version of the Vice Grip shown in the earlier Fig 1.1(b) .The input force is
transferred to the output port, much like the vice grips mechanism, But here , some
energy is stored in the form of strain energy in the flexible members. Note that if the
entire device were rigid, it would have no mobility and it would be a structure.
Also it has to be noted that, it can sustain loads up to certain magnitude, after which the
9

flexure of the mechanism fails, leading to the failure of the mechanism.

FIG 1.3: Compliant Crimping Mechanism

10

1.3 Comparison between Compliant and Rigid Body

Mechanism
The Compliant Mechanism has many advantages and ease of working when compared to
the Rigid Body Mechanism counterpart. It is because of these key points that more and
more Rigid Body Mechanisms are being switched with Compliant Mechanisms.

COMPLIANT MECHANISM

RIGID BODY MECHANISM

Number of parts involved is less as usually Number of parts involved is more

the mechanism is monolithic
There is no friction parameter involved as
There are no moving parts

Friction is a definite parameter between the

moving parts

The maintenance is low

The maintenance is high

Members are flexible in design

Members are not flexible in design

Manufacturing is comparatively easy

Manufacturing is comparatively difficult

Wearing of the members is not involved

Wear of members/parts is an issue

11

2. LITERATURE REVIEW
The first application of compliant mechanism can be dated back to the medieval
times, wherein the Romans utilized compliant segments for energy storage in catapults
and crossbows.
Research in the area of compliant mechanism design that involves transfer of
motion, force and energy storage initiated about five decades ago in 1964of synthesis of
flexible

link

mechanisms

was

Crossley provided

presented

by

Burns

and

Crossley

[3,4].
Burns

and

graphical

technique

called

as

kinetostatic

synthesis for synthesis of flexible link mechanisms. The authors considered mechanisms
with flexible coupler attached to two fixed-pinned segments. The approach allows
performing dimensional synthesis for function generation with specified output torque
values at various precision and positions. Sevak and McLarnan [5] presented a finite
element analysis based approach for synthesis of flexible link mechanisms for function
generation .They utilized an optimization formulation in conjunction with the finite
element analysis methods for the design of flexible link mechanisms. The approach
considers a nonlinear finite element formulation to determine the response of a candidate
compliant mechanism solution. The optimization routine compares the results with the
desired response to determine the next step for synthesis. Once the error between the
finite element analysis results and the desired response is within an acceptable small
value, the solution is finalized.
Midha et al. [6] [7] embarked on the preliminary discussions on the feasibility of a simple
yet robust methodology that may use rigid-body equivalent models and discrete springs
for compliant mechanism analysis, synthesis and design; and called it as the pseudo-rigid
body model (PRBM) concept.
12

Ananthasuresh [8] provided the foundational work towards the design of compliant
mechanisms with structural optimization approach. The well-established structural
optimization routines are adapted towards the synthesis and design of compliant
mechanisms.

Parkinson et al. [9] provided an optimization-based approach for designing fully

compliant mechanisms. This method considers a compliant mechanism as a spline with
various control points. The approach parameterizes the design solution obtained from the
optimization routine, and creates a finite element model in ANSYS to analyze the
response of a candidate compliant mechanism solution. The response is compared to the
desired outcome to determine the next step of the optimization process.

13

3. TYPES OF COMPLIANT MECHANISMS

Compliant mechanisms exist and can be manufactured in various kinds. The Mechanisms
are so done based on the current requirement or for the defined problem. The different
types have different limitations and shortcomings which are to be understood first before
utilizing. These types have come a long way since the discovery of Compliant
mechanisms and continue to grow with extensive research in the field and by the use of
modern techniques and infrastructure. The following are the types of compliant
mechanisms:

3.1 Lumped Compliance [10]

Lumped Compliance is a compliant system consisting of thin flexural members or hinges
which substitute the regular or conventional hinge joint. The flexural hinge/member is a
member of thin cross section which connects the adjacent rigid members. These flexural
members are usually light and flexible in design. The deflection is limited, but can be
increased, if the stress concentration is taken care of.
This type of compliance cannot be used in conditions where the load magnitude is high.
The reason being, the stress concentration increases tremendously at the flexural region /
flexion, thereby leading to the failure of the mechanism.
The best example of this would the case of a shampoo bottle. The member supporting the
lid is the flexion.

FIG 3.1: Example of lumped compliance

14

3.2 Distributed Compliance

In the case of Lumped Compliance System, only a small portion of the system, namely,
the Flexural link used to be focused on to the stress concentration. But, in the case of
Distributed Compliance System, the stress is distributed evenly along the whole body.
Thereby dissipating the stress and not concentrating at a single location.
Due to this, the members are comparatively stronger and are flexible simultaneously.
These systems have a larger load bearing capacity when compared with Lumped
Compliance.
The best example for this would be A Bow. A bow has a uniform member which has its
ends tied by a membrane. This Bow member can undergo significant amount of
deflection without breaking and can bear the load applied by the archer easily.

FIG 4.2: Example for Distributed Compliance

3.3 Lamina Emergent Mechanisms

Lamina emergent mechanisms (LEMs) are mechanical devices fabricated from a planar
material (a lamina) and have motion that emerges out of the fabrication plane. Ie , from its
plane of rest. Fig 3.1

15

They achieve their motion from the deflection of flexible members (and are therefore
compliant mechanisms
These are monolithic in design. The beauty of LEMs lies in their potential to perform
sophisticated mechanical tasks with simple topology. The ability to fabricate them from
planar layers of material makes it possible to manufacture LEMs using simplified
processes from sheet materials. High-performance, compact devices can be fabricated at
low manufacturing cost, but with the tradeoff of challenging design.

FIG 3.3: Lamina Emergent Mechanism

The manufacturing processes include stamping, fine blanking, laser cutting, water jet
cutting, plasma cutting, and wire electrical discharge machining (EDM) for their
production.
Most of the research in LEMs to date has focused on their motion and force-deflection
aspects. A key to the continued advancement of LEMs and their applications is the
development of actuation approaches to allow them to move. Recent research in actuation
has shown the conceptual feasibility of shape memory alloys (SMAs) as direct actuators,
as well as piezoelectric as triggers.

16

4. DESIGN METHODOLOGY OF COMPLIANT

MECHANISM
Although compliant mechanisms have been used for more than a century, the last 20
years have shown a proliferation of new methods for analysis and synthesis of such
mechanisms.

4.1 Design Synthesis Approach

Compliant mechanisms involve kinematics of mechanisms, multi-body dynamics, nonlinear mechanics of materials, numerical optimization techniques, etc. Here is a
comprehensive overview of the most common synthesis approaches for compliant
mechanisms. Different design synthesis approaches for compliant mechanisms are
distinguished as
1. Pseudo Rigid Body Approach
2. Structural optimization based approach

4.1.1. Pseudo Rigid Body Approach

The pseudo-rigid-body model is used to simplify the analysis and design of compliant
mechanisms. It is used to unify compliant mechanism and rigid-body mechanism theory
by providing a method of modelling the nonlinear deflection of flexible beams.
Since the lengths of the flexural members are small relative to the lengths of the rigid
segments, the flexural pivots are modelled as kinematic joints at the centre of the flexible
segment. Torsional springs are used to represent the member stiffness. The accuracy of
this method decreases as the relative length of the flexural member increases, and a
different approach is required for compliant mechanisms containing longer flexural

17

pivots. Below are a group of simple flexible members, described by pseudo-rigid-body

models, as discussed above.

Figure 4.1 Flexible members described by pseudo rigid models

4.1.1.1 PRB Model for Lumped Compliance

The design of compliant mechanisms with lumped compliance using pseudo-rigid-body

models is based on the pseudo-rigid-body model for small length flexural pivots.
Here the compliant member to be designed shows two segments, one large and stiff and
the other short and flexible. The short one and flexible is known as the small-length
flexural pivot.
The idea is to find the position of the characteristic pivot and the characteristic stiffness
for the torsion spring in the pseudo-rigid-body model. Figure 4.2 shows a member with a
small-length flexural pivot and its pseudo-rigid-body model.
The pivot is placed in the middle of the short segment and the stiffness constant of the
spring is given by

()

(4.1)

18

FIG 4.2: Member with a small - length flexural pivot and its pseudo model

Where l - length of the small-length flexure pivot,

E , I - Youngs Modulus and Cross-Section second Moment of Inertia of the
segment
An accurate use of the pseudo-rigid-body model requires that
L >> l (L ten times or more larger than l), and (EI)L >> (EI)l, also the member must be
subjected to pure bending.

4.1.1.2 PRB Model for Distributed Compliance

In this approach the compliant member is assumed to have a constant cross-section.

The most important pseudo-rigid-body model for distributed compliance is the model for
a fixed pinned cantilever beam (no moments at the free end of the beam) with force acting
at the free end . This is considered when the load which is experienced by the member is
large enough.

19

FIG 4.3: Distributed model and its Pseudo - Rigid Body

The position of the characteristic pivot is given by the value of characteristic radius. The
Characteristic stiffness for the spring is given by a stiffness coefficient K and is

(4.2)

Both, K and are function of the n parameter which sets the orientation of the applied
force at the free end as a proportion of its components,
In analysis, the kinematic motion, input requirements, and component stresses may be
determined quickly and efficiently by means of the pseudo-rigid-body model. The
greatest benefit of the pseudo-rigid-body model concept is realized in compliant
mechanism design. In the early design stages, the pseudo-rigid-body model may serve as
a fast and efficient method of evaluating many different trial designs to meet the specific
design objectives. It also allows the design of systems to perform more complex tasks
than would otherwise be possible. If a designer relies solely on prototyping or full
numerical analysis, an initial design must be obtained before it can be modelled or built.
The pseudo-rigid-body model, on the other hand, may be used to obtain a preliminary
design which may then be optimized. Once a design is obtained such that it meets the
specified design objectives, it may be further refined using methods such as nonlinear

20

finite element analysis, and it may then be prototyped and tested. The development of
design methods using the pseudo-rigid-body model is a priority of the research.

4.1.2 Structural Optimization Approach

Structural Optimization is the Process of optimizing the arrangement of members under

certain external conditions. The structural optimization approaches are based on the use of
optimization and search techniques to obtain the design of a compliant mechanism (its
topology, shapes and dimensions) that satisfies an objective function for a set of
parameters and constraints. When a synthesis problem for compliant mechanisms is
solved by using topology, shape or size optimization, three main aspects need to be
considered are as following:
1. The objective function formulation
2. The design parameterization and
3. The solution method.

4.1.2.1 Optimization

Optimization phase is a procedure to minimize or maximize a function while considering

the Constraining Functions. The function that is being minimized is called the objective
function, the variables in the function are called the design variables and the domain of
the design variables is called the search space.
A Sample optimization problem is shown:

21

(4.3)
Here, f(x) is the Objective Function
p is the number of equalities in the set of h
m is the number of inequalities in the set of g
is the Search region or area.
[x1,x2xn] are the design variables.
Topology, shape and size

In the structural optimization of compliant mechanisms the goal is to obtain three main
characteristics:
1. The topology,
2. The shapes and
3.

The sizes of the constitutive elements.

When the topology, the shapes and the sizes of a structure are defined, then the structure
is entirely defined with respect to design.

1. Topology Optimization
Topology is a branch of mathematics that studies how the properties of a space are
preserved or change when this space is subjected to deformations. In the case of
mechanisms and structures the topology refers to the connectivity among their
constitutive elements, even if they are small discrete elements. Constitutive elements also

22

include the input ports (where input loads and movements are applied), the output ports,
ground ports, etc.
Topology optimization then refers to the process of finding the topology (connectivity
among constitutive elements) that satisfies in the best way the objective function.

2. Shape Optimization
In the shape optimization problem, the word shape refers to the shape of the constitutive
elements, if topology forms the skeleton, then the shape is the contour appearance of
every bone in the skeleton. Figure 4.4 shows two examples (continuum and discrete
representation), with the same topology but with different shape.
Shape optimization then refers to the process of finding the optimal shape of the contour
or surface that satisfies in the best way the objective function in a fixed topology.

3. Size Optimization
This involves finding the optimized set of design variables that define the properties of a
member or model, i.e., Thickness, Diameters, Cross Sections, and Radius etc.

FIG 4.4: Example of same topology, different shape. (a) And (b) continuum structures, (c)
and (d) discrete structures.
23

In a typical size optimization problem the shape and topology of the model have been
already defined, where the topology is defined and also the shape of the contours, now the
problem is to find the proper dimensions of the two semi-axis (keeping constant their
ratio) for the elliptical outer contour and the radius for circular inner contour as well as
the thickness of the cross section.

4.1.2.2 Objective Function Formulation

Deepak et al. presented a comparative study about the three major objective formulations
for the structural optimization of compliant mechanisms that are found in literature. These
formulations are:
1. Mutual potential energy (MPE) and strain energy (SE)
2. Mechanical and geometrical advantage
3. Characteristic stiffness

1. Mutual potential energy (MPE) and strain energy (SE)

In this formulation the compliant mechanism is seen as a structure which is stiff enough
to resist the applied loads while at the same time it is compliant enough to allow the
desired deflection. The Mutual Potential Energy and Strain Energy formulation seeks to
conciliate these two requirements.
The Mutual Potential Energy or MPE accounts for the deflection requirements, while the
Strain Energy or SE ensures the structural requirements.
Minimize: (

(4.4)

24

2. Mechanical Advantage, Geometric Advantage

These formulations are focused on the purpose of the mechanism. They answer what the
Mechanism should perform. The idea in these objective formulations is to maximize the
ratio of a magnitude between the output and the input ports. Force and displacement are
energy variables (i.e. the product of force and displacement has units of energy), and an
ideal compliant mechanism is designed to conserve energy. Thus a compliant mechanism
serves as a transmission that converts the input energy in a controlled way. Since energy
is conserved the product of force and displacement must be a constant. So, if the output
displacement increases then the output force must decrease and vice versa.

TABLE: 4.1 Objective formulations depending on the I\O Parameter

Normally, the output force is modelled as the force fo at the output port exerted by a
virtual spring whose stiffness ks is the stiffness of the workpiece and undergoes a
deflection equal to the output port deflection o.
fo = ks o

(4.5)

3. Characteristic Stiffness
Chen and Wang proposed an objective formulation that combines strength and functional
requirements.
Minimize: () kinkout

(4.6)

25

The term () accounts for the functional requirements by specifying a desired

GA*
The term kin and kout account for the strength requirements and represents the
characteristic stiffness at the input and output port, respectively.
The characteristic stiffness can be thought of as the stiffness kp of an equivalent spring
that allows the same deflection p of a cantilever beam when force f is applied at point p,
see Fig. 4.5

FIG 4.5 Characteristic stiffness of a point p on a cantilever beam

4.1.2.3 The Design Parameterization

The design parameterization refers to the model that is used to represent the topology, the
shape or the size in order to create a proper set of design variables.
In the case of topology some common design parameterization are the representation of
the connectivity by using finite elements like discrete ground structures or by means of
graph theory like the load-path representations
In shape optimization the design parameterization uses two main approaches : The shape
optimization based on finite element (FE) models, and the shape optimization based on
geometry models. In the shape optimization based on FE, the design variables are the
coordinates of the nodes on the contours and surfaces on 2D and 3D models respectively.
In the shape optimization based on geometry models, the geometry of the model is
described in terms of geometrical parameters which are used as the design variables.
26

4.1.2.3.1 Load Path Representation

The load-path representation is a design method that integrates topology, size and
geometry synthesis by implementing a design-space parameterization that solves some of
the ambiguities in the topology, i.e., disconnected structures.
The method treats the mechanisms topology as a graph, where vertices in the graph
represent rigid connections with no degrees of freedom and the edges represent the beams
where the degrees of freedom occur.
The basic requirement of a valid compliant mechanism is that there must be a physical
connection between the input port, output port and the ground port; in other words, there
must be a path in the graph connecting every pair of these ports. Those vertices that are
not input, output or ground ports are called intermediate connection ports.
The design variables in the load-path representation method are grouped in four sets:
1. Variables for the path sequence,
2. Variables for the presence of a path,
3. Variables for the cross-section dimension of the segments and
4. Variables for the location of the intermediate connection ports.
The first two sets define the topology, the third set defines the size and the fourth defines
the shape. The optimization is performed by a genetic algorithm, so during the procedure
the variables for path sequence and the variables for presence of a path are modified,
creating different graphs which mean different topologies.

4.1.2.3.2 Spanning Tree Based Topologies

In the spanning tree based topologies, the optimization is performed by a genetic
algorithm using as design variables the position of the intermediate nodes and the
segments cross-section dimensions.
27

The final topology is not defined exclusively by the design variables. The optimum
topology is the optimum candidate provided by the optimization algorithm under the
condition that it is also a spanning tree from the structural universal. A structural
universal can be thought of as a ground structure containing all possible connections
among vertices. The edges represent segments, and the Vertices represent the node or
points. As shown in Fig 4.6

FIG 4.6: Structural Universal

The presence or absence of a segment is given by the segments cross-sectional design
variables. A zero value means absence of the segment. When the optimization algorithm
finds a candidate topology inside the structural universal, it must be checked for being a
spanning tree.
A spanning tree is a tree on a graph that connects all vertices without creating cycles or
loops. A spanning tree guaranties the connection among all vertices with a minimum
number of edges. If the candidate topology is a spanning tree, it is a valid topology.
Figure 4.7 shows two examples of spanning trees from the structural universal shown in
Fig. 4.6 So in other words, every time that the optimization algorithm proposes a new set
of design variables, this new set creates a new candidate topology from the structural
universal which must be evaluated to be a valid topology using the spanning tree
criterion.
28

FIG 4.7 Two different spanning trees from the same structural universal. Reproduced
from

4.1.2.4 The Solution Method

Basically the use of solution method goes in two directions depending on the nature of the
design variables, namely search algorithms for discrete variables and mathematical
programming for continuum variables. The nature of the design variables depends on the
kind of parameterization being used but some discrete problems can be relaxed into
continuum problems. Search algorithms in optimization of compliant mechanisms are
basically confined to evolutionary structural optimization (ESO and BESO), genetic
algorithms etc. They are mainly used with parameterized curves and graphs and in some
cases with domain discretization.
Typical mathematical programming algorithms in optimization of compliant mechanisms
are sequential linear programming (SLP), sequential quadratic programming (SQP),
simplex method, quasi-Newton, optimal criteria and moving asymptotes (GMMA) among
others. They are mainly used in domain discretization, parameterized curves and level
sets using basis functions.

29

5. APPLICATIONS
5.1 Adaptive Structures
Adaptive structures change shape to provide functionality under different operating
circumstances. There exists a body of research investigating adaptive airfoils and
hydrofoils. One approach to achieve adaptive shape control is to place many smart
actuators along the surface of an airfoil and activate the actuators to move to provide
motion. An alternative to this idea is to design a passive compliant structure actuated at
only a few locations. Such designs improve on traditional designs composed of flaps and
discrete hinges by providing less radar cross-section, as well as increases in lift
performance. Additionally, these mechanisms do not suffer from high power consumption
as are most designs utilizing smart actuators. In this particular design, a camber change of
6 at the leading edge led to a 25% increase in the lift coefficient.

Figure 5.1: Compliant Variable Camber Lead Edge (Kota 1999)

5.2 Medical Instrumentation

Biomedical and biomechanical engineering are quickly emerging areas of research. Much
of the technology developed in these fields affects practice in the medical community and
ultimately works toward the end of improving the quality (and length) of life. Minimally
invasive surgery reduces the length of recovery by minimizing the size of incisions
30

necessary to perform certain operations. Devices used for this purpose must be compact
and reusable, while being able to provide adequate functionality. Since compliant
mechanisms do not contain any traditional joints, they are easily cleaned and sterilized.
Additionally, the monolithic designs of compliant mechanisms are more conducive to
embedded sensing for haptic interfaces. Figure 5.2 shows the design of a compliant end
effector or manipulator designed for minimally invasive surgery.

FIG 5.2: Compliant manipulator for minimally invasive kidney transplant surgery (Kota
et al. 2005).

5.3 Ultra Precision Mechanisms

On the micro- and Nano- scale, there is a pressing need for mechanical devices having
resolution orders of magnitude smaller than the scale of technology. These devices are
typically used as measuring instrumentation. It is tempting to achieve such resolution by
employing traditional lever mechanisms to take meso-scaled input and reduce it. Lever
mechanisms are ubiquitous in mechanical engineering design. Typical examples of such
mechanisms are gear trains and simple see-saw levers. These types of levers, however,
are prone to non-linarites due to friction in bearings, backlash, hysteresis, and thermal
expansion. On the nanoscale, these non-linarites result in unacceptably high error.
Due to the limitations of traditional lever mechanisms, lumped compliant mechanisms
have been designed to perform similar function on the nanoscale .These monolithic
designs do not experience backlash. Additionally, since they are typically composed of

31

only one material, thermal expansion does not have adverse effects since the devices
expand uniformly.

FIG 5.3: Ultra-Precision Mechanisms - Hex-Flex nano-manipulator (Culpepper and

Anderson 2004)

5.4 Compliant Parallel Kinematic Machines

This technology means that the motions in X, Y and Z are performed by three or more
parallel axis that gives an outstanding stiffness and accuracy with a maintained flexibility
and envelope
Compliant Parallel Kinematic Machines (CPKMs) are similar to conventional PKMs
except that conventional joints are replaced by large-displacement compliant joints with
distributed compliance. Since compliant joints provide backlash-free motion, very high
positioning accuracy can be obtained even with low precision actuators. Compliant
System Design Laboratory, University of Michigan has developed a mathematical method
(using dual vectors and dual algebra) of synthesis of CPKMs.

32

FIG 5.4: First two figures are PKMs, the next two are the Compliant version of it.

5.5 Future Scope

Biomechanics is the area that specializes in cardiovascular, orthopaedic, rehabilitation
engineering and simulation. There are plenty of potential devices which can be simplified
into single piece component such as joint at knee, hip, pelvic etc. or to make the
components to be more compliance with the natural flow of blood such as artificial heart
valve.

MEMS: As the future application of MEMSs, researchers are developing techniques to

store information by moving atoms from one position to another on a microchip. In this
way, it will be possible to store information that currently requires a large hard disk on a
few square millimetres storage device.

33

6. REFERENCES
[1] - Hunt, K. H., Kinematic Geometry of Mechanisms, Oxford University Press,
New York, 1978.
[2] - R.L., Norton, Design of Machinery: An Introduction to the Analysis and Synthesis
of Mechanisms and Machines, Fifth Edition. 2 Penn Plaza, New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill, 2012.
[3] - Howell, L. L. (2001). Compliant Mechanisms. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
[4] - Burns, R. H., The Kinetostatic Synthesis of Flexible Link Mechanisms, Ph.D.
Dissertation, Yale University, 1964.
[5] - Sevak, N. M., and McLarnan, C. W., Optimal Synthesis of Flexible Link
Mechanisms with Large Static Deflections, Journal of Engineering for Industry,
Trans. ASME, May 1975, pp. 520-526.
[6]- Midha, A., Her, I., and Salamon, B. A., A Methodology for Compliant Mechanisms
Design: Part I Introduction and Large Deflection Analysis, Advances in Design
Automation, 18th ASME Design Automation Conference, DEVol. 44, No. 2,
1992, pp. 29-38.
[7]- Midha, A., Her, I., and Salamon, B. A., A Methodology for Compliant Mechanisms
Design: Part II Introduction and Large Deflection Analysis, Advances in
Design Automation, 18th ASME Design Automation Conference, DEVol. 44, No.
2, 1992, pp. 29-38.
[8]-

Ananthasuresh, G. K., A New Design Paradigm for Micro-Electro-Mechanical

Systems and Investigations on the Compliant Mechanism Synthesis, Ph.D.
Dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann-Arbor, 1994.

34