Development of Commercially Viable Compliant Mechanisms Using the Pseudo-Rigid-Body Model: Case Studies of Parallel Mechanisms
Source abstract
Abstract
Analysis and synthesis of compliant mechanisms has recently been the subject of significant study in the research community. This focus has led to a number of design approaches for developing compliant mechanisms. This paper describes the value of using the Pseudo-Rigid-Body Model (PRBM) to design compliant mechanisms for commercial products. Application of the PRBM is illustrated through the development of two parallel mechanisms: a bicycle derailleur and parallel-motion bicycle brakes. The PRBM allows compliant mechanisms to be modeled and analyzed as rigid-body mechanisms and significantly reduces the complexity of analysis. Mechanisms with straightforward properties are used to demonstrate the use of the PRBM to design commercially viable compliant mechanisms for required motion and force-deflection characteristics.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Piezoelectric Actuators and Control · Iterative Learning Control Systems · Robotic Mechanisms and Dynamics
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Mechanical, Aerospace, and Nuclear Engineering, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, New York, 12180, USA,
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, 84602, USA
References (9)
Show source-provided references
1. Ananthasuresh, G. K. and Kota, S. 1995. ‘‘Designing Compliant Mechanisms,’’ Mechanical Engineering, 117(11): 93-96 .
2. Berglund, M. D., Magleby, S. P. and Howell, L. L. 2000. ‘‘Design Rules for Selecting and Designing Compliant Mechanisms for Rigid-Body Replacement Synthesis,’’ In: Proceedings of the 2000 ASME Design Technical Conferences, DETC00/DAC-14225.
3. Derderian, J. M., Howell, L. L., Murphy, M. D., Lyon, S. M. and Pack, S. D. 1996. ‘‘Compliant Parallel-Guiding Mechanisms,’’ In: Proceedings of the 1996 ASME Mechanisms Conference, 96DETC/MECH-1208.10.1115/96-DETC/MECH-1208 ↗
4. Erdman, A. G. and Sandor, G. N. 1997. Mechanism Design: Analysis and Synthesis, Vol. 1, Third Edition, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ .
5. Frecker, M. I. 2000. ‘‘Design of Efficient Compliant Mechanisms from Ground Structure-Based Optimal Topologies,’’ In: Proceedings of the 26th Design Automation Conference, 2000 ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences, Baltimore, Maryland, DETC2000/MECH-14142.10.1115/DETC2000/MECH-14142 ↗
6. Howell, L. L., Midha, A. and Norton, T. W. 1996. ‘‘Evaluation of Equivalent Spring Stiffness for Use in a Pseudo-Rigid-Body Model of Large-Deflection Compliant Mechanisms,’’ ASME Journal of Mechanical Design, 118: 125-131 .10.1115/1.2826843 ↗
7. Howell, L. L. 2001. Compliant Mechanisms, John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY .
8. 10.1016/0094-114X(95)00055-410.1016/0094-114X(95)00055-4 ↗
9. Pedersen, C. B. W., Buhl, T. and Sigmund, O. 1999. ‘‘Topology Synthesis of Large-displacement Compliant Mechanisms,’’ In: Proceedings of the 25th Design Automation Conference, 1999 ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences, Las Vegas, Nevada, DETC1999/DAC-8554.10.1115/DETC99/DAC-8554 ↗