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

Compliant crimp

Northwestern University

Non-compliant wiper

Compliant wiper

Compliant Mechanisms

ME 381 Fall 2004

Benefits of Compliant Mechanisms

Advantages
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

No Joints
No friction or wear
Monolithic
No assembly
Works with piezoelectric, shape-memory
alloy, electro-thermal, electrostatic, fluid
pressure, and electromagnetic actuators

Disadvantages
1.
2.
3.

Small displacements or forces

Limited by fatigue, hysteresis, and creep
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
forces

- Useful in achieving well controlled force or motion at the micro

scale.

Northwestern University

Compliant Mechanisms

ME 381 Fall 2004

Definitions
Geometric Advantage:

u out
GA
u in

Mechanical Advantage:

Fout
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

work in

F t u t dt

F t u t dt
out

out

in

in

Optimization Problem:

max
ai ,min ai ai ,max
V Volume

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
F 1
h1 out
1
F
MA

in

FS

Max Re source
or

max

u 1
h1 out
1
u
GA

in

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
suspension for
Linear Micro
Actuators

HexFlex
Nanomanipulator

(Culpepper, 2003)

(Saggere & Kota 1994)

V-beam
Thermal Actuator
with force
amplification

(Hetrick & Gianchandani, 2001)

The Self
Retracting FullyCompliant
Bistable
Mechanism
(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

Univ. of Michigan

Sridhar. Kota

Brigham Young University

Compliant Systems Design

Laboratory
Compliant Mechanism Research

Univ. of Illinois at Chicago

Micro Systems Mechanisms and

Actuators Laboratory

Laxman Saggere

Univ. of Penn

Computational Design

G. Ananthasuresh

MIT

Precision Compliant Systems Lab

Martin L. Culpepper

Technical University of Denmark

Topology optimization

Ole Sigmund

Larry L. Howell

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