Northwestern University

Compliant Mechanisms ME 381 Fall 2004

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
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.


Compliant Mechanism: A flexible structure that elastically deforms without
joints to produce a desired force or displacement.
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
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.
Compliant Actuator New
design
Non-Compliant
Actuator - Old
Design
Northwestern University
Compliant Mechanisms ME 381 Fall 2004
Definitions
Geometric Advantage:

Mechanical Advantage:

Localized Verses Distributed Compliance

in
out
u
u
GA=
in
out
F
F
MA =
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
( ) q max
Energy Efficiency Formulation
Objective function:



Optimization Problem:
( )
( )
( ) ( )
( ) ( )
}
}
= =
dt t u t F
dt t u t F
work
work
in in
out out
in
out
q
1
Re
s
source Max
Volume
V
max , min , i i i
a a a s s
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:


( ) q max
max , min , i i i
a a a s s
1
Re
s
source Max
Volume
V


1
1
1
|
.
|

\
|
|
|
.
|

\
|
=
MA F
F
h
in
out
1
1
1
|
.
|

\
|
|
|
.
|

\
|
=
GA u
u
h
in
out
1
max
=
o
o
i
FS
or
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
(Saggere & Kota 1994)
HexFlex
Nanomanipulator
(Culpepper, 2003)
The Self
Retracting Fully-
Compliant
Bistable
Mechanism
(L. Howell, 2003)
V-beam
Thermal Actuator
with force
amplification
(Hetrick & Gianchandani, 2001)
http://www.engin.umich.edu/labs/csdl/video02.html

Northwestern University
Compliant Mechanisms ME 381 Fall 2004
Contacts
Universities
Industry
FlexSys Inc
Sandia National Lab
Institution Lab Faculty
1 Univ. of Michigan Compliant Systems Design
Laboratory
Sridhar. Kota
2 Brigham Young University Compliant Mechanism Research Larry L. Howell
3 Univ. of Illinois at Chicago Micro Systems Mechanisms and
Actuators Laboratory
Laxman Saggere
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
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