On the Nomenclature and Classification of Compliant Mechanisms. Abstractions of Mechanisms and Mechanism Synthesis Problems

Abstract

Compliant mechanisms, unlike rigid-body mechanisms, gain some or all of their mobility from the flexibility of their members. Complaint mechanisms are desirable since they require fewer parts, and have less wear, noise, and backlash than their rigid-body counterpart mechanisms. The field of compliant mechanisms is expected to continue to grow as materials with superior properties are developed. Inasmuch as evolution of efficient design techniques is viewed as an essential research activity, a parallel, systematic development of appropriate vocabulary (nomenclature, classification, etc.) is of primary importance. This paper proposes a standard nomenclature for the components of compliant mechanisms and discusses the relevant issues involved in this process. Definitions for components, such as "links" and "joints," remove ambiguity that has been associated with these terms in the past. Names and diagrams are discussed, and are shown to be similar because they represent "abstractions" of the same mechanisms. The concept of "levels of abstraction" is introduced, and common levels of abstraction are identified. A concerted effort is made to be consistent with current literature on both rigid-body mechanisms and compliant mechanisms whenever possible.

Department(s)

Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering

Keywords and Phrases

Plasticity; Wear; Electron Transport; Engineering Standards; Noise (Sounds); Materials Properties; Design; Project Tasks

International Standard Serial Number (ISSN)

1050-0472

Document Type

Article - Journal

Document Version

Citation

File Type

text

Language(s)

English

Rights

© 1994 American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), All rights reserved.

Publication Date

01 Jan 1994

Link to Full Text

Share

 
COinS