You are on page 1of 10

Design of Compliant Mechanisms: Applications to MEMS

Sridhar Lola

Department of Mechanical Engineering & Applied Mechanics


1. niversitv of Michigan. Ann Arbor. Ml 481 09-2 1 2

A BSTRA CT

The two-dimensional nature of MEMS, and peculiarities of the microfabrication process oflèr numerous design challenges.
Batch fabrication demands nitnimal or no assembly. Micrornachining techniques limit the tYpe of mechanical structures that can
he built and thereb\ limit the type of mechanical t'unctions that can be realized at the niicro scale. Exploitation of elastic
deformation at the design stage. or use of mechanical compliance in design, leads to jointless. no-assembly monolithic
mechanical de'ices. rhe use of compliance seems to a prudent approach for designing micro mechanical devices. Besides, the
small scale and high aspect ratio of rnicromechanical structures makes them inherentl\ compliant. 1herefore. in MEMS. a
compliant design that needs no assembly is not merely a prudent choice, it is a necessit\.

Compliant mechanisms are monolithic mechanical structures that rely on elastic deformation to generate sophisticated
mechanical functions. This paper presents an overvie of mathematical procedures emplo\ ed for designing compliant
niechanisms. The paper outlines (a) topological synthesis — which involves generation of a functional design in the form of a
feasible topology starting from input output force motion specifcations. and (h) size arid shape opt rn i/at ion - to meet
performance requirements. Some examples of compliant MEMS are also presented.

1. INTRODUCTION
I raditionallv. engineered artifacts are designed to he strong and stiff Designs in nature, on the other hand. are strong hut not

necessarily stiff- the- are compliant '. Although nature thrives on use of compliance, the engineering '' orld has traditionall\
limited itself to rigid structures and rigid mechanisms. Compliant mechanisms are single-piece flexible structures that delier
the desired motion b undergoing elastic deformation as opposed to rigid bod\ motions of conventional mechanisms I Figure
I ). We introduce fully complaint mechanisms with distributed compliance for improved reliability and performance. and ease of
manufacture. Distributed compliant systems derive their flexibility due to topolog\ and shape of the material continuum rather
than concentrated tiexion at few regions as in plastic hinges. Compliant mechanisms are particularl\ suited liar applications
with small range of motions as their unitized construction ithout joints makes their manufacture extremel simple eliminating
assembly operations altogether. The Compliant Stapler shown in Figure 2 illustrates this paradigm o1 no—assemhl\
lurtherniore problems due to near. backlash, lubrication. and noise are alleviated.

Figure I: A Compliant Gripper Figure 2: A single-piece Compliant Stapler

Correspondence: Email: kota@ uniich.cdu Telephone 734-93ô-0i57: Fax: 7346473 170

Part of the SPIE Conference on Smart Electroncs and MEMS


Newport Beach. Cahfornia • March 1999 SPIE Vo 3673 • 0277-786X 99 $10 00

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.spiedigitallibrary.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://spiedigitallibrary.org/ss/TermsOfUse.aspx


1.1 Compliant MEMS

Compliance in design leads to jointless. no-assembly. monolithic mechanical devices. Since it is often not very practical to
fabricate jointed micro-mechanisms, due to difficulties in micro-assembly. compliant mechanisms offer an alternative to obtain
micro-mechanical movements without requiring mechanical assembly. Although simple deformable structures such as beams
and diaphragms have performed adequately in many micro devices, more sophisticated micromechanical functions can be
realized by fully exploiting the preferred uses of elastic deformation. Figure 3 shows some examples of compliant
micromechanisms. Majority of microdevices and systems rely on mechanical compliance (flexible structures) to take advantage
of micromachining techniques and to meet batch production constraints. They often curl up because of the residual stresses
induced in the fabrication process. Their size makes them susceptible to elastic deformation under electrostatic forces - a
phenomenon not evidenced in the macro domain.

On one hand, the design of micromechanical system based on traditional rigid-body assumption yields designs that aredifficult
to manufacture and assemble and on the other hand the resulting designs negate the rigid body assumption by exhibiting
compliant behavior under the action of residual stresses. Therefore, in MEMS. micro mechanical design based on the
assumption that resulting mechanical structures will be compliant is not only correct but it also yields designs that meet the
micromachining constraints well.

Nature has realized the pivotal role that compliance plays at the realm of microorganisms, the level at which MEMS fit'.
Nearly 90 percent of living creatures are invertebrates and the percentage of invertebrates increases as we go down the dimension
scale where compliant structures reign.

ii :fl

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Figure 3: Micro Compliant Mechanism (a) Crimping mechanism. (h) and (c) compliant grippers, and (d) micro four-bar mechanism

2.0 DESIGN OF COMPLIANT MECHANISMS


2.1 Overview

The first step in the design of a compliant mechanism is to establish a kinematically functional design that generates the desired
output motion when subjected to prescribed input forces. This is called topological synthesis. Although the size and shape of
individual elements can be optimized to a certain extent in this stage. local constraints such as stress and buckling constraints
cannot be imposed while the topology is being determined. Once a feasible topology is established, performance constraints can

46

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.spiedigitallibrary.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://spiedigitallibrary.org/ss/TermsOfUse.aspx


be imposed during the next stage in which size and shape optimization are performed. Performance constraints may include
minimizing the energy loss in the mechanism, obtaining desired motion amplification (geometric advantage) or force
amplification (mechanical advantage), or ensuring that none of the elements buckle under the action of applied forces and
external loads.

In this section, we briefly explain systematic methods of design of compliant mechanisms starting from functional
specifications. First, we describe a method of deriving the topology (configuration) of a compliant mechanism given the desired
input forces and output displacements. We illustrate this procedure by two different methods of implementation (a) ground-truss
structure as initial guess and (b) homogenization method. Next we describe the size and shape optimization of compliant
mechanisms given the desired mechanical or geometric advantage, stress constraints, size constraints etc. All of the work
reported in this paper assumes a linear elastic model. Geometric non-linearities due to large deformation and the dynamic
characteristics are not taken into account.

2.2 Topological Synthesis


The goal of this first stage in compliant mechanism design is to establish a feasible topology to meet prescribed input-output
force-displacement relationship. Although multiple input forces and multiple output displacements can be prescribed, we will
describe only a single input-output case for the sake of simplicity.

Given, a single-force-input and a single-displacement-output design specifications, first, we formulate an objective function that
captures the need for (a) compliance to undergo desired deformation (kinematic requirement), and (b) stiffness to resist external
loads (structural requirement) once the mechanism assumes the desired configuration. Second, we adapt a formal structural
optimization technique to synthesize a form, which is an optimal topology, shape and size of a compliant mechanism that
performs the intended function [1]. Three different implementation schemes have been developed — (I) ground truss structure
approach , (ii) continuum approach based on theory ofhomogenization2'5 , and (iii) an array ofbeam elements6. We will briefly
describe the first two.

2.2.1 Problem formulation

To satisfy both the kinematic and structural requirements in compliant mechanism synthesis, a two-part problem is posed in
terms of potential energies. The first part, the "mechanism design", is where the kinematic requirements are met by
maximizing the deflection at a specified point along a specified direction. This is achieved by applying a fictitious force at the
point of interest, B, along the direction of the desired output deflection, _. This "dummy load" is denoted by lB and as
shown below for a general design domain subject to an applied force, fA at the point A and some specified boundary
conditions. Maximizing the deflection at the point B in the direction offB is equivalent to maximizing the mutual potential
energy, VBTK UA, where UA i5 the deflection field due tofA, VB is the deflection field due to lB and K is the global stiffness
matrix. The constraints are two equilibrium equations, one due to the applied load, and one due to the dummy load.

Part 1 . Mechanism Design Part 2. Structure Design


fA = applied force
fixed point

Combined Problem

" fB=resistance
maxi
r mutua' energy 1
[ strain energy j
I = max
'BK UA
tIB K UB
max (s,BTKUA) mm (UBTKUB) subjectto KUA =fA
subject to K 1A fA subject to K 14B —fB K VB fB
KV8=J8 —
KUB fB
total resource constraint
lower and upper bounds
The second part of the two-part problem is the structure design, where the structural requirements are met by maximizing the
stiffness. Here the point A is considered fixed, and the resistance of the workpiece is accounted for by applying the force lB at
point B in the opposite direction. Maximizing the stiffness is equivalent to minimizing the strain energy, uBT K UB, where UB

47

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.spiedigitallibrary.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://spiedigitallibrary.org/ss/TermsOfUse.aspx


is the deflection field due to this set of loading, and K is the global stiffness matrix. The constraint is a single equilibrium
equation. The mechanism design and structure design are then combined into a single problem via multi-criteria optimization
[Frecker at al 1997]. The design example. given below, illustrates the ground structure approach. [Joo et al 19991 discuss an
improved problem formulation and its implementation using beam elements.

2.2.2. Ground truss structure approach

In this method, the prescribed design domain (this is the area within which the mechanism should fit) is first divided into a
number of nodes. Each node is connected to every' other node by a truss element. This serves as an initial guess. Certain nodes
are "fixed" to imply the points where the mechanism is anchored to the substrate. The cross sectional area of each truss
elements serve as the design variables with specified upper and lower bounds. The resource constraint provides less material
than the available space. The objective then is to distribute the material in a way that maximizes the objective function. During
the optimization process. those truss elements whose cross sectional area reaches the lower bound are removed (deemed
unnecessary) leaving only a network of truss elements whose area reached the upper hound. This defines the topology of the
compliant mechanism.

The results of the automated synthesis method are illustrated by the following example of a compliant gripper mechanism. The
design problem represents a half-view, where the dashed line represents the design domain, and the nodal constraints (boundary
conditions) are as indicated. The design specifications are that the applied force. F. cause the motion. D. at the indicated
location, which 'ill allow the device to grip some object at that point.

The initial guess is a full ground structure with a uniform distribution of cross-sectional areas. When the algorithm converges.
the solution consists of truss members whose design variable reached (or is close to) the upper bound. The truss members
whose design variable reached the lower bound constraint are eliminated. The optimized solution and corresponding finite
element model are shown below, where the undeformed shape is denoted by the dashed lines and the deformed shape is denoted
by the solid lines. Compliant grippers based on this design were built out of nylon using the Stratasys 3D Modeler.

- __ - 1-
Design Problem Initial Guess

Solution and Finite Element Model Compliant Grippers


Figure 4: Systematic Synthesis of Compliant Mechanisms using Topological Optimization
- Ground Truss Structure Implementation4

2.2.2 Homogenization methods

In Homogenization methods the design domain is parametrized using cellular microstructure (Figure 5(a)) and the optimization
method arrives at optimal values for the parameters of each cell (ab, and q). Thus, there will be 3n variables in the
optimization problem if there are n elements (cells) in the domain. If the optimized hole dimensions a and b reach their limit
values. i.e.. the length and width of the cell, a hole will be generated: if a and b are zero, then a solid cell is created and
intermediate values give rise to porous regions. This gives the method the ability to generate any topology, shape and size that
are optimal for given problem specifications (which are applied forces, desired output displacements and the amount of material
to be distributed in a prescribed design domain).

48

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.spiedigitallibrary.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://spiedigitallibrary.org/ss/TermsOfUse.aspx


The figure 5(b) shows the actual results from Homogenization program as snapshots of the automated design procedure at
difbrent stages during a session on synthesis of a micro compliant crimpingmechanism.

Force

ligure 5(a) : Parametrization of the design domain with


microstructural cells having rectangular holes 15. 61.
Figure
IEi
5(b) Snapshot of automated design procedure
showing generation of topology of compliant micro
pccifications are applied force and required displacement crimper

Figure 5 ( C): Micro compliant crimping mechanism fabricated by F3ulk-mieromachining process. Note the simiIarit of the top-half of
the mechanism with the topology generated in the last design iteration shown in Figure 5(h

2.3 Size and Shape Optimization

Once the topology is established, the next logical step is to perform a size and shape optimization. In order to produce
practical compliant mechanism designs. the following design criteria must be addressed.

(i) required kinematic motion (both magnitude and direction). (ii) required stiffness to an external load. (iii) design space. (iv)
materials properties. (v) stress limitations, (vi) buckling instabilities, (vi) dynamic considerations, and (v) weight limitations.

49

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.spiedigitallibrary.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://spiedigitallibrary.org/ss/TermsOfUse.aspx


Local constraints such as stress constraints, and buckling constraints cannot be imposed during topology optimization.
However, all such constraints can be taken in to account in size and shape optimization. During size and shape optimization,
we start with a known topology that is derived from one of the topology optimization procedures described above or a known
rigid-link mechanism. Topology optimization provides qualitative results in that it provides a kinematically functional
mechanism. It cannot provide a mechanism with prescribed performance characteristics such as desired mechanical advantage or
geometric advantage. For structural optimization of compliant mechanisms, the stiffness of the mechanism must be quantified
in order to achieve maximum performance. A compliant mechanism absorbs energy as the mechanism deforms. Therefore, one
way to quantify the performance of a compliant mechanism is to maximize the energy efficiency.

2.3.1 Energy efficiency formulation7


Considering a linear elastic body, work can be measured at both the input and output ports by assuming the following
boundary conditions:
. The input is "actuated" by controlling the displacement of the input port on the body. The input displacement in effect
controls the maximum range oftravel ofthe mechanism.

I Work performed at the output is measured by applying an external resistive load which opposes the desired direction of the
output port on the body. The external load can be considered to be a worst case load (on an average load) arising from the
environment of the mechanism.

As shown in Figure 6 below, these boundary conditions are applied in two separate stages. First, the external force is applied to
the body while the input is held fixed. Second, the input is actuated a fmite distance with the external load applied. Triangular
regions in Figure below at the input and output illustrate the energy absorbed due to loading and flexure. The shaded areas at
both ports represent the reciprocal work or a fixed kinematic relationship between the input and the output.

The mechanical efficiency can be formulated as follows:

max TIe.r.yiclency(Si, k)
subject to:
Uoit2
= MAdesired or GAdesIred
ipil U1?1

U0uf2*Uperp
Fe5 < F'crit
i Tmax
.1
Volume Resourcem

The results ofthe size and shape optimization based on the energy formulation are presented in Figure 7. Note that the
geometry, size and shape of the optimized mechanism have changed but the topology remains in tact. The energy efficiency of
the fmal design is 95.5%. The mechanism amplifies the input motion by a factor of two (GA = 1:2). By connecting a series of
such motion amplification mechanisms, we have developed a compliant mechanism, called MEMS Multiplier, that magnifies
the input motion by 20 times. This design is currently being fabricated by Sandia National Labs for possible use in their micro
weapon-lock system.

50

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.spiedigitallibrary.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://spiedigitallibrary.org/ss/TermsOfUse.aspx


Boundary CoridlIcn ai eounWuy Cendihori 2
Separate Boundary Conditions Applied to the Linear Elastic Mechanism

strain erierv due t itexure

reprOcai raIatorhi
(equa' reas

disp*rricri
3

StiSifi energy due lo adFngV"


""
BC#1 BC*2 BC *1 BC 2
input: Appied Displacunent Output: Applied External Load

Force- Displacement History for the Linear Elastic Mechanism


Figure 6: I.nergv efflciencv trmuIation used in size and shape optimization7

E 2 MPa

:\ T
4.2:j
•, 1.99:1
GA,j= 1:2.09 .

05cm / iON G4,.l2


: •ii_
I
:__i::.
' 'I
D.ormedGemeiry OptrnIzed Sue & ShApe
Figure 7 : Results from size and shape optimization using Energy Formulation7

2.4 V-Beam Suspensions: A novel suspension mechanism described here illustrates yet another application of compliant
MEMS. The two main components of a linear microactuator are, (i) electrostatic drive system and, (ii) elastic suspension
system. Mechanical design aspects of an elastic suspension system play a major role in controlling the performance
characteristics of a linear microactuator. The role of the elastic suspension system in microactuators is to provide an elastic
restoration force and to guide a planar shuttle in a rectilinear motion. For best performance. an elastic suspension system should
satisfy the following requirements:

(i) rectilinear motion guidance - the suspension system should have very low stiffness in the direction of motion and very
high stiffness in the other two perpendicular directions,
(ii) linear response characteristic - the suspension system should not introduce any geometric non-linearities. and
(iii) minimum residual stresses -the design should he robust against fabrication-induced residual stresses.

51

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.spiedigitallibrary.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://spiedigitallibrary.org/ss/TermsOfUse.aspx


ncar micro-actuator with I)ouhle-V-Beam suspension
'developed a novel suspension design called Double-V-Beam (DVB) suspension that meets all of the
Saggere et al
requirements of a suspension system with performance characteristics superior than many of the previous designs including the
commonly used folded beam suspension. For a given area, the DVB suspension provides almost 50% greater lateral
displacement8 and an order of magnitude higher transverse stiffness than the folded-beam suspension. A prototype of the new
DVB suspension has been fabricated using surface micromachining process. The new DVB suspension shows promise to serve
as the next generation MEMS-suspension and is particularly suited for applications where highly rectilinear motion of the
shuttle is desired.

3.0 Related Research

A compliant mechanism exhibits the behavior of both a mechanism and a structure, and can be considered as a synergistic
combination of the two. Thus, the design and analysis of compliant mechanisms can be treated in two wavs-considering their
abilirv to transform energy and transmit motion/force, they can be treated purely as mechanisms, or considering their ability to
undergo controlled deformations, they can be treated purely as a structures. Accordingly. two different approaches have been
developed for synthesis of compliant mechanisms, one based predominantly on the lines of traditional rigid-link mechanism
design and the other based predominantly on the lines of traditional structural design.

3.1 Methods based on traditional rigid-link mechanisms


Howell and Midha" presented a method employing the so-called pseudo-rigid-body model for designing compliant mechanisms
with small-length flexural pivots. The method is based on the approximation of path of the tip of an end-loaded cantilever as a
circular arc of centered at certain ratio of span from the fixed end, an idea similar to that originally used by Burns and Crossley
In this method, a compliant mechanism is modeled as an approximately equivalent rigid-link mechanism with torsional
springs at the joints. This transformation enables the use of well established synthesis methods for rigid-link mechanisms using
which the rigid-link lengths and the stiffnesses of the springs are first computed, and then. flexural hinges are designed to have
compliance equivalent to the computed spring stiffness values.

In a related field of research, Griffis and Duffv', and Pigoski and Duft' have presented modeling and inverse force analysis of a
system of springs. Although, these works discussed systems of springs from a different perspective, the mechanisms, however.
have interesting correlation to the class of compliant ,nechanis,ns under discussion. In a more recent work that relates to
compliant mechanisms directly, Yin ci al. '' have presented the inverse force analysis of a four-bar mechanism with compliant
input and output links.

The treatment of the synthesis and analysis methods in the above-cited literature was largely based on the lines of traditional
kinematics of rigid-link mechanism. Moreover, in all of the above-mentioned studies, the compliant mechanisms considered
had either highly localized compliance. i.e.. flexural pivots, to simulate conventional revolute joints, or flexible links with at
least one rigid moving link.

52

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.spiedigitallibrary.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://spiedigitallibrary.org/ss/TermsOfUse.aspx


3.2. Methods based on traditional structural optimization
Ananthasuresh15' 16
developed a methodology for synthesis of compliant mechanisms with distributed compliance using
continuum mechanics and a structural optimization technique called the homogenization method. The homogenization method
is a numerical optimization technique originally developed by Bendsøe and Kikuchi5 to obtain topologies for the stiffest
possible structures to satisfy given boundary conditions and resource constraints. In adopting this technique for compliant
mechanisms, the reformulation ofthe original objective in the homogenization was the key issue in the synthesis approach
developed by Ananthasuresh'5.
47 extended
the topological synthesis work ofcompliant mechanisms by modifiing the objective expression in the
multi-criteria model attempted by Ananthasuresh'6. Furthermore, to improve the convergence of the optimization routine, they
implemented two more modifications: (a) they used an initial design domain comprising a framework oftruss elements wherein
every node in the structure is connected to every other node instead of a continuum domain used in , and (b)
they initiated the optimization by biasing the design variables in such a way that the initial guess topology is that of a suitable
rigid-link mechanism for the task on the basis ofkinematic design intuition. Using this approach, Frecker17 synthesized the
mechanisms shown in Figure 5(a) and 5çb). The continuum mechanics approach for design ofcompliant mechanisms was later
explored by Sigmund'8 and Larsen et al by including mechanical geometric advantage of the mechanism in the design
objective of the optimization scheme.

4.0 Conclusions
Complaint mechanisms play an important role in the design of micro mechanical structures for MEMS applications. These
monolithic mechanical structures can be designed to perform complex mechanical functions and fabricated within the constraints
of present day micromachining processes. Based on linear elastic models, we have developed methods of synthesis of
compliant mechanisms to meet kinematic and static stiffness requirements. Our future work includes non-linearities due to large
deformation, and dynamic aspects of micromechanical structures. The design methods developed to-date can generate micro
mechanism designs for a variety of applications including, motion/force amplification, static shape change, and multiple
input/output force-displacements.
5. 0 Acknowledgements

The author gratefully acknowledge the financial support from the National Science Foundation and the Air Force Office of
Scientific Research to carry this research. This research was carried out in close collaboration with Professor Noboro Kikuchi
and is based on doctoral dissertations of G.K. Ananthasuresh, Mary Frecker, Laxman Saggere, and Joel Hetrick at the
University of Michigan.
6.0 References
I. Ananthasuresh, G. K., and Kota, S., Designing Compliant Mechanisms, ASME Mechanical Engineering, November
1995, pp.93-96.
2. Ananthasuresh G.K., Saggere L., (Faculty Advisor S. Kota), "A Single-piece Compliant Stapler" Won First place at the
ASME Mechanisms Conference Design Competition, Minneapolis, September 1994.
3 . Ananthasuresh G.K., Kota S., Role of Compliance in the Design of MEMS, Proceedings of the 1996 ASME Design
Technical Conferences - Design for Manufacturability Conference, August, Irvine CA.
4. Frecker, M. I., Ananthasuresh, G. K., Nishiwaki, N., Kikuchi, N., and Kota, S., 1997: "Topological Synthesis of
Compliant Mechanisms Using Multi-Criteria Optimization". Journal of Mechanical Design, Transactions of the ASME,
Vol. 1 19 No. 2, June 1997, pp. 238-245.
5. Bendsoe, M.P., and Kikuchi, N., 1988, "Generating Optimal Topologies in Structural Design Using a Homogenization
Method," Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, Vol. 71, pp 197-224, 1988.
6. Joo , J., Kota S., Kikuchi N., Topological Synthesis of Compliant Mechanisms using Beam Elements, submitted for
review, Journal of Materials and Mechanics.
7. Hetrick J., and Kota S., Size and Shape Optimization of Compliant Mechanisms, Proc. of the 1998 ASME Design
Technical Conferences, Atlanta, September.
8. Saggere L, Kota S., Crary S., " A New Suspension for Micro Linear Actuators", 1994 ASME Winter Annual Meeting -
Symposium on MEMS.
9. Kota S., Ananthasuresh, G.K., Crary S.B., Wise, K.D., Design and Fabrication of Microelectromechanical Systems,
Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 16, No. 4, pp 108 1-1088.

53

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.spiedigitallibrary.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://spiedigitallibrary.org/ss/TermsOfUse.aspx


10. Howell, L.L., and Midha, A., 1994b,"A Method for the Design of Compliant Mechanisms with Small-Length Flexural
Pivots," Journal ofMechanical Design, Vol. 116, March 1994, pp. 280-290.
11. Burns, R.H.and Crossley, F.R.E., 1968 "Kinetostatic Synthesis ofFlexible Link Mechanisms," ASME Paper No. 68-
MECH-36.

12. Griffis, M., and Duffy, J., 1991, "Comparing Structures of Stiffness Matrices Using Invariants," Proc. of the VII CISM-
IFToMM
Symposium, pp.85-92.
13 . Pigoski, T.M., and Duffy, J., 1995, "An Inverse Force Analysis of a Planar Two-Spring System, Journal of Mechanical
Design, Vol. 1 17, Dec. 1995, pp 548-553.
14. Yin, J.P., Matthew, G.K., and Duffy, J., 1996, "The Inverse Force Analysis of a Four-bar Mechanism with Compliant
Input and Output Links," Proc. (CD-ROM) ofthe 1996 ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers
in Engineering Conference, August 12-22, Irvine, CA, Paper No. 96-DETC/MECH-1 141.
15. Ananthasuresh, G. K., Kota, S., and Gianchandani, Y., 1993: "Systematic Synthesis of Microcompliant Mechanisms -
Preliminary Results'. Proceedings ofthe Third National Conference on Applied Mechanisms and Robotics, Nov. 8-10,
1993, Cincinnati, Ohio, Vol. 2, Paper 82.
16. Ananthasuresh, G. K., Kota, S., and Gianchandani, Y., 1994a: 'A Methodical Approach to the Synthesis of Micro
Compliant Mechanisms". Technical Digest, Solid-State Sensor and Actuator Workshop, June 13-16, 1994, Hilton Head
Island, South Carolina, pp. 189-192.
17 Frecker, MI., 1997, "Optimal Design of Compliant Mechanisms,"Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Michigan (Co-
Advisors: N. Kikuchi and S. Kota).
18. Sigmund, 0., 1997,"On the Design of Compliant Mechanisms Using Topology Optimization," Mechanics of Structures
and Mechanics, Vol. 25, No. 4,pp. 493-524, 1997.
19. Larsen U.D., Sigmund, 0., and Bouwstra , S., 1997 " Design and Fabrication of Compliant Micromechanisms and
Structures with Negative Poisson's Ratio," Proc. of the Ninth IEEE International Workshop on Micro-Electromechanical
Systems, San Diego, CA pp. 365-392.

54

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.spiedigitallibrary.org/ on 01/06/2016 Terms of Use: http://spiedigitallibrary.org/ss/TermsOfUse.aspx

You might also like