4.7 Review

A survey on synthesis of compliant constant force/torque mechanisms?

Journal

MECHANISM AND MACHINE THEORY
Volume 176, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.mechmachtheory.2022.104970

Keywords

Constant force mechanism; Compliant mechanism; Synthesis method; Structural optimization; Kinetostatic modeling

Funding

  1. Natural Science Foundation of China [51375349]
  2. Natural Science Foundation ofJiangsu Province [BK20210294]
  3. China Postdoctoral Science Foundation [2018M642905]
  4. University of Macau under UM Macao Talent Programme [UMMTP-2020-01]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A comprehensive survey on the synthesis methods of compliant constant force mechanisms was conducted, categorizing three main approaches and providing detailed introductions to modeling and optimization methods for each approach. This survey offers overall perspectives on current status and future challenges in the field for designers and researchers.
To avoid complicated force control system in precision manipulation, compliant constant force/ torque mechanisms are proposed and developed continuously since the 1990s. The inherent nonlinearities due to varying stiffness raise high requirements for mechanism design, kinetostatic modeling and structural optimization. This makes the synthesis of compliant constant force/ torque mechanism a multidisciplinary and multiplex task. In this work, a comprehensive survey on synthesis methods of the constant force mechanisms is conducted. Three categories of synthesis methods are summarized, i.e., the Rigid-body Replacement approach, the Building Block approach and the Structural Optimization approach. For each category, the corresponding modeling and optimization methods are introduced in details. The presented survey provides overall perspectives on current status and future challenges in this field for designers and researchers.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available