4.7 Article

Normal contact stress analysis of large-deflection compliant mechanisms using a CPRBM-based method

期刊

MECHANISM AND MACHINE THEORY
卷 191, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.mechmachtheory.2023.105524

关键词

Compliant mechanisms; Contact analysis; Contact stress; Large deflection; Chained pseudo-rigid-body model

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper presents a method for evaluating the contact interaction between compliant mechanisms and external objects. By establishing a numerical model and introducing contact springs to describe the contact forces, the deformation and normal contact force/stress can be accurately calculated. The static equilibrium configuration and contact force/stress can be obtained by minimizing the total potential energy function of the system.
The contact interaction between compliant mechanisms and external objects is a common occurrence in the field of grasping and manipulation. However, accurately modeling the large deformation and contact force/stress remains a challenging task. This paper presents a contact analysis method to evaluate the deformation and normal contact force/stress of compliant mechanisms with general-shape beams. The general beams are modeled by using the chained pseudo-rigid-body model (CPRBM). On basis of CPRBM framework, linear and distributed contact springs are introduced at the interface to represent the contact force. A numerical method is established to fast calculate the boundary penetrations, and a contact stiffness formulation is proposed based on the theory of elasticity. Then, the effect of contact interaction can be evaluated by the contact potential energy of contact springs, which is part of the system's total potential energy. By minimizing the potential energy function of the compliant system, the static equilibrium configuration and contact force/stress can be obtained easily. Numerical examples are used to verify the feasibility and accuracy of the proposed method.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据