Design and Modelling of An Anti-Buckling Compliant Universal Joint With A Compact Configuration - ScienceDirect PDF

11/12/2020 Design and modelling of an anti-buckling compliant universal joint with a compact configuration - ScienceDirect
Download
Mechanism and Machine Theory

Volume 156, February 2021, 104162
Design and modelling of an anti-buckling compliant universal

joint with a compact configuration
Shiyao Li, Guangbo Hao , William M.D. Wright
Show more
Outline Share Cite
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mechmachtheory.2020.104162 Get rights and content

Under a Creative Commons license open access
Highlights
• We present a new compact complaint U-joint with axial anti-buckling in
bidirection.
• We improve the compliance matrix of a generic sheet.
• We derive the generalized compliance matrix of the joint about its centroid.
• We analyse the effect of sheet geometry on the joint's precision and motion range.
• We analyse the nonlinearities of the joint by nonlinear finite element analysis.
Abstract
This paper presents a new compliant universal joint using four identical generic sheet
flexures (short sheets) and a long wire beam. The compliant joint is compact and in mirror
Loading [MathJax]/jax/output/SVG/fonts/TeX/AMS/Regular/GeneralPunctuation.js
symmetry, and is robust to axial buckling in bi-direction. The compliance matrix of the
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094114X20303797 1/43
generic sheet, including a straight sheet and an elliptical-arc-fillet (EAF) sheet, is improved at
first. Then a normalization-based analytical model of the universal joint is derived, followed
by mobility identification of the joint. The relationships between the straight-sheet joint's
compliance and the length, width and thickness of the sheet are analysed quickly using the
analytical model. The linear finite element analysis (FEA) is further applied to verify the
analytical model for different joints. Given different geometrical parameters of the EAF sheet,
their effects on the parasitic motion and the maximum deformation of the joint are
elaborated. Nonlinear FEA is used to analyse nonlinearities of the joint consisting of straight
sheets and a round wire beam, including the large deformation, load-dependent effect, and
axial anti-buckling. Experimental results verify the accuracy of the derived analytical models
and confirm the successful design of the proposed universal joint.
Previous Next
Keywords
Compliant mechanisms; Axial anti-buckling; Universal joint; Compliance matrix;
Nonlinear FEA analysis
1. Introduction
Compliant mechanisms are made of elastic materials so they can transfer motion, load, or
energy by deformation without using rigid joints [1,2]. They require fewer components, have
less friction, and backlash, and have less weight than their rigid-body counterparts. Compliant
mechanisms can be free of assembly and therefore can be made in small size. For example, a
rigid body can move by a sliding or revolute joint and one link, but a compliant mechanism
can obtain the same function with a flexible beam [1]. Euler Bernoulli beams and Timoshenko
beams are commonly used in compliant mechanisms. Euler-Bernoulli beams are slender
beams, and the ratio of length to thickness is usually more than 10. Timoshenko beams are
short beams such that the shear effect should be taken into account for bending [2]. If the
width of a beam is much larger than the thickness, the beam is also called a sheet or blade
flexure. Otherwise, it is a wire flexure.
As there are compelling advantages when using compliant mechanisms, many researchers
have created compliant designs to replace traditional rigid mechanisms. This paper focuses
on the design of compliant universal joints. Dong et al. [3] and Palmieri et al. [4] presented two
compact compliant universal joints for continuum robots or mini-robots that are used in
constrained or narrow environment. Tanık et al. [5,6] reported cardan universal joints that can
be manufactured and installed easily. Machekposhti et al. [7,8] introduced a constant velocity
compliant
Loading universal joint for power transmission. However, axial buckling [9] can usually
[MathJax]/jax/output/SVG/fonts/TeX/AMS/Regular/GeneralPunctuation.js
occur on these compliant universal joints [3,4] when the compressive load reaches a critical
level and the stiffness of the compliant beam decreases to quasi-zero suddenly. Howell et al.
[10] introduced a unidirectional anti-buckling design into their compliant mechanisms, called
high compression compliant mechanisms, which can transform a compressive load into a
tensile load to avoid the axial buckling. Hao et al. [11] applied the similar idea into the design
of a horizontal-displacement compliant mechanism, and Zhang et al. [12] designed a lamina
emergent spatial joint with tensile flexures. Nevertheless, there are no reported compliant
universal joint designs with bidirectional axial anti-buckling. There are also some other
challenges when using compliant mechanisms, such as plastic deformation, parasitic motions,
and difficulty in modelling.
Plastic deformation occurs if the material's maximum stress is higher than its yield strength.
Most researchers calculated the maximum stress by using the maximum shear stress theory
(Tresca theory) for a brittle material, or the distortion energy theory (von-Mises-Hencky
Theory) for a ductile material, or by applying FEA software. Parasitic motion needs to be
minimised when compliant mechanisms are designed. Mirror-symmetry mechanisms are
much better than non-symmetrical or rotation-symmetry mechanisms at reducing parasitic
motion. For modelling compliant mechanisms, the differential method [13] and the energy
method [14] are linear solutions suitable for the small deflection. Beam constraint model
(BCM) [15] is a non-linear method to take into account the load equilibrium equations in the
deformed state, which is suitable for the intermediate deflection. Elliptical integration [16]
and the pseudo-rigid-body model (PRBM) [17], [18], [19] are often useful for the large
deflection modelling of compliant beams. In addition, the chained beam constraint model
(CBCM) works as a generic method for large-deflection modelling [20]. Those nonlinear
models in [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20] are for planar deformation only. For identifying the
degree of freedom (DoF) and degree of constraint (DoC) clearly and quantitatively, Hao et al
[13] introduced a normalization-based approach for manipulating the analytical model.
Inspired by the earlier works such as Refs. [3] and [10], this paper presents an anti-buckling
compliant universal joint with a compact and symmetrical configuration, which can be used
as a compositional unit of compliant continuum robots [16] or used as a precision power
transmission unit [4]. Analytical modelling method and FEA are applied to analyse the
presented joint comprehensively. The paper is organised as below. Section 2 shows the design
of the new anti-buckling universal joint. Section 3 derives the linear analytical model for the
joint with generic sheets. Then the DoF and DoC of the joint with straight sheets and a wire
beam are identified, and the effects of length, width, and thickness of the straight sheet on the
joint compliance are evaluated. In Section 4, an FEA model is applied to verify the analytical
equations. In Section 5, the joints with different types of sheets are evaluated in terms of
parasitic motion, maximum deformation, and stress concentration factors. Section 6 discusses
the nonlinear analysis of the joint with straight sheets and a round wire beam. Section 7
describes the fabrication, test methods and experimental results of the joint. Conclusions are
drawn in Section 8.
2. Design of the anti-buckling universal joint
An anti-buckling universal joint was designed and is presented in Fig. 1(a) using four identical
(short) sheets and a long wire beam, where the two rotating axes of the universal joint are
denoted by X and Y. The intersection of the two axes is also the centroid of the joint. The joint
is composed of three rigid parts: the top part (red), the middle ring (green) and the bottom
part (blue), and five beam flexures: four short sheets and one long wire beam. The top part is
the motion stage and the bottom part is the base. Similarly, another similar design can be
shown in Fig. 1(b). Fig. 1(c) and (d) demonstrate the simulated rotations about the Y-axis and
the X-axis, respectively. Fig. 2 shows two rotational axes of this universal joint, the X-axis and
Y-axis. The X-axis goes through the centre of two pink sheets and the Y-axis goes through the
centre of two yellow sheets. In this paper, we take the design Fig. 1(a) for analysis. Note that in
Fig. 1 the straight sheets can be replaced by elliptical-arc-fillet sheets.
Download : Download high-res image (834KB) Download : Download full-size image
Fig. 1. Two types of anti-buckling universal joints: (a) an antibuckling universal joint (design I),
(b) an antibuckling universal joint (design II), (c) the explored view of design I, (d) the explored
view of design II, (e) a prescribed rotation about the Y-axis act on the motion stage, and (f ) a
prescribed rotation about the X-axis act on the motion stage.
Fig. 2. Section views of the anti-buckling universal joint: (a) section view through the XZ plane,
and (b) section view through the YZ plane.
The bottom and top parts have the same geometry, and they are connected by a long wire
beam and four inversion-based short sheets, as shown in Fig. 2. The bottom part is connected
to the middle ring by two pink sheets, and the top part is connected to the middle ring by two
yellow sheets, so these three parts are connected in series. The bottom base stage and the top
motion stage are connected by the wire beam directly. Considering the universal joint is a
parallel system, the wire beam is a compositional leg against another leg composed of two sets
of short sheets in series. By this special arrangement, a compressive force on the motion stage
can introduce tension forces on each sheet flexure so that the axial anti-buckling of the joint
can be realized. Similarly, a tensile load on the motion stage will only introduce tensile load
on the wire beam so that the stiffness of the joint cannot decrease significantly to zero when
four sheets buckle.
If a sheet is short enough, the rotation about its width direction (at the middle of the sheet) is
the only desired DoF. Therefore, the desired two rotational DoF of the joint are realized by
four short sheets since the long wire beam only provides constraint along its length direction
(the Z-axis of the joint). Four short sheets are set in the middle ring, and two of them are
arranged in a plane as a parallel mechanism, as shown in Fig. 3. These four sheets are of the
same geometry and located at the same horizontal level, which ensures that axes X and Y go
through the sheet centres and the joint centroid. When the two pink sheets shown in Fig. 3(a)
are arranged
Loading in parallel, they produce a rotation about the X-axis; similarly, the two yellow
sheets shown in Fig. 3(b) produce a rotation about the Y-axis. If the bottom part is fixed and
loads are applied to the top part, the design can behave as a universal joint, which is to be
verified by linear analytical models in Section 3.
Fig. 3. The rotating axes for the compliant anti-buckling universal joint: (a) two pink sheets,
and (b) two yellow sheets (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend,
the reader is referred to the web version of this article.).
3. Linear analytical model of the universal joint

In this section, normalization-based compliance equations for a generic sheet, a wire beam
and the proposed anti-buckling universal joint are derived, followed by a mobility analysis of
the joint with straight sheets and a wire beam. The universal joint can be modelled as two sets
of parallel sheets connected in series with a wire beam arranged parallel to them. The
assumptions of linear elastic and isotropic material behavior under a small deflection are
made. The right-handed coordinate system and right-hand rule are used here. Note that the
nonlinear analytical model of the generic sheet for spatial deformation is still not available
(although the model for planar deformation is well developed in [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20])
so the linear analytical model is derived in this paper.
3.1. Normalized compliance matrix of the generic sheet and the wire beam
The generic sheets include straight sheets and elliptical-arc-fillet (EAF) sheets. Compared to a
straight sheet, the thickness of the EAF-sheet (varied) cross section g (φ) changes with
eccentric angle φ for an EAF sheet, which is defined in Eq. (1). When φ = 0, the g (φ) = T. T
denotes the minimal thickness of an EAF sheet, and for a straight-sheet, the thickness T is
constant. Ls and U denote the length and width of a generic sheet, respectively. As shown in
Fig. 4 for a generic sheet. a and b are the semiaxes of the elliptical fillet, the c is the length of
the EAF-sheet cross section and equal to asin(φ), the l is the length of straight cross section,
and equal to Ls−2c. (see Ref. [21] for more details).
g(φ)=T+2b−2bcos(φ) (1)
where,−φ
Loading m≤φ≤φm, φmis the maximum eccentric angle, with its range: 0 ≤ φm ≤ π/2
Fig. 4. The geometric definition of a, b, c, φm, l and g(φ) for the cross section of a generic sheet.
With constants, Ls, U and T, when a, b, c, and φm take different values, a generic sheet can
reduce to five types of specific sheets as shown in Fig. 5: (i) a straight sheet, (ii) an elliptical-
fillet sheet, (iii) an arc-fillet sheet, (iv) an elliptical sheet, and (v) an arc sheet.
Fig. 5. The classification of the generic sheet according to different cross sections.
A generic
Loading sheet with a local coordinate system o-xyz at the centre of free end is shown in
Fig. 6. One end of the sheet is fixed and the other end is free. g(φ), U and Ls are along the x, y
and z axes, respectively. External actual loads: Fx, Fy, Fz, Mx, My and Mz act at the origin, o. Fx,
Fy and Fz denote pure forces along the x, y and z axes, respectively; and Mx, My and Mz denote
pure moments about the x, y and z axes, respectively. E is Young's Modulus of the material, G
is the shear modulus, and v is the Poisson's ratio. When the sheet is very wide, like the design
shown in Fig. 6, there is a plane strain assumption for the bending in the xz plane [22]. That is,
if the sheet is stretched by an axial force or moment, it is more accurate to apply the plate
modulus E’ shown in Eq. (2), to account for lateral contraction due to Poisson's effect [23].
Thus we improve the load-displacement equations used in Ref. [21] with the plane strain
assumption. We use Iy to denote the cross-section moment of inertia about the y-axis and Ix to
denote the cross-section moment of inertia about the x-axis, shown in Eq. (3).
E′=E(1−v2) (2)
Iy=Ug(φ)312andIx=g(φ)U312 (3)
Fig. 6. A general sheet in a local coordinate system o-xyz.
The normalised compliance for the generic sheet in the local coordinate system is derived as
below. All translational displacements and length parameters are divided by the diagonal
footprint Ld of the joint [25], [26], [27], as shown in Fig. 7, which represents the system's
characteristic length (Eq. (4)). Forces and moments are divided by EIy_min/[(1−v2)Ld2] and
EIy_min/[(1−v2)Ld], respectively [13], where Iy_min denotes the minimal Iy, using the minimal
thickness T of the generic sheet. Therefore, we use fx, fy and fz to denote normalised forces, mx,
my and mz to denote normalised moments, xt, yt, zt to denote normalised linear displacements
and θtx, θty, θtz to denote rotational displacement. The relation between the load vector and
the displacement vector is coupled by the normalised compliance matrix CsE (Eq. (5)).
Fig. 7. Characteristic length Ld of the joint (Rout is the out radius of the joint).
The normalised compliance matrix of a generic sheet, with regard to its free end centre in the
coordinate system o-xyz, can be represented in a form of Eq. (6). and all entries are derived in
Eqs. (7) - (14). Note the detailed derivations are elaborated in Appendix A.
Ld=Lr2+4Rout2 (4)
where, Lr denotes the length of the wire beam.
CsE[fxfyfzmxmymz]T=[xtytztθtxθtyθtz]T (5)
CsE= (6)
[∂xt∂fx000∂xt∂my00∂yt∂fy0∂yt∂mx0000∂zt∂fz0000∂θtx∂fy0∂θtx∂mx00∂θty∂fx000∂θty∂my000000∂θtz∂
[C11000C1500C220C240000C330000C420C4400C51000C55000000C66]
where,
C11=EIy−min(1−v2)Ld3[(1−v2) (7)
(kaGU∫−φmφmcos(φ)g(φ)dφ+6Ls2a−12a(cl+c2−a2)EU∫−φmφmcos(φ)g(φ)3dφ−12a3EU∫−φmφmcos(φ)
+24a2lEU∫0φmsin(φ)cos(φ)g(φ)3dφ+6Ls2l−2l(l2+6c2+6cl)EUT3+klGUT)]
(8)
C22=EIy−min(1−v2)Ld3[(kaGU+6Ls2a−12a(cl+c2−a2)EU3)∫−φmφmcos(φ)g(φ)dφ−12a3EU3∫−φmφmco
+24a2lEU3∫0φmsin(φ)cos(φ)g(φ)dφ+6Ls2l−2l(l2+6c2+6cl)ET3U+klGUT]
C33=EIy−min(1−v2)Ld3[1EU(∫−φmφmacos(φ)g(φ)dφ+∫cc+l1Tdz)] (9)
C44=EIy−min(1−v2)Ld[12EU3(∫−φmφmacos(φ)g(φ)dφ+∫cc+l1Tdz)] (10)
C55=EIy−min(1−v2)Ld[12(1−v2)EU(∫−φmφmacos(φ)g(φ)3dφ+∫cc+l1T3dz)] (11)
C66=EIy−min(1−v2)Ld[3GU(∫−φmφmacos(φ)g(φ)3dφ+∫cc+l1T3dz)] (12)
(13)
C15=C51=EIy−min(1−v2)Ld2[−12(1−v2)EU(∫−φm0a(Ls−c−acos(φ))cos(φ)g(φ)3dφ+∫0φma(Ls−l−c−acos(φ
(14)
C24=C42=EIy−min(1−v2)Ld2[12EU3(∫−φm0a(Ls−c−acos(φ))cos(φ)g(φ)dφ+∫0φma(Ls−l−c−acos(φ))cos(φ)
In Eqs. (7) and (9), k is the shearing factor of the material [28], shown in Eq. (15).
k=12+11v10+10v (15)
The long wire beam has uniform round cross-sections in this paper. The normalized
compliance matrix of the wire beam with respect to its free end CbE is derived in Eq. (16) [13].
CbE= (16)
[EIy_min(1−v2)Ld3·Lr33EIr000EIy_min(1−v2)Ld2·−Lr22EIr00EIy_min(1−v2)Ld3·Lr33EIr0EIy_min(1
where, D and Ir denote diameter of the round cross section and moment of inertia of the wire
beam with uniform round cross sections, respectively. Ir is derived as Eq. (17). For simplifying
the analysis, the diameter of the wire beam's cross section remains the same as the minimal
thickness of the sheet in this section and the effect of the wire beam geometry on the joint
compliance will be discussed in the future.
Ir=πD464 (17)
Note that if a wire beam with uniform square crossed sections is used, D should the side
length of a cross section, CbE (3,3) of Eq. (16) should be modified as (EIy_min/[(1−v2)Ld2])Lr/ED2,
and Eq. (17) should be changed to Ir= D4/12. The wire beam is a round one if not specified
particularly otherwise in this paper.
Then the normalization-based compliance matrix of a sheet with regard to its centriod in o-
xyz can be derived as Eq. (18) (see Ref. [13] for details).
CsC=(DpTKsEDp)−1 (18)
where KsE is the normalised stiffness matrix of the sheet with regard to the free end,
respectively and KsE=C−1sE; Dp is a translational matrix, which is detailed in Eq. (19).
Dp=[I3×3[0−L2Ld0L2Ld00000]03×3I3×3] (19)
In Eq. (19), I3 × 3 denotes a 3 × 3 identity matrix, and 03 × 3 denotes a 3 × 3 zero matrix, and L=Ls
in Dp.
Similarly, the normalized compliance matrix of the round or square wire beam with respect to
its centroid CbC is derived in Eq. (20a) and (20b), respectively.
CbC=(DpTKbEDp) (20a)
−1=diag(4UT3Lr39(1−v2)Ld3πD4,4UT3Lr39(1−v2)Ld3πD4,UT3Lr3(1−v2)Ld3πD2,16UT3Lr3Ld(1−v2)πD
CbC=(DpTKbEDp) (20b)
−1=diag(UT3Lr312(1−v2)Ld3D4,UT3Lr312(1−v2)Ld3D4,UT3Lr12(1−v2)Ld3D2,UT3LrLd(1−v2)D4,UT3
where L=Lr in Dp.
3.2. Normalization-based modelling of the universal joint

The motion and load of the anti-buckling universal joint is defined at its centroid where a
global coordinate system O-XYZ is located as shown in Fig. 8(a). The four sheets and the wire
beam are numbered and their corresponding local coordinate systems are denoted as o1-
x1y1z1, o2-x2y2z2, o3-x3y3z3, o4-x4y4z4, and o5-x5y5z5, respectively, as shown in Fig. 8(b) and (c).
Those local coordinate systems have their origins located at their centroids, and their axes
direction are defined to be the same as Fig. 6. O-XYZ, o 1-x1y1z1 and o2-x2y2z2 have the same
directions of axes. If the y3 (or y4) -axis is rotated by -π/2 about the z3 (or z4) -axis, the o3-x3y3z3
is transferred into a coordinate system with the same directions as the global coordinate
system O-XYZ. If the z 5-axis is rotated by π about the y5-axis, the o5-x5y5z5 is transferred into a
coordinate system with the same directions as O-XYZ.
Fig. 8. Local coordinate systems and the global coordinate system of the joint: (a) the motion
stage, fixed stage, centroid, top centre of the joint, and the global coordinate system O-XYZ (b)
the front view of the O-XYZ at the joint centroid and the local coordinate systems o i-xiyizi at
their centroids, and (c) the top view of these coordinate systems.
The normalised compliance matrix of the joint with regard to the O-XYZ coordinate system
can be derived from the normalised compliance matrix (obtained above) of the four sheets
about their centroids in the oi-xiyizi coordinate system in combination with several
transformation matrices. Therefore, we have the normalization-based compliance matrix of

the joint as shown in Eq. (21).
CjC=〈[(Dp1TKsCDp1+Dp2TKsCDp2)−1+ (21)
(Dp3TRzTKsCRzDp3+Dp4TRzTKsCRzDp4)−1]−1+RyTKbCRy〉−1
where KsC, KbC denotes the normalized stiffness matrix of a generic sheet and a wire beam,
respectively, with regard to their own centroids, KsC=C−1sC, Kbc=C−1bc; Dpi denote normalised
translational matrices (i=1,2,3,4), Rz and Ry denote the rotation matrix about the z-axis and the
y-axis, respectively, which are elaborated in Eq. (22).
Dpi=[I3×3[0zi’Ld−yi’Ld−zi’Ld0xi’Ldyi’Ld−xi’Ld0]03×3I3×3] (22a)
Rz(−π2)= (22b)
[[cos(−π2)−sin(−π2)0sin(−π2)cos(−π2)0001]03×303×3[cos(−π2)−sin(−π2)0sin(−π2)cos(−π2)0001]]
Ry(π)=[[cos(π)0sin(π)010−sin(π)0cos(π)]03×303×3[cos(π)0sin(π)010−sin(π)0cos(π)]] (22c)
In Eq. (22a), xi’, yi’ and zi’ are the coordinate variables of each local origin oi in the O-XYZ
coordinate system, as shown in Table 1. Note that CjC can be verified to be a diagonal matrix as
KsC is a diagonal matrix, Dp1Dp2=I, and Dp3Dp4=I.
Table 1. Coordinates of each local origin oi in O-XYZ.
i xi’ yi’ zi’
1 0 −(Rout−0.5U) 0
2 0 Rout−0.5U 0
3 −(Rout−0.5U) 0 0
4 Rout−0.5U 0 0
3.3. Mobility analysis

In this section, the joint with straight sheets and a wire beam is selected for mobility analysis.
The DoF and DoC are analysed by comparing each normalized compliance entry. Using
Eq. (21), the normalised compliance matrix of the joint with regard to the joint centroid in the
O-XYZ can be derived as Eq. (23).
CjC=(CssjC−1+RyTCbC−1Ry)−1 (23)
where, CssjC denotes the compliance of the joint with four straight sheets only (i.e. not include
a wire beam) with regard to the joint centroid in the O-XYZ as shown in Eqs. (24)–(28).
CssjC=diag(CssjC11,CssjC22,CssjC33,CssjC44,CssjC55,CssjC66) (24)
CssjC11=CssjC22=Ls(11T2v+5Ls2+12T2)120Ld3+T2Ls(11U2v+5Ls2+12U2)120Ld3U2(1−v2) (25)
CssjC33=T2Ls12(1−v2)Ld3 (26)
CssjC44=CssjC55=LsT22Ld(1−v2)(U2+12(Rout−0.5U)2)+Ls2Ld (27)
CssjC66=Ls(11T2v+5Ls2+12T2)2Ld(−11T2v2−5Ls2v−T2v+5Ls2+12T2+30(Rout−0.5U)2) (28)
Let us consider an example of the joint, whose geometrical parameters are assigned as shown
in Table 2. The material is AL6082 aluminium alloy (EU standard), with Young's modulus
E = 69 × 109 Pa, and Poisson's ratio v is 0.33.
Table 2. Parameters of the joint with straight sheets and a round wire beam.
Joint geometry (mm) Straight sheet geometry (mm) Round wire beam geometry (mm)
Rout Ls T U a b c l Lr D
15 3 0.4 5 0 0 0 3 14 0.4
Substituting all the values in Table 2 into Eq. (23), we have
CjC=diag(3.488×10−5,3.488×10−5,1.221×10−6,4.511×10−2,4.511×10−2,4.560×10−4) (29)
From Eq. (29), we can observe that the rotations about the X and Y axes are the two DoFs of the
joint since CjC44 and CjC55, associated with the rotations about the X-axis and the Y-axis, are at
least 99 times greater than the other entries of the compliance matrix.
We specify the diameter of the wire beam to be the sheet thickness, and the length of the wire
beam to be constant at 14 (mm). From Eq. (23), length Ls, width U, thickness T of the straight
sheet and Rout have effects on the straight-sheet joint's compliance. When Rout is 15 (mm), and
Ls, U, T take a series of values, we evaluate ratios CjC44/CjC11, CjC44/CjC33, CjC44/CjC66 of the
normalised compliance matrix. The higher the ratios, the lower the tendency of unwanted
motion. Fig. 9(a) suggests that Ls and T influence CjC44/CjC11 greatly while U almost has no
effect on the ratio. From Fig. 9(b), we can observe that the ratio CjC44 /CjC33 decreases
significantly with smaller T and that Ls and U do not seem to influence the ratio. Fig. 9(c)
shows that Ls and T also influence the ratio CjC44 /CjC66 significantly, while U has less effect on
this ratio. The joint with shorter Ls and thinner T tends to have less unwanted motion, which
matches our original expectation. When we fix Ls, U and T at 3 (mm), 5 (mm) and 0.4 (mm),
respectively, the larger Rout leads to less unwanted motion as observed from Fig. 10.
Fig. 9. The effect of Ls, U, T on the normalised compliance of the joint with straight sheets and
a wire beam: (a) CjC44/CjC11, (b) CjC44/CjC33, and (c) CjC44/CjC66.
Fig. 10. The effect of Rout on the normalised compliance of the joint with straight sheets and a
wire beam.
4. FEA verification on small deformation

In this section, a FEA model is built in COMSOL 5.0. In FEA, we assume that only the four
sheets and a round wire beam are elastic while the remaining parts are rigid bodies (no
deformation), which is the same assumption during the analytical modelling. The maximum
meshing sizes of each sheet and the round beam are 0.625 (mm) and 0.680 (mm), respectively.
The meshing size of the rigid bodies is coarser than the elastic bodies. The relative tolerance
is set as 0.001 to increase the results accuracy. The total height of the joint (denoted as H) is
constant at 34 (mm) as shown in Fig. 8(a). Lr and D of the wire beam are fixed at 14 (mm) and
0.4 (mm), respectively, and Ls, U, T of the sheet and Rout are 3 (mm), 5 (mm), 0.4 (mm) and 15
(mm), respectively, for various FEA simulations.
In the FEA model, the reference point is the top centre of the joint. The actual compliance
matrix of a joint with generic sheets and a round wire beam with regard to its centroid
(denoted as CnjC) can be obtained by removing the normalised factors. Then the joint
compliance with regard to the top centre (denoted CnjT) can be derived from the joint
compliance about its centroid, which is shown in Eq. (30).
CnjT=(Dp5TKnjCDp5)−1 (30)
where, KnjC denotes the stiffness of the joint with regard to its centriod, KnjC=C−1njC; Dp5
denotes the translational matrix shown in Eq. (31).
Dp5=[I3×3[0−H20H200000]03×3I3×3] (31)
Note that CnjT is not a diagonal matrix.
The material used for FEA of the general sheets and the wire beam is aluminium alloy AL
6082 (EU standard) with a Young's modulus of is 69 × 109 (Pa). The Young's modulus of the
rigid bodies is specified to be 69 × 1012 (Pa), which is explained as follows. The joint with
straight sheets and a wire beam is used for the explanations. When the Young's modulus of
rigid bodies takes different values, we compare the compliance results between the analytical
model and the FEA model of the joint with regard to reference point (i.e. joint top centre) as
shown in Table 3. The main difference between the two models is that the deformation of
rigid bodies is included in the FEA model. When the Young's modulus of elastic bodies is 1000
times lower than the Young's modulus of the rigid bodies, the deformation of the rigid bodies
is constrained significantly, and the elastic-rigid body assumption is satisfied in the FEA
model.
Table 3. The verification of elastic-rigid body assumption by evaluating the results of the joint
with straight sheets and a round wire beam (ANA denotes the results of analytical model, and
FEA denotes the results of FEA model).
Results E of CnjT11/10−4(m/N) CnjT22/10−4(m/N) CnjT33/10−8(m/N) CnjT44(1/N.m) CnjT55 CnjT66/10

rigid (1/N.m)
bodies
(Pa)
ANA - 2.096 2.096 2.145 0.723 0.723 7.311
FEA 69 × 109 2.430 2.400 36.299 0.804 0.804 18.804
FEA 69 × 1010 2.160 2.156 10.817 0.722 0.722 8.035
FEA 69 × 1011 2.130 2.130 3.711 0.713 0.713 6.917
Loading
FEA [MathJax]/jax/output/SVG/fonts/TeX/AMS/Regular/GeneralPunctuation.js
69 × 1012 2.127 2.127 2.202 0.712 0.712 6.804
Results E of CnjT11/10−4(m/N) CnjT22/10−4(m/N) CnjT33/10−8(m/N) CnjT44(1/N.m) CnjT55 CnjT66/10

rigid (1/N.m)
bodies
(Pa)
FEA 69 × 1013 2.127 2.127 2.072 0.712 0.712 6.793
In order to verify the accuracy of the analytical model, we take the joint with generic sheets
and the round wire beam as examples, and compare the results between the linear FEA and
analytical models. The external force and moment are set to be very small, 0.001 (N) and 0.0001
(N⋅m) in the FEA model, which both act on the top centre of the joint, respectively. Let us
consider the seven joint cases in Table 4. The results are shown in Table 5, showing that all
errors between the analytical results and the FEA results are within 6 %, which is slightly less
than the 8% error reported in Ref. [21]. Note that in this paper, we introduce several
abbreviations to name different joints: ‘J-S’ denotes the joint composed of straight sheets and
a wire beam. ‘J-EF’ denotes the joint composed of elliptical-fillet sheets and a wire beam; ‘J-
AF’ denotes the joint composed of arc-fillet sheets and a wire beam; ‘J-E’ denotes the joint
composed of elliptical sheets and a wire beam; ‘J-A’ denotes the joint composed of arc sheets
and a wire beam.
Table 4. Seven types of joints with generic sheets and a round wire beam.
Joint acronyms Sheets of the joint A round wire beam a (mm) b (mm) c (mm) φm(rad) l (mm)
J-S Straight sheet D=0.4(mm) 0 0 0 0 3

Lr=14(mm)
J-EF_π/6 Elliptical-fillet 1 0.5 0.5 π/6 2
J-EF_π/3 Elliptical-fillet 1 0.5 0.866 π/3 1.268
J-AF_π/3 Arc-fillet 1 1 0.866 π/3 1.268
J-AF_π/2 Arc-fillet 1 1 1 π/2 1
J-E_π/6 Elliptical 3 0.5 1.5 π/6 0
J-A_π/6 Arc 3 3 1.5 π/6 0
Table 5. Comparison of the joint compliance with regard to the top center between analytical
model and FEA model (ER denotes errors between two models).
Joint Results CnjT11/10−4(m/N) CnjT22/10−4(m/N) CnjT33/10−8(m/N) CnjT44(1/N.m) CnjT55 CnjT66/10−3(1

Type (1/N.m)
J-S ANA 2.096 2.096 2.145 0.723 0.723 7.311
FEA 2.127 2.127 2.202 0.712 0.712 7.006
ER 1.48% 1.48% 2.66% 1.52% 1.52% 4.17%
J-EF ANA 1.934 1.934 2.081 0.667 0.667 5.965

_π/6
FEA 1.969 1.969 2.045 0.680 0.680 5.779
ER 1.81% 1.81% 1.73% 1.95% 1.95% 3.12%
J-EF ANA 1.538 1.538 1.872 0.531 0.531 3.450

_π/3
FEA 1.563 1.563 1.868 0.540 0.540 3.292
ER 1.63% 1.63% 0.21% 1.69% 1.69% 4.58%
J-AF ANA 1.378 1.378 1.739 0.476 0.476 2.536

_π/3
FEA 1.411 1.411 1.768 0.488 0.488 2.411
ER 2.39% 2.39% 1.67% 2.52% 2.52% 4.93%
J-AF ANA 1.193 1.193 1.593 0.412 0.412 1.801

_π/2
FEA 1.220 1.220 1.664 0.431 0.431 1.882
ER 2.26% 2.26% 4.46% 4.61% 4.61% 4.50%
J-E ANA 1.609 1.609 1.950 0.555 0.555 4.537

_π/6
FEA 1.639 1.639 1.926 0.566 0.566 4.382
ER 1.86% 1.86% 3.64% 1.08% 1.08% 3.42%
J-A ANA 0.870 0.870 1.468 0.300 0.300 1.326

_π/6
FEA 0.881 0.881 1.499 0.304 0.304 1.260
ER 1.26% 1.26% 2.11% 1.67% 1.67% 4.98%
5. Evaluation of the joints using different sheets and a round wire beam
In this section, we evaluate the joints using different flexure sheets and a wire beam. For
simplifying the analysis, we also fix the length Ls, width U, thickness T, H, and Rout for all
sheets, which are 3 (mm), 5 (mm), 0.4 (mm), 15 (mm),34 (mm) respectively, and the Lr and D for
the wire beam are also constant at 14 (mm) and 0.4 (mm), respectively. We firstly discuss the
effect of sheet geometry (a, b, c and φm) on parasitic motions followed by the effect on
maximum
Loading deformation. We use the analytical model to identify parasitic motions (precision)
but use the FEA model to investigate the maximum deformation (motion range).
5.1. Parasitic motions analysis of the joints

A parasitic motion indicates the unwanted motion along or about a constraint direction. ∆X,
∆Y, ∆Z, and θZ are unwanted motions for our joint. In Eq. (18), CjC11, CjC44 are equal to CjC22
and CjC55 respectively as the joint is a symmetric design and the loads act on the joint
centriod. When a, b, c and φm take different values, the parasitic motions were analysed by
comparing the ratios, CjC44/ CjC11, CjC44/ CjC33 and CjC44/ CjC66. The higher the ratios, the lower
the parasitic motions of the joint. The ratios of the joint composed of straight sheets are
1293.43, 3.70 × 104 and 98.92 respectively, as obtained from Eq. (25), which is a reference for the
joints composed of the EAF sheets.
Table 6 lists four types of joints composed of the EAF sheets and a wire beam. As the condition
Ls−2c ≥ 0 is required, the maximum value for c is 1.5 (mm). We specify c for ‘J-EF’ and ‘J-AF’ to
be 1 (mm) and c for ‘J-E’ and ‘J-A’ to be 1.5 (mm) (i.e. l = 0). Then a can be decided by the
maximum eccentric angle φm, and b can take a series of values, as shown in Table 6. It should
be noted that a depends on the eccentric angle (φm) and decreases with the increase of φm.
Table 6. Parameters in parasitic motions analysis of the joints with the EAF sheets and a wire
beam.
Case 1: J-EF φm (rad) a (mm) b (mm) Case 2: J-E φm (rad) a (mm) b (mm)
c = 1 (mm) π/6 2 0.1 ≤ b ≤ 1.9 c = 1.5 (mm) π/6 3 0.1 ≤ b ≤ 2.9
l = 1 (mm) l = 0 (mm)
π/4 1.414 0.1 ≤ b ≤ 1.3 π/4 2.121 0.1 ≤ b ≤ 2
π/3 1.155 0.1 ≤ b ≤ 1 π/3 1.732 0.1 ≤ b ≤ 1.6
π/2 1 0.1 ≤ b ≤ 0.9 π/2 1.5 0.1 ≤ b ≤ 1.4
Case 3: J-AF φm (rad) a (mm) b (mm) Case 4: J-A φm (rad) a (mm) b (mm)
c = 1 (mm) π/6 2 2 c = 1.5 (mm) π/6 3 3

l = 1 (mm) l = 0 (mm)
π/4 1.414 1.414 π/4 2.121 2.121
π/3 1.155 1.155 π/3 1.732 1.732
π/2 1 1 π/2 1.5 1.5
The analysis results are shown in Fig. 11. For ‘J-EF’, the CjC44/CjC11 ratio enlarges with the
increase of b and φm as observed in Fig. 11(a). The larger CjC44/CjC11 indicates larger stiffness
along the X direction and larger compliance about the X and Y axes. When b is close to 0,
CjC44/CjC11 is close to the results of ‘J-S’. The ‘J-E’ follows the same conclusion as ‘J-EF’. For ‘J-
AF’ and ‘J-A’, the CjC44/CjC11 is significantly affected by φm, the larger φm leads to a higher
CjC44/CjC11 ratio. Their results are also the peaks for the results of ‘J-EF’ and ‘J-E’ separately.
We can draw similar conclusions for CjC44/CjC66 as it has the same trend as CjC44/CjC11 shown
in Fig. 11(b). The larger CjC44/CjC66 indicates larger stiffness about the Z-axis. and larger
compliance about the X and Y axes. The CjC44/CjC11 and CjC44/CjC66 ratios of the joint with EAF
sheets are always higher than the results of ‘J-S’. In Fig. 11(c), the CjC44/CjC33 ratio is much
higher than the other two ratios and has the opposite trend compared the other ratios. This
means the stiffness along the Z-axis is the highest, leading to the smallest parasitic motion.
Fig. 11. The effect of the EAF geometry on the joint compliance: (a) the CjC44/CjC11, (b) the
CjC44/CjC66, and (c) the CjC44/CjC33 (Note that Fig. 11. (b) and (c) have the same legend as (a)).
‘J-A’ has the best precision. Under the same b and the same φm, both ‘J-E’ and ‘J-AF’ always
have less parasitic motions than ‘J-EF’.
5.2. Maximum deformation analysis of the joints

FEA was employed to solve for the maximum stress when a series of prescribed rotations are
exerted on a joint. Cases in Table 6 are also studied here. The prescribed rotations about the
Y-axis range from 0.01 (rad) to 0.06 (rad) with a 0.002 (rad) step. The yield strength of the AL
6082 (EU standard) alloy used is 276 (MPa). The maximum deformation of ‘J-S’ is 0.052 (rad),
and the corresponding to a maximum stress close to the yield strength is 273 (MPa).
The maximum rotations about the Y-axis among different joints are compared as shown in
Fig. 12. For ‘J-EF’, the maximum deformation enlarges with reducing b and φm. When b is
close to 0, the results are close to the ‘J-S’ result. The same conclusion is drawn for the ‘J-E’.
For ‘J-AF’ and ‘J-A’, the maximum deformation increases with the decreasing φm. Their results
are the minimums for ‘J-EF’ and ‘J-E’ individually. ‘J-A’ has the lowest maximum deformation.
When b and φm are fixed, ‘J-EF’ aways has highest deformation among the joints with EAF
sheets.
Fig. 12. The effect of geometry of cross section on the maximum deformation considering
stress concentration.
The relation between rotations and the maximum von Mises stress is shown in Fig. 13. The
position of the maximum von Mises stress is the thinnest section of the sheets. We evaluate
the design with the highest maximum deformation for each type of joint (b=0.1(mm)). The
curve of ‘J-A’ has the largest slope, which means the maximum von Mises stress increases
proportionally more with angle than others. ‘J-S’ has the lowest slope but its has significant
stress concentration at both ends of the sheets.
Fig. 13. The maximum von Mises stress of the joints increases with the rotations before
yielding stress.
The effects of cross-section geometry on parasitic motions and maximum deformation are
opposite, so the values of b and φm should be chosen as trade-offs, as shown in Fig. 14. ‘J-S’
has the maximum motion range but it has high stress concentration, which is not the best for
the consideration of motion range. If we need higher motion range, small φm and b are
required, such as in ‘J-EF’ and ‘J-E’. If we want higher precision, large φm is required and b
should be equal (or close) to a, such as in ‘J-AF’ and ‘J-A’. As for ‘J-AF’ and ‘J-EF’ (or ‘J-E’) whose
sheet geometry is close to the sheet of ‘J-AF’, their precision and motion range are
intermediate.
Fig. 14. The effect of sheet geometry on the joints under the same U, T, Ls, Rout, D and Lr.
The stress concentration factors of ‘J-S’, ‘J-EF’, ‘J-AF’, ‘J-E’, and ‘J-A’ are compared in this
section, and their sheet geometrical parameters are the same as those in Table 6 except
requiring b =1 (mm) for ‘J-EF’ and ‘J-E’. A constant prescribed rotation about the Y-axis, 0.01
rad, is applied on the joint. The stress concentration factors are calculated by Eq. (32)
Kb=σmaxbσnomb (32)
where σbmax is the maximum bending stress obtained by the FEA model and σbnom is the
nominal maximum bending stress that can be solved by Eq. (33).
σnomb=6MyUT2 (33)
where My is the pure bending moment related to the prescribed rotation, U and T are the
width and thickness of the sheet, respectively. The stress concentration factor of ‘J-S’ is 1.222
based on Eq. (32) and those for other joints are detailed in Table B.1.
The empirical equations of stress concentration factors refer to Ref. [29], which are shown in
Eqs. (34) and (35):
Kb=ξ+0.253ξ+0.097for‘J−EF’and‘J−AF’ (34)
Kb=ξ+0.188ξ+0.014for‘J−E’and‘J−A’ (35)
where ξ is a nondimensional parameter, and ξ =a2/(bT), which decreases with the increase of
φm.
Fig. 15 shows the empirical and calculated results of different joints. The maximum error and
minimum error between empirical and calcualted results are 4.66% and 0.29% . Kb of the joint
with ‘EAF’ sheets are much smaller than ‘J-S’. For the same type of joints, Kb increases with the
increase of φm. When φm is constant, ‘J-A’ tends to have relatively higher Kb than other joints.
All data of Fig. 15 are shown in Table B.1 in the Appendix B.
Fig. 15. Kb comparison between the empirical and simulation results.
6. Nonlinear analysis using FEA

In this section, we investigate the nonlinearities of the joint with straight sheet and a round
wire beam using the nonlinear FEA models.
6.1. Large deformation

The large deformation nonlinearity (i.e. geometric nonlinearity) is simulated as below. A series
of bending forces (Fy), and bending moments (My) are exerted on the joint's top centre, as
shown in Table 2, respectively. In Fig. 16, when the force and the moment are smaller than 18
(N) and 0.3 (N⋅m), respectively, which correspond to a rotation angle of 0.15 (rad), the rotation
errors between the nonlinear FEA and linear analytical models are less than 5%. When the
rotational
Loading angle is less than 0.001 (rad), the error is less than 0.39%.
Fig. 16. Rotations comparison between the FEA and analytical models of ‘J-S’: (a) Fy-θx, (b) My-
θy.
6.2. Load-dependent effect

Axial forces can lead to strong nonlinearities in the load-deflection relations in the motion
direction. A series of axial forces Fz act on the free end of the sheets of the joint, as shown in
Table 2. The bending stiffnesses about the joint centroid, KMy-θy, of the FEA and linear
analytical models are compared in Fig. 17. KMy-θy increases with the increase of compressive
loads, and decreases with increasing tensile loads. When the axial forces are −70 or 70 (N), the
errors are more than 5%, so −70 (or 70) (N) is the maximum axial force allowed if the linear
analytical model is used for accurate predictions. According to the normalization (linear)
analytical model in Section 3.2, an axial force of 70 (N) correspond to a bending moment of
2.3174 (N⋅m) that can produce 1.676 (rad) about the rotating axis. However, the maximum
rotating angle during FEA in this section is 0.052 (rad). So the effect of axial loads can be
neglected if the axial load is limited to a value that is equivalent to a moment (in
normalisation) for a rotation of 0.052 (rad).
Fig. 17. KMy-θy of the FEA and analytical models with a series of: (a) compressive loads, and (b)
tensile loads.
6.3. Axial anti-buckling

To verify the axial bi-directional anti-buckling ability of the joint, we compare the axial
stiffness-displacement relations between a traditional (compact) compliant universal joint [3]
and the anti-buckling joint. The traditional joint includes four compresural (short for
compressive flexural) sheets during a compression load on the joint, which is show in Fig. 18.
It has the same geometry of the sheets as the anti-buckling joint, which are detailed in
Table 7. Only the axial displacement is allowed when using nonlinear FEA in COMSOL.
Fig. 18. The axial stiffness-displacement relations of the traditional and anti-buckling joints.
Table 7. Parameters of the joint with straight sheets and a round wire beam for axial anti-
buckling analysis.
Joint geometry (mm) Straight sheet geometry (mm) Round wire beam geometry (mm)
Rout Ls T U a b c l Lr D
35 10 0.5 5 0 0 0 40 40 1.5
Fig. 18 describes the axial stiffness-displacement relations between the traditional and anti-
buckling joints. When a series of prescribed displacements act on the joint along the negative
direction of the Z-axis, the axial stiffness, KFz-∆z, of the traditional universal joint decreases
significantly to almost 0. This means the four sheets buckle after a critical load. The anti-
buckling joint always maintains a high axial stiffness even when the wire beam suffers from
axial buckling. The FEA deformations of two universal joints during the compressive loading
are shown in Fig. 19(a1) and (a2).
Fig. 19. Axial loading comparison between the traditional and anti-buckling joints: (a1) the
deformation of the traditional joint when ∆Z is − 0.3mm, (a2) the deformation of the anti-
buckling joint when ∆Z is − 0.3mm, (b1) the deformation of the traditional joint when ∆Z is
0.3mm, and (b2) the deformation of the anti-buckling joint when ∆Z is 0.3mm.
When a series of prescribed displacements act on the joint along the positive direction of the
Z-axis, KFz-∆z of the traditional joint keeps constant without axial buckling of sheets, and KFz-
∆zof the anti-buckling joint decreases to 3 × 106 (N⋅m) (still very high stiffness thanks to the
wire beam's tension), with the axial buckling of four sheets. The FEA deformations of two
universal joints during the tensile loading are shown are shown in Fig. 19(b1) and (b2).
7. Fabrication and experiment

In this section, we first fabricate a prototype of the anti-buckling universal joint (design II)
using arc-fillet sheets and a square wire beam, and then test the two rotations along the X- and
Y-axes of the prototype.
7.1. Fabrication
Aluminium alloy AL6082-T651 (EU standard) was selected as the material of the prototype.
CNC milling machining was used to fabricate the prototype. The parameters with assigned
values are shown in Table 8. Main reasons for selecting those parameters are stated as follows.
T is determined by the capability of CNC milling machine; the ratio of U to T should be more
than 10 times; a square wire beam is selected as it is much easier to fabricate than a round
wire beam and 2 mm thickness (D) is the standard thickness of a raw plate material; the
rotational stiffness of a wire beam should close to that of a sheet beam.
Table 8. Parameters of the joint with arc-fillet sheets and a square wire beam for testing.
Properties of AL6082-T651 Yield stress: 276 (MPa); Young's modulus: 69 × 109 (Pa);Poisson's ratio: 0.33;
Joint geometry (mm) Arc-fillet sheet geometry (mm) Square wire beam geometry (mm)
Rout Ls T U a b c φm l Lr D
35 10 0.75 8.4 2 2 2 π/2 40 40 2
As shown Fig. 20(a) and (b), the prototype should be assembled by six parts, including a top
part, a loop part, a bottom part, a square wire beam and two blocks for fixing the wire beam.
The top, loop and bottom parts of the joints can be connected to each other by M3 screws, and
the wire beam (square cross section) is connected to top and bottom parts by bolts and nuts.
The fabricated prototype is shown in Fig. 20(c).
Fig. 20. The fabrication of the universal joint: (a) The 3D model of the design-II joint, (b) the
explored view of the joint, and (c) the prototype of the joint.
7.2. Test methods

We used the TA. Hd plus Texture Analyzer (from Stable Micro systems) to test the two
rotations, using a load cell of 5 kg with a force resolution of 0.1 g. The hardware setup on the
experimental test is shown in Fig. 21. Take testing the rotation about the Y-axis as an example,
when a prescribed compressive displacement (denoted δz) acts on point 1 Fig. 21) by the probe,
the analyzer returns the corresponding reaction force (denoted Fre-z). Using the above
measured displacements and forces, the corresponding rotation, θy (rad), and moments, My
(N⋅m), can be determined by Eqs. (36) and ((37), respectively, under a small angle assumption.
A similar method is used to test the rotation about the X-axis.
θy=tan−1(δzr) (36)
My=Fre−z×r (37)
where r denotes the distance between the joint's top centre and point 1.
Fig. 21. The prototype on the test platform: (a) the rotation test about the Y-axis, (b) the
schematic for measuring the relation between θy (rad) and My (N⋅m) and (c) the measuring
points on the joint top.
We set r to be 32 (mm). δz ranges from 0 to 0.8 (mm) and the loading incremental step is
designed to be 0.02 (mm). The speed to control δz is 0.05 (mm/s), i.e. δz increases by 0.02 (mm)
every 0.4s, which is slow enough to minimize dynamic disturbances. Four attempts were
carried out for the measurements of each loading point.
7.3. Experimental results

Fig. 22(a) shows the My-θy relations where the FEA and analytical results are both provided to
compare with experimental results. When θy is less than 0.01 (rad), the results from the three
models[MathJax]/jax/output/SVG/fonts/TeX/AMS/Regular/GeneralPunctuation.js
Loading (analytical, FEA and experimental) are almost same. The differences of the three
models increase as the rotational angle increases. The maximum and minimum errors
between the experimental and analytical results are 6.27% and 0.02%, respectively. Similarly,
in Fig. 22(b), the maximum and minimum errors between the experimental and analytical
results are 7.11% and 0.04%, respectively.
Fig. 22. Experimental results: (a) My-θy, and (b) Mx-θx.
8. Conclusions
A new anti-buckling compliant universal joint has been studied in terms of compliance,
parasitic motions, and maximum deformation. The linear analytical model of the joint with
generic sheets and a wire beam was developed based on a small deflection assumption. From
the normalised analytical model, the new design of compliant anti-buckling joint has
universal movement properties because the ratio of desired DoF to undesired DoC is at least
99, and the joint with shorter Ls, thinner T sheets and larger Rout has less unwanted motions.
These analytical equations have been validated by the linear FEA model, and the errors are
within 7.7%. When Ls, U and T of generic sheets, Rout, D and Lr are constant, the effect of
cross-section geometry of the generic sheet on parasitic motions and maximum deformation
are analysed by the analytical model and the FEA model. As the effects of cross-section
geometry on parasitic motion and maximum deformation are opposite, the values of b and φm
should [MathJax]/jax/output/SVG/fonts/TeX/AMS/Regular/GeneralPunctuation.js
Loading be chosen for the optimum in trade-offs. The motion range of our joint design is
determined by two factors: length of sheets and material. We can enlarge the length of sheets
to increase the motion range (maximum deformation) at the cost of lower precision. We can
also replace the AL 6082 used in our paper with a material with a much higher yield stress, in
order to enhance the motion range.
The nonlinearity of a joint with straight sheets and a round wire beam is fully analysed to
discuss the large geometrical deformation, load-dependent effect, and axial anti-buckling.
Given a rotation angle of less than 0.15 (rad), the rotation errors between the nonlinear FEA
and linear analytical models are less than 5% during the large deformation analysis. When the
rotational angle is less than 0.001 (rad), the error is less than 0.39%. We can also neglect the
effect of axial loads on the rotational stiffness if the axial load is limited to a value that is
equivalent to a moment (in normalisation) for a rotation of 0.052 (rad), due to an error less
than 5%. The axial anti-buckling ability of the proposed joint has been verified. Experiments
are conducted in the end to verify the analytical results, which shows a maximum error
around 7% over a range of 0.025 (rad) for the rotation.
The presented universal joint can be well suited for cable driven (compression force based)
continuum robots due to its anti-buckling nature. It can also be used for rotational power
transmission, particularly when the axis misalignment during transmission is much smaller
than the motion range of the universal joint.
Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal
relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
The authors appreciate Mr Timothy Power and Mr Michael O'Shea for their excellent
fabrication work. Shiyao Li is funded by the China Scholarship Council.
Appendix A: Compliance matrix of a generic sheet with regard to its free

end
The spatial compliance matrix of a generic sheet with regard to its free end is derived in this
section. Under the small deformation assumption, the spatial compliance matrix of a straight
long sheet with regard to its free end can be derived by Bernoulli-Euler equations and the
principle of superposition [1,13]. Chen et al. [28] introduced a method to obtain the
compliance matrix of an EAF beam about its free end. So we refer to this method to solve for
the compliance matrix of a generic Timoshenko sheet (as defined in Fig. A.1), which is
denoted as CnsE in Eq. (A.1).
CnsE= (A.1)
[∂Xt∂Fx000∂Xt∂My00∂Yt∂Fy0∂Yt∂Mx0000∂Zt∂Fz0000∂θtx∂Fy0∂θtx∂Mx00∂θty∂Fx000∂θty∂My000000
[CnsE11000CnsE1500CnsE220CnsE240000CnsE330000CnsE420CnsE4400CnsE51000CnsE55000000C
Fig. A.1. The relation between the length of sheet Ls and eccentric angle φ.
From Fig. A.1, we have the Eqs. (A.2a) and (A.2b) and the thickness of the cross-section, g (φ),
varies along the sheet length Ls can be derived as Eq. (A.2c).
z={c+asin(φ)0≤z≤czc≤z≤c+ll+c+asin(φ)c+l≤z≤Ls (A.2a)
dz={acos(φ)dφ0≤z≤czdzc≤z≤c+lacos(φ)dφc+l≤z≤Ls (A.2b)
g(φ)={2T+2b−2bcos(φ)0≤z≤cTc≤z≤c+l2T+2b−2bcos(φ)c+l≤z≤Ls (A.2c)
Noted: 0 ≤ z ≤ c and−φm≤ φ ≤ 0 mean the same range along the sheet length Ls. The same
range applies to c+l ≤ z ≤ Ls and 0 ≤ φ ≤ φm as well.
In Fig. 6 of Section 3.1, Fx and My are actual force and moment act at the free end of a sheet in
the xoz plane, so we use plate modulus E’ to derive CnsE11, CnsE51, CnsE15 and CnsE55. Fy and Mx
act at the free end of sheet in yoz plane, so we use Young's modulus E to derive CnsE22, CnsE42,
CnsE24 and CnsE44. We use XtMy and XtFx to denote the end linear displacements along the x-
axis due to My and Fx, respectively, θtyMy and θtyFx to denote the end rotational displacements
along the y-axis due to My and Fx, respectively.
(1) CnsE11andCnsE51
The resulting moment MFx due to Fx acting on the free end can be obtained as Eq. (A.3).
MFx(z)={−Fx(Ls−c−asin(ϕ))0≤z≤c−Fx(Ls−z)c≤z≤c+l−Fx(Ls−l−c−asin(φ))c+l≤z≤Ls (A.3)
θtyFx can be derived as Eq. (A.4a).
θtyMFx(z)=1E’∫MFx(z)Iy(z)dz (A.4a)
where Iy(z) is the cross-section moment of inertia about the y-axis as shown in Eq. (A.4b).
Iy(z)= (A.4b)
{Ug(φ)312=U(2T+2b−2bcos(φ))3120≤z≤cUT312c≤z≤c+lUg(φ)312=U(2T+2b−2bcos(φ))312c+l≤z≤Ls
Substituting Eqs. (A.2) and (A.3) into Eq. (A.4), CnsE51 can be derived as Eq. (A.5).
(A.5)
CnsE51=−12(1−v2)EU(∫−φm0a(Ls−c−acos(φ))cos(φ)g(φ)3dφ+∫cc+lLs−zT3dz+∫0φma(Ls−l−c−acos(φ))cos(
CnsE11 results from the contributions of the bending deflection (denoted as XtbFx) and the
shearing deflection (denoted as XtsFx) due to a force of Fx. XtbFx can be derived using
integration by parts as shown in Eq. (A.6a).
XtbMFx(z)=∫θyMFx(z)dz=zθyMFx(z)−∫zdθyMFx(z) (A.6a)
where dθtyMFx(z) can be derived as Eq. (A.6b)
dθtyMFx(z)=MFx(z)E’Iy(z)dz (A.6b)
The deflection due to shearing deflection XtsFx can be presented as Eq. (A.7)
XtsFx(z)=FxkGU∫1g(z)dz (A.7)
where k is the shearing factor of material, k=(12+11v)/(10+10v) [28].
Substituting Eqs. (A.2) and (A.3) into Eqs. (A.6) and (A.7), CnsE11 can be derived as Eq. (A.8),
which is the same equation in Ref. [28] except the introduced coefficient (1-v2) considering
plate modulus effect.
CnsE11=(1−v2) (A.8)
(kaGU∫−φmφmcos(φ)g(φ)dφ+6Ls2a−12a(cl+c2−a2)EU∫−φmφmcos(φ)g(φ)3dφ−12a3EU∫−φmφmcos(φ)
+24a2lEU∫0φmsin(φ)cos(φ)g(φ)3dφ+6Ls2l−2l(l2+6c2+6cl)EUT3+klGUT)
The compliance matrix is symmetrical so CnsE15 is equal to CnsE51.

(2) CnsE22 and CnsE42
CnsE22 and CnsE42 can be obtained following the same method for deriving CnsE11 and CnsE51,
respectively, except we use Young's modulus E here. The resulting moment MFy due to Fy
acting on the free end as shown in Eq. (A.9).
MFy(z)={Fy(Ls−c−asin(ϕ))0≤z≤cFy(Ls−z)c≤z≤c+lFy(Ls−l−c−asin(φ))c+l≤z≤Ls (A.9)
θtxFy can be derived as Eq. (A.10a).
θtxMFy(z)=1E∫MFy(z)Ix(z)dz (A.10a)
where Ix(z) is the cross-section moment of inertia about the x-axis as shown in Eq. (A.10b).
Ix(z)= (A.10b)
{U3g(φ)12=U3(2T+2b−2bcos(φ))120≤z≤cU3T12c≤z≤c+lU3g(φ)12=U3(2T+2b−2bcos(φ))12c+l≤z≤Ls
Substituting
Loading Eqs. (A.2) and (A.9) into Eq. (A.10), CnsE42 can be derived as Eq. (A.11).
(A.11)
CnsE42=12EU3(∫−φm0a(Ls−c−acos(φ))cos(φ)g(φ)dφ+∫cc+lLs−zTdz+∫0φma(Ls−l−c−acos(φ))cos(φ)g(φ)dφ
As for CnsE22, it has the same result as Ref. [28], and CnsE24 is equal to CnsE42.
(3) CnsE33
CnsE33 results from axial force Fz that leads to an axial displacement ZtFz. ZtFz can then be
expressed as below.
ZtFz(z)=FzEU∫1g(z)dz (A.12)
Substituting Eq. (A2) into Eq. (A.12), CnsE33 can be derived as Eq. (A.13).
CnsE33=1EU(∫−φm0acos(φ)g(φ)dφ+∫cc+l1Tdz+∫0φmacos(φ)g(φ)dφ) (A.13)
(4) CnsE44 and CnsE55
CnsE44 and CnsE55 are caused by Mx and My, respectively. Correspondingly, θtxMx and θtyMy can
be derived as Eq. (A.14).
θtxMx(z)=MxE∫1Ix(z)dz (A.14a)
θtyMy(z)=MyE’∫1Iy(z)dz (A.14b)
Substituting Eq. (A.2) into Eq. (A.14), CnsE44 and CnsE55 can be derived as Eq. (A.15).
CnsE44=12EU3(∫−φm0acos(φ)g(φ)dφ+∫cc+l1Tdz+∫0φmacos(φ)g(φ)dφ) (A.15a)
CnsE55=12(1−v2)EU(∫−φm0acos(φ)g(φ)3dφ+∫cc+l1T3dz+∫0φmacos(φ)g(φ)3dφ) (A.15b)
(5) CnsE66
When the ratio of U to T is greater than 10 of a rectangular cross-section, θtz can be

approximately equal to Eq. (A.16) [32].
θtz=3MzGU∫1g(z)3dz (A.16)
Substituting Eq. (A.2) into Eq. (A.18), we have CnsE66 as Eq. (A.17).
CnsE66=3GU(∫−φm0acos(φ)g(φ)3dφ+∫cc+l1T3dz+∫0φmacos(φ)g(φ)3dφ) (A.17)
The difference between the sheet models of Refs. [13,24,28] and our model is shown in
Table A.1.
Table A.1. The difference between four sheet models.
Shearing effect Warping effect Poisson's effect Straight sheet EAF sheet
Model 1 [13] × √ √ √ ×
Model 2 [24] √ √ √ √ ×
Model 3 [28] √ √ × √ √
Our Model √ √ √ √ √
Notes:
Shearing effect: If a bending force act on a beam, an extra deflection and a slope are generated through
shearing, and the normal line of cross-section is no longer collinear with the neutral axis of the beam [2].
Warping effect: If a moment about axial axis acts on a beam, the cross-section of the beam will not remain
plane [30] .
Poisson's effect: If a beam is stretched by an axial force or moment, the beam will have a lateral extension or
contraction [23,24].
Appendix B: The stress concentration factors of the joints with different

sheets
Table B.1. The comparison of stress concentration factors of the joints between empirical
results and calculated results.
Joint c(mm) l(mm) b(mm) φm a(mm) ξ Empirical σbnom × 107(Pa) σbmax × 107(Pa) Calculated

type Kb Kb
J-S 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 5.162 6.309 1.2222
J-EF 1 1 1 π/6 2.00 9.998 1.0155 6.813 6.978 1.0241
π/4 1.41 4.999 1.0306 7.839 8.231 1.0499
π/3 1.15 3.333 1.0455 8.547 9.095 1.0641
π/2 1.00 2.500 1.0601 9.073 9.761 1.0758
J-E 1.5 0 1 π/6 3.00 22.495 1.0077 8.110 8.269 1.0196
π/4 2.12 11.248 1.0155 10.584 11.123 1.0509
π/3 1.73 7.499 1.0232 12.717 13.587 1.0684

Joint c(mm) l(mm) b(mm) φm a(mm) ξ Empirical σbnom × 107(Pa) σbmax × 107(Pa) Calculated

type Kb Kb
π/2 1.50 5.625 1.0309 14.607 15.760 1.0789
J-AF 1 1 b=a π/6 2.00 4.999 1.0306 7.796 8.176 1.0487
π/4 1.41 3.535 1.0429 8.406 8.977 1.0679
π/3 1.15 2.887 1.0523 8.790 9.515 1.0825
π/2 1.00 2.500 1.0601 9.073 9.865 1.0872
J-A 1.5 1 b =a π/6 3.00 7.499 1.0232 12.458 12.709 1.0201
π/4 2.12 5.303 1.0327 14.719 15.478 1.0516
π/3 1.73 4.330 1.0401 16.306 17.431 1.0690
π/2 1.50 3.750 1.0462 17.573 19.210 1.0931
Appendix C: Nomenclature in text
Table C.1. Symbols.
a Long axis of an ellipse.
b Short axis of an ellipse.
CsE Normalised compliance matrix of a generic sheet with regard to the sheet end, ‘sE’ denotes ‘sheet
end’.
CsC Normalised compliance matrix of a generic sheet with regard to the sheet centroid, ‘sC’ denotes
‘sheet centroid’.
CbE Normalised compliance matrix of a generic sheet with regard to the sheet end, ‘bE’ denotes ‘wire
beam end’.
CbC Normalised compliance matrix of a generic sheet with regard to the sheet centroid, ‘bC’ denotes
‘wire beam centroid’.
CssjC Normalised compliance matrix of the joint with only four sheets with regard to the joint centroid,
‘jC’ denotes ‘joint centroid’. ‘ss’ denotes the joint includes four sheets without a wire beam.
CnsE Compliance matrix of a generic sheet with regard to the sheet end, ‘n’ denotes ‘non-normalised’.
CjC Normalised compliance matrix of the joint with four sheets and a wire beam about the joint
centroid.
CnjC Compliance matrix of the joint with regard to the joint centroid. ‘n’ denotes ‘non-Normalised’,
CnjT Compliance matrix of the joint with regard to the joint top centre. ‘n’ denotes ‘non-normalised’,
‘jT’ denotes ‘top centre of the joint’.
c Length of the EAF sheet cross section, c = asin(φ).
D Diameter of the round beam or side length of the square beam.
Dp, Translational matrix.

Dpi
E Young's modulus.
E’ Plate modulus.
Fx, Fy, Pure forces act at sheet free-end along the x, y and z axes, respectively.
Fz
Fre-Z The reaction force that the TA analyzer returns.
fx, fy, fz Normalised force (scalar) corresponding Fx, Fy, Fz.
G Shear modulus.
g (φ) Thickness of the EAF sheet.
H Height of the joint.
Ix Cross-section moment of inertia about the x-axis.
Iy The cross-section moment of inertia about the y-axis.
Iy_min Minimal cross-section moment of inertia about the y-axis.
KsE Normalised stiffness of a sheet with regard to its free end.
KsC Normalised stiffness of asheet with regard to its centroid.
KbE Normalised stiffness of a wire beam with regard to its free end.
KbC Normalised stiffness of a wire beam with regard to its centroid.
KnjC Stiffness of the joint with generic sheets with regard to its centroid.
KMy-θy The bending stiffness of the joint about its centroid.
KFz-∆z The axial stiffness of the joint.
k Shearing factor of the material
Ls Length of a generic sheet.
Ld System's characteristic length.
Lr Length of a wire beam with round cross-section.

l Length of the straight cross section.
Mx, Pure moments act at sheet free-end about the x, y and z axes, respectively
My,
Mz
mx, Normalised moment (scalar) corresponding Mx, My, Mz.

my, mz
Rout Outer-circle radius of the joint.
Rz Rotation matrix about the z-axis.
Ry Rotation matrix about the y-axis.
r The distance between the joint top centre and the measuring points in the experiment.
T Minimal thickness of a generic sheet.
U Width of a generic sheet.
v Poisson's ratio of the material.
Xt, Yt, Actual translational displacement of the sheet free-end along x, y and z axes, respectively.
Zt
xt, yt, Normalised translational displacement of the sheet free-end along x, y and z axes, respectively.
zt
φm Maximum eccentric angle of cross section of a generic sheet.
φ Eccentric angle of cross section of a generic sheet.
θX, Rotation displacements of the joint about its centroid about X, Y and Z axes, respectively.
θY, θZ
θtx, Rotational displacements of the sheet free-end about x, y and z axes, respectively.
θty,
θtz,
∆X, Translational displacement of the joint about its centroid about X, Y and Z axes, respectively.
∆Y, ∆Z
ξ A nondimensional parameter of empirical equations for calculating stress concentration factors.
δz The prescribed displacements for experimental testing.
Table C.2. Abbreviations.
ANA Analytical model.
DoF Degree of Freedom.
DoC Degree of constraint.
ER Errors between analytical model and FEA model.
EAF Elliptical-arc-fillet sheets.
FEA Finite element analysis.
J-A The joint with arc sheets and a wire beam.
J-AF The joint with arc-fillet sheets and a wire beam.
J-E The joint with elliptical sheets and a wire beam.
J-EF The joint with elliptical-fillet sheets and a wire beam.
J-S The joint with straight sheets and a wire beam.
Recommended articles Citing articles (0)
References
[1] L.L. Howell
Compliant Mechanism
Wiley, New York (2001)
Google Scholar
[2] N. Lobontiu
Compliant Mechanisms: Design of Compliant
CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL (2002)
Google Scholar
[3] X. Dong, M. Raffles, S.C. Guzman, D. Axinte, J. Kell

Design and analysis of a family of snake arm robots connected by compliant joints
Mech. Mach. Theory, 77 (2014), pp. 73-91
Article Download PDF View Record in Scopus Google Scholar
[4] G. Palmieri, M.C. Palpacelli, M. Callegari

Study of a fully compliant u-joint designed for minirobotics applications
J. Mech. Des. Trans. ASME, 134 (11) (2012), Article 111003
Google Scholar
[5] Ç.M. Tanık, V. Parlaktaş, E. Tanık, S. Kadıoğlu

Steel compliant Cardan universal joint
[6] E. Tanık, V. Parlaktaş

Compliant cardan universal joint
J. Mech. Des. Trans. ASME, 134 (2) (2012), pp. 1-5
Google Scholar
[7] D.F. Machekposhti, N. Tolou, J.L. Herder

A fully compliant homokinetic coupling
Google Scholar
[8] D.F. Machekposhti, N. Tolou, J.L. Herder

A statically balanced fully compliant power transmission mechanism between parallel
rotational axes
[9] J.M. Gere, S.P. Timoshenko

Mechanics of materials, Stanley Thornes (1999)
Google Scholar
[10] A.E. Guérinot, S.P. Magleby, L.L. Howell

Preliminary design concepts for compliant mechanism prosthetic knee joints
Proceedings of the ASME Design Engineering Technical Conference, 2 B (2004), pp.
1103-1111
View Record in Scopus Google Scholar
[11] K. Kong, G. Chen, G. Hao

Kinetostatic modeling and optimization of a Novel horizontal-displacement compliant
mechanism
J. Mech. Robot., 11 (6) (2019), Article 064502
Google Scholar
[12] H. Zhang, X. Zhang, B. Zhu

A novel flexural lamina emergent spatial joint
Mech. Mach. Theory, 142 (2019), Article 103582
Article Download PDF Google Scholar
[13] G. Hao
Creative Design and Modelling of Large-Range Translational Compliant Parallel
Manipulators
Heriot-Watt University (2011)
Google Scholar
[14] G. Hao, R.B. Hand
Design and static testing of a compact distributed-compliance gripper based on

flexure motion
Arch. Civ. Mech. Eng., 16 (4) (2016), pp. 708-716
Article Download PDF CrossRef View Record in Scopus Google Scholar
[15] S. Awtar, S. Sen

A generalized constraint model for two-dimensional beam flexures: nonlinear strain
energy formulation
Google Scholar
[16] K. Xu, N. Simaan

Analytic formulation for kinematics, statics, and shape restoration of multibackbone
continuum robots via elliptic integrals
J. Mech. Robot., 2 (1) (2010), Article 011006
Google Scholar
[17] G. Li, G. Chen

Achieving compliant spherical linkage designs from compliant planar linkages based
on PRBM: A spherical Young mechanism case study
Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics,
ROBIO 2012 - Conference Digest (2012), pp. 193-197
View Record in Scopus Google Scholar
[18] M. Jin, B. Zhu, J. Mo, Z. Yang, X. Zhang, L.L. Howell

A CPRBM-based method for large-deflection analysis of contact-aided compliant
mechanisms considering beam-to-beam contacts
[19] M. Jin, Z. Yang, C. Ynchausti, B. Zhu, X. Zhang, L.L. Howell

Large-deflection analysis of general beams in contact-aided compliant mechanisms
using chained pseudo-rigid-body model
J. Mech. Robot., 12 (3) (2020), pp. 1-10
CrossRef Google Scholar
[20] F. Ma, G. Chen

Kinetostatic modeling and characterization of compliant mechanisms containing
flexible beams of variable effective length
[21] G. Chen, X. Shao, X. Huang

A new generalized model for elliptical arc flexure hinges
Loading Rev.
Sci. Instrum., 79 (9) (2008), Article 095103
CrossRef Google Scholar
[22] G. Hao, H. Li, S. Kemalcan, G. Chen, J. Yu

Understanding coupled factors that affect the modelling accuracy of typical planar
compliant mechanisms
Front. Mech. Eng., 11 (2) (2016), pp. 129-134
CrossRef View Record in Scopus Google Scholar
[23] S. Awtar
Synthesis and analysis of parallel Kinematic XY flexure mechanisms
Massachusetts Inst. Technol. Dept Mech. Eng., 126 (2004), p. 109
December 2003
Google Scholar
[24] L.C. Hale

Principles and Techniques for Designing Precision Machines
University of California, Livermore (1999)
Google Scholar
[25] A.B. MacKay, D.G. Smith, S.P. Magleby, B.D. Jensen, L.L. Howell
Metrics for evaluation and design of large-displacement linear-motion compliant
mechanisms
Google Scholar
[26] Fulei Ma, G. Chen, H. Wang

Large-stroke constant-force mechanisms utilizing second buckling mode of flexible
beams: evaluation metrics and design approach
J. Mech. Des. Des., 142 (10) (2020), Article 103303
Google Scholar
[27] Y.H. Chen, C.C. Lan

An adjustable constant-force mechanism for adaptive end-effector operations
Google Scholar
[28] G. Chen, X. Liu, Y. Du

Elliptical-arc-fillet flexure hinges: Toward a generalized model for commonly used
flexure hinges
J. Mech. Des., 133 (8) (2011), Article 081002
Google Scholar
[29] G. Chen, J. Wang, X. Liu

Generalized equations for estimating stress concentration factors of various notch
Loading flexure hinges
Google Scholar
[30] J. Timoshenko, P Stephen, Goodier

Theory of Elasticity, McGraw-Hill Education (India) Pvt Limited (2010)
Google Scholar
View Abstract
© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.
About ScienceDirect
Remote access
Shopping cart
Advertise
Contact and support
Terms and conditions
Privacy policy
We use cookies to help provide and enhance our service and tailor content and ads. By continuing you agree to the use of cookies.
Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. or its licensors or contributors. ScienceDirect ® is a registered trademark of Elsevier B.V.
ScienceDirect ® is a registered trademark of Elsevier B.V.

Design and Modelling of An Anti-Buckling Compliant Universal Joint With A Compact Configuration - ScienceDirect PDF

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Design and Modelling of An Anti-Buckling Compliant Universal Joint With A Compact Configuration - ScienceDirect PDF

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

11/12/2020 Design and modelling of an anti-buckling compliant universal joint with a compact configuration - ScienceDirect

Mechanism and Machine Theory

Design and modelling of an anti-buckling compliant universal

Outline Share Cite

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mechmachtheory.2020.104162 Get rights and content

• We improve the compliance matrix of a generic sheet.

• We analyse the nonlinearities of the joint by nonlinear ﬁnite element analysis.

Download : Download high-res image (834KB) Download : Download full-size image

Download : Download high-res image (335KB) Download : Download full-size image

Download : Download high-res image (222KB) Download : Download full-size image

3. Linear analytical model of the universal joint

Download : Download high-res image (206KB) Download : Download full-size image

Download : Download high-res image (228KB) Download : Download full-size image

Download : Download high-res image (168KB) Download : Download full-size image

Fig. 6. A general sheet in a local coordinate system o-xyz.

Download : Download high-res image (143KB) Download : Download full-size image

where, Lr denotes the length of the wire beam.

where L=Lr in Dp.

3.2. Normalization-based modelling of the universal joint

Download : Download high-res image (288KB) Download : Download full-size image

transformation matrices. Therefore, we have the normalization-based compliance matrix of

Table 1. Coordinates of each local origin oi in O-XYZ.

i xi’ yi’ zi’

3.3. Mobility analysis

Substituting all the values in Table 2 into Eq. (23), we have

Download : Download high-res image (438KB) Download : Download full-size image

Download : Download high-res image (157KB) Download : Download full-size image

4. FEA veriﬁcation on small deformation

Note that CnjT is not a diagonal matrix.

Results E of CnjT11/10−4(m/N) CnjT22/10−4(m/N) CnjT33/10−8(m/N) CnjT44(1/N.m) CnjT55 CnjT66/10

ANA - 2.096 2.096 2.145 0.723 0.723 7.311

FEA 69 × 109 2.430 2.400 36.299 0.804 0.804 18.804

FEA 69 × 1010 2.160 2.156 10.817 0.722 0.722 8.035

FEA 69 × 1011 2.130 2.130 3.711 0.713 0.713 6.917

Results E of CnjT11/10−4(m/N) CnjT22/10−4(m/N) CnjT33/10−8(m/N) CnjT44(1/N.m) CnjT55 CnjT66/10

FEA 69 × 1013 2.127 2.127 2.072 0.712 0.712 6.793

J-S Straight sheet D=0.4(mm) 0 0 0 0 3

J-EF_π/3 Elliptical-ﬁllet 1 0.5 0.866 π/3 1.268

J-AF_π/3 Arc-ﬁllet 1 1 0.866 π/3 1.268

J-AF_π/2 Arc-ﬁllet 1 1 1 π/2 1

J-E_π/6 Elliptical 3 0.5 1.5 π/6 0

J-A_π/6 Arc 3 3 1.5 π/6 0

Joint Results CnjT11/10−4(m/N) CnjT22/10−4(m/N) CnjT33/10−8(m/N) CnjT44(1/N.m) CnjT55 CnjT66/10−3(1

J-S ANA 2.096 2.096 2.145 0.723 0.723 7.311

FEA 2.127 2.127 2.202 0.712 0.712 7.006

ER 1.48% 1.48% 2.66% 1.52% 1.52% 4.17%

J-EF ANA 1.934 1.934 2.081 0.667 0.667 5.965

ER 1.81% 1.81% 1.73% 1.95% 1.95% 3.12%

J-EF ANA 1.538 1.538 1.872 0.531 0.531 3.450

ER 1.63% 1.63% 0.21% 1.69% 1.69% 4.58%

J-AF ANA 1.378 1.378 1.739 0.476 0.476 2.536

ER 2.39% 2.39% 1.67% 2.52% 2.52% 4.93%

J-AF ANA 1.193 1.193 1.593 0.412 0.412 1.801

ER 2.26% 2.26% 4.46% 4.61% 4.61% 4.50%

J-E ANA 1.609 1.609 1.950 0.555 0.555 4.537

ER 1.86% 1.86% 3.64% 1.08% 1.08% 3.42%

J-A ANA 0.870 0.870 1.468 0.300 0.300 1.326

ER 1.26% 1.26% 2.11% 1.67% 1.67% 4.98%

5.1. Parasitic motions analysis of the joints

π/3 1.155 0.1 ≤ b ≤ 1 π/3 1.732 0.1 ≤ b ≤ 1.6

π/2 1 0.1 ≤ b ≤ 0.9 π/2 1.5 0.1 ≤ b ≤ 1.4

c = 1 (mm) π/6 2 2 c = 1.5 (mm) π/6 3 3

π/3 1.155 1.155 π/3 1.732 1.732