Journal of Engineering Design

Vol. 20, No. 2, April 2009, 125154

An innovative design method for compliant mechanisms

combining structural optimisations and designer creativity
Masakazu Kobayashia *, Shinji Nishiwakib , Kazuhiro Izuib and Masataka Yoshimurab
a Department of Information-aided Technology, Toyota Technological Institute, Nagoya City,
b Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Kyoto University, Kyoto City, Japan

Japan;

(Received 9 February 2007; final version received 11 July 2007 )

This paper proposes an innovative, integrated design method for the design of practical and sophisticated
compliant mechanisms. The approach consists of two optimisation methods, topology and shape optimisation, plus a scheme to implement designer input of ideas. In the first step, a designer explores the most
fruitful design concepts for mechanisms that achieve the design specifications, by combining compliant
mechanisms created by the topology optimisation with additional mechanisms prepared by the designer.
In this first step, a support method based on the visualisation of the designers thinking processes assists
the designer in his or her exploration of new ideas and design concepts. In the second step, the shape
optimisation yields a detailed optimal shape based on the design concept. The combination of compliant
mechanisms with the additional mechanisms enables the creation of devices having increased capability
or higher performance than would be possible using a single compliant mechanism designed by topology optimisation alone. Executing the shape optimisation after initial design concepts have been explored
facilitates the determination of a detailed optimal shape, and also enables to consider non-linear analysis and stress concentration and to make accurate quantitative performance evaluations, which topology
optimisation cannot provide.
Keywords: optimal design; compliant mechanism; topology optimisation; shape optimisation; designer
creativity; creative support system

1.

Introduction

In mechanical design, mechanisms consisting of rigid parts linked to moveable joints are often
used, and in such mechanisms the relative motion of the links is constrained by the joints. On
the other hand, compliant mechanisms (Howell 2001) utilise a structures flexibility to achieve a
specified motion, by deforming the structure elastically, instead of relying on joint movements.
Such compliant mechanisms often consist of fewer parts than rigid-link mechanisms, or can
even be monolithic, and, compared with rigid-link mechanisms, have several merits (Howell
2001, Ananthasuresh and Kota 1995), such as reduced wear and operation noise, zero backlash,

*Corresponding author. Email: kobayashi@toyota-ti.ac.jp

ISSN 0954-4828 print/ISSN 1466-1837 online

2009 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/09544820701565017
http://www.informaworld.com

126

M. Kobayashi et al.

freedom from lubrication requirements, weight savings, manufacturing advantages, and ease of
miniaturisation. Therefore, the use of compliant mechanisms in mechanical products, medical
instruments and micro-electro mechanical systems (Howell 2001, Larsen et al. 1997) can be
expected to increase.
For such promising compliant mechanisms, many design methods have been developed over
the past few decades, and these can be classified into the following two types. The first method type
is based on kinematics, where the designer creates a traditional rigid-link mechanism consisting
of rigid parts and joints, and then creates a compliant mechanism by converting the joints to
flexural parts. Her and Midah (1987) proposed a methodology for obtaining all possible compliant
mechanisms from a given rigid body kinematic chain. Howell and Midah (1994) proposed an
analysis and synthesis method using a pseudo-rigid-body model. The advantage of a kinematics
approach is that the designer can utilise an already well-developed body of knowledge concerning
kinematics and rigid-link mechanisms. However, such methods require trial and error processes
on the part of the designer, to find the best conversion, and the best traditional mechanism does
not always result in the best compliant mechanism.
The second method type is based on topology optimisation (Bendse and Kikuchi 1988), where
the designer configures the design domain, boundary conditions and the location and direction
of the input and output forces of the target mechanism, and then the topology optimisation is
conducted to calculate an optimal shape under these conditions. Sigmund (1997) proposed a
design approach using topology optimisation based on the density method, and Larsen et al. (1996)
also proposed a similar design approach. On the other hand, the approach proposed by Nishiwaki
et al. (2001) was based on the homogenisation design method. The advantage of a topology
optimisation-based approach is that knowledge of kinematics is not required and fully optimal
configurations can be yielded without the designers trial and error processes.
Topology optimisation, however, has several inherent problems, such as numerical problems
that typically result in checkerboards or hinge patterns numerical difficulties in utilising local
physical quantities, such as stress and displacement during the optimisation process. Topology
optimisation can also not easily consider large deformations and non-linear analysis, or make
detailed shape decisions, although numerous methods have been developed in an attempt to resolve
these challenges. For the checkerboard pattern problem, methods based on filtering techniques
(Sigmund and Petersson 1998, Fujii and Kikuchi 2000, Bourdin 2001) are often used, but such
methods merely address the symptoms rather than the core difficulty. On the other hand, several
methods that resolve this problem theoretically have been proposed, such as node-based topology
optimisation (Matsui and Terada 2004). The appearance of hinges is another numerical obstacle,
an outcome of flexibility maximisation when topology optimisation is used for the design of
a structure having flexible regions. Hinges must be avoided due to manufacturing infeasibility.
To eliminate hinges, Poulsen (2003) proposed a method based on member size control, and
Yoon et al. (2004) proposed a method using wavelets. To employ local physical quantities, several
methods (Pereira et al. 2004, Duysinx and Bendse 1998) tried various ways of considering stress
constraints, but the direct implementation of stress constraints in compliant mechanism design
remains problematic at the present time. To precisely assess the quantitative performance of a
compliant mechanism during the optimisation process, non-linear and large deformation analysis
is desirable. Pedersen et al. (2001) and Bruns and Tortorelli (2001) proposed topology optimisation
methods that include large deformation analysis, but these methods have unwieldy computational
requirement, and local solutions with physically meaningless shapes may be presented as optimal
results. Furthermore, there is little difference in the optimal results generated by these methods
that consider large deformations, and those obtained by methods that do not, if we do not explicitly
deal with highly non-linear effects such as buckling phenomena.
Furthermore, in a broad range of product applications, compliant mechanisms are expected to
fulfil a variety of mission-specific functions, such as a stopper using bi-stability, or non-linear

Journal of Engineering Design

127

deformation paths. To enable the design of such compliant mechanisms, having increasingly
sophisticated functions, a number of design methods have been developed, based on kinematics
and topology optimisation approaches. In the kinematics approach, Midha et al. (2004) proposed
a method based on pseudo-rigid-body models and rigid-body mechanism synthesis for function,
path and motion generation. Jensen and Howell (2004) considered several mechanism configurations involving slider joints, and facilitated the design of bi-stable compliant mechanisms using
designers prior knowledge of compliant mechanism configurations. Crane et al. (2004) designed
a floating-opposing-arm centrifugal clutch using a pseudo-rigid-body model, manufactured prototypes and tested them. Snmez (2003) introduced the design of compliant long-dwell mechanisms,
including straight flexible beams and flexible arcs. Such mechanisms have two stable positions,
an initial position and one where the flexible arc works as a bucking stopper. Methods based
on the kinematics approach can achieve complicated compliant mechanism designs by applying
well-developed kinematics knowledge, but they also suffer from the problems inherent in the
kinematics approach, as described above.
As for methods based on topology optimisation, Ohsaki and Nishiwaki (2005) developed a design method for bi-stable compliant mechanisms utilising snap-through behaviour,
based on the ground structure approach, by considering geometrical non-linearity. Saxena and
Ananthasuresh (2001) proposed a method for the design compliant mechanisms having a desired
output trajectory. They also proposed a method that combines topology optimisation and a
pseudo rigid-body model (Saxena and Ananthasuresh 2003). Mankame and Ananthasuresh
(2004a) proposed a method that makes use of the ground structure approach and regularised
contact modelling, for the design of contact-aided compliant mechanisms that enable nonsmooth functions, such as non-smooth output paths, by exploiting contact between various
parts of the compliant mechanism. They also proposed a design method for electrothermal compliant mechanisms (Mankame and Ananthasuresh 2004b). The methods described
above use topology optimisation based on discrete element approaches, while the following
methods employ continuum mechanics approaches. Swan and Rahmatalla (2004) proposed a
control algorithm within a computationally finite deformation analysis framework to design
hinge-free and path-following compliant mechanisms. Sekimoto and Noguchi (2001), Bruns
et al. (2002) and Bruns and Sigmund (2004) focused on load-displacement trajectory and
presented design methods using snap-through effects for compliant mechanisms. The method
presented by Bruns and Sigmund (2004) consist of three phases. In phase 1, the design space
is cursory searched to select appropriate design parameters for compliant mechanisms having
desired function (except snap-through). In phase 2, compliant mechanisms having snap-through
behaviour are created using design parameters selected by phase 1. In phase 3, a further refinement of the compliant mechanisms that strike a balance between the snap-through behaviour
and desired function is made, based on phase 2 design. However, all methods based on
topology optimisation are more computationally demanding than traditional methods and the
design of useful optimal structures remains problematic, so there is a need for more efficient
methods.
To overcome the problems and limitations described above, we develop a new design method
consisting of two optimisation methods, topology and shape optimisation, plus a scheme to implement designer input of ideas. In this method, topology optimisation that only considers with linear
analysis creates compliant mechanisms, whereas a designer creates additional mechanisms having specified functions, which existing topology optimisation cannot generate well or efficiently.
Shape optimisation then yields a detailed optimal shape, based on the combination of complaint mechanisms with additional combinations by considering stress constraints and non-linear
deformation. Using the proposed method, a designer can more easily and efficiently create practical compliant mechanisms that enable mission-specific functions, which extends the range of
compliant mechanisms that can be deployed in practical products.

128

M. Kobayashi et al.

The rest of this paper is organised as follows. Section 1.1 describes the concepts of our method
and Section 2 describes its details. To demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method, it
is applied to the design of a gripper and clip combination and a compliant gripper with a stopper
function, as described in Section 3. Finally, Section 4 summarises the results of this paper.
1.1. Concepts of the new design method
To resolve the problems and limitations discussed above, we construct a new design method based
on the following two concepts. The first is to construct a multi-step design method consisting of
topology and shape optimisations to inherent in the topology optimisation. Shape optimisation
cannot change the topology of the design domain, but can calculate and use various local physical
quantities as design specifications, and consider large deformation and non-linear analysis, which
are difficult to carry out with topology optimisation. In addition to these advantageous characteristics, optimal shapes can be drawn by interpolation functions typified by spline curves, so that
optimal shape output can be readily used in computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing systems. Therefore, the combination of topology and shape optimisation can resolve the
problems of each individual optimisation method and make use of a synergistic interplay. The
second concept is the combination of the optimisation methods with a designers creative activity. Design methods using optimisation techniques can obtain optimal solutions under specified
conditions, but cannot create a solution that exceeds the given conditions or transcends optimisation techniques. On the other hand, designers are less efficient than optimisation techniques
when carrying out certain aspects of the detailed design phase under specified conditions, but
they can create new ideas and concepts that have the potential to break through limitations of
current design solutions. Therefore, the combination of an optimum design method with creative
designer activity can benefit from each methods merits without encountering eithers demerits.
In the proposed method, topology optimisation that only considers with linear analysis creates
initial outlines of compliant mechanisms, a designer creates additional initial mechanisms having
specified functions, which existing topology optimisation cannot generate well or efficiently, and
then, by selecting and combining these initial mechanisms, the designer creates a sophisticated
compliant mechanism concept that fulfils the design requirements. Note that in our method, the
functions of the additional mechanisms created by the designer mainly behave in a non-linear
manner, such as the buckling stopper in Example 2, and non-linear output paths. For quite some
time, topology optimisation methods that consider non-linear analysis have been available, but
these require a great deal of computation time. Whether optimal configurations can be obtained
or not strongly depends on the initial conditions, and greyscales that imply intermediate density values and have no physical meaning may be obtained when inappropriate initial conditions
are set. In addition, consideration of buckling phenomenon in topology optimisation is by its
nature numerically unstable and problematic. Therefore, more efficient and practical methods are
required. Using this method, any desired function can be added to compliant mechanisms, as
long as the designer can create appropriate additional initial mechanisms. This approach requires
that the shapes of combined mechanisms be fine-tuned in a shape optimisation stage, to fulfil their designed functions, which is another reason why the design method is conducted in
two-stages. The process of creating initial mechanisms and discovering the best mechanism combination requires considerable trial and error, so a support procedure to assist the designer is
constructed.
To design sophisticated mechanisms, our method divides a complex design problem into an
assembly of modular components during its procedure, but such division is not the primary focus
of our method. The novel concepts our method implements are: (1) a two-stage design procedure
consisting of topology and shape optimisation, and (2) the combination of optimisation methods
with a designers creative activity, as described above.

Journal of Engineering Design

129

2. Two-step design method combining structural optimisations and designer creativity

This paper proposes an innovative two-step approach to the design of practical and sophisticated compliant mechanisms. In the first step, the designer explores the best design concept for
mechanisms that achieve the design requirements by combining several compliant mechanisms
generated by a topology optimisation and additional mechanisms generated by the designer. In
the second step, shape optimisation provides a detailed optimal shape based on the design concept
arrived at during the first step. Figure 1 shows the flow of the two-step approach. The following
sections explain the details of each step.
2.1. The first step: exploration of design concepts
2.1.1. A combination of compliant and additional mechanisms
Compared with the use of individual compliant mechanisms alone, the combination of compliant
mechanisms with additional mechanisms, or the combination of several compliant mechanisms
into a more complex mechanism, enables designs that offer additional capability and higher
performance. These two basic types of combination are discussed below.
2.1.1.1. Combination of a compliant mechanism with an additional mechanism. The combination of a compliant mechanism with an additional mechanism can lead to increased functionality
relative to what can be achieved by compliant mechanisms alone, as well as improved fitness for
a particular purpose. Figure 2 shows an example of such a combination. This device consists of
a compliant mechanism gripper and buckling stopper, where the buckling stopper can keep the
tip of the gripper closed without requiring an applied force, allowing a user to let go or perform
some other action without the gripped part being released.
2.1.1.2. Combination of compliant mechanisms. Figure 3 shows an example of a device created by the combination of compliant mechanisms, a gripper consisting of two detachable parts.
The combination of several compliant mechanisms has two main merits. One merit is that the

Figure 1.

Flowchart of the proposed design method.

130

M. Kobayashi et al.

Figure 2. Addition of a buckling stopper to the compliant mechanism.

Figure 3.

Combination of compliant mechanisms.

individual compliant mechanisms can be generated and optimised separately, and another is that
such devices can support the use of several types of interchangeable compliant mechanism parts,
which can be selected according to the needs of the circumstances in which the device will be
deployed.
As mentioned above, these two types of combination offer considerable advantages that cannot
be achieved by a compliant mechanism generated by traditional topology optimisation methods
alone. However, it is difficult for optimisation methods to create suitable additional mechanisms that fulfil design specifications, or to discover promising mechanism combinations. In
this paper, a designer creates additional mechanisms and promising combinations through a trial
and error process, so a support procedure that assists the exploration of promising combinations
is constructed.
2.1.2.

Support procedure for exploration of promising design concepts

The exploration of the best possible design concepts and their combination is a highly creative
activity, one that usually requires considerable trial and error, so a support procedure for such
creative activity is required.
In the design procedure proposed here, a designer explores initial mechanisms and promising
design concepts that achieve the given design requirements through a trial and error process.

Journal of Engineering Design

131

To support such process, we develop two visualisation procedures based on our previous visualisation method (Kobayashi et al. 2003, 2004). By recording and visualising a trial and error
process, the designer can explore initial mechanisms more widely and create more promising
design concepts. Note that while our visualisation method was originally developed to support
creative group activity, it is used by a single designer in this research. Its effectiveness in such
scenarios is yet to be confirmed, but will be investigated in future research. This method is simple but user-friendly and can support designers idea exploration processes without interrupting
designers creative thinking. The first procedure makes visible the flow of a designers trial and
error processes while creating and assessing initial mechanisms and design concepts. The second
makes visible the relationships between the design requirements, the initial compliant mechanisms
and the additional designer-supplied mechanisms. The details of each procedure are explained
below.
2.1.2.1. Visualising the flow of designer trial and error thought processes. This procedure
makes visible the flow of the designers trial and error thought processes, in the form of session
tree structures (Kobayashi et al. 2003). In this procedure, the designers actions during problemsolving or the creative activity process are classified into two types: inspiration, whereby new
ideas are conceived; and ordinary consideration of ideas. Using these two types of basic actions,
the flow of trial and error thought processes can be represented as a collection of elements, the
inspiration of a new idea and then a sequence of steps during its consideration. Here, each element
that has several related actions is treated as a basic unit of the designers thought process and is
termed a session. Each session consists of a single initiating action, such as the inspiration of a
new idea, and several subsequent actions related to or triggered by the initial action, such as its
consideration. The former is called a trigger action, the latter a response action. New response
actions can occur in response to a trigger action or to any previously presented response action
that develops during a session. The relationship between a given trigger action and the subsequent
sequence of response actions can thus be visualised as a tree structure, as shown in Figure 4.
In this paper, this visualisation procedure is used for the exploration of initial mechanisms and
generation of design concepts, so the mechanisms and design concepts are treated as ideas in the
tree structure representation of a session.
2.1.2.2. Visualisation of relationships between design requirements and created mechanisms.
This procedure makes visible the relationships between the design requirements, the initial compliant mechanisms and the additional designer-supplied mechanisms in the form of a relational
tree diagram (Kobayashi et al. 2003).
Generally, when people explore a new idea during problem-solving or a creative activity, they
do not consider it directly at first, but begin by unconsciously or consciously considering a general
direction that would help solve the creative problem, and then specific details concerning the new
idea are fleshed out. A general direction can be translated in a concept or an outline of a new
idea. In this procedure, this type of general direction is termed an approach. When an approach
is defined, the relationships between design goals, approaches and ideas can be visualised as a
relational tree diagram, as shown in Figure 5. When designers explicitly explore general directions

Figure 4.

Session tree structure.

132

Figure 5.

M. Kobayashi et al.

Hierarchical structure consisting of goals, approaches and ideas.

called approaches and then create concrete ideas using the relational tree diagram, they can explore
a wider range of ideas than when not using such a diagram.
In this paper, this kind of relational tree diagram is used to support the creation of initial compliant mechanisms and additional designer-supplied mechanisms. When the relational tree diagram
is utilised, the design requirements of the product assume the role of design goals in the diagram,
each mechanism concept that is the basis for a product is treated as an approach, and each specific
mechanism based on an approach is represented as an idea. For a compliant mechanism, the design
conditions for the topology optimisation (i.e., a set that includes the design domain, boundary
conditions and inputoutput relationships) are described as an approach and the result of the
topology optimisation is described as an idea. Concerning additional mechanisms, their operating
principle is represented as an approach and the shape of the mechanism based on the created
operating principle is described as an idea. Compliant mechanisms are generated using topology
optimisation, whereas the additional mechanisms are generated according to the designers ideas
and expertise. Table 1 summarises the relationships between relational tree diagram and the initial
design of compliant mechanisms and additional designer-supplied mechanisms.
2.1.3.

First-step procedure

The step of the procedure for exploring promising design concepts using the two support
procedures consists of the following two substeps.
2.1.3.1. First substep: exploration of initial mechanisms. The designer explores various initial
mechanisms to create a promising design concept. These trial and error processes are visualised as
a collection of sessions and the relationship between design requirements, and created mechanisms
are visualised in the form of relational tree diagram.
2.1.3.2. Second substep: generation and consideration of a design concept. The designer creates a design concept by combining mechanisms from the constructed relational tree diagram and
assesses the generated design concept. If the created design concept fulfils the design requirements
and the designer is satisfied with it, the first step is finished and the second step begins. If the
created design concept does not meet the design requirements or the designer is not satisfied with
Table 1. Relationships between the relational tree diagram and the design of compliant
mechanism and additional mechanism.
Relational tree diagram

Compliant mechanism and additional mechanism design

Design goal
Approach
Idea

Design requirement
Mechanism concept
Compliant mechanism and additional mechanism

Journal of Engineering Design

133

it, the designer returns to the first substep, explores new mechanisms and generates new design
concepts until the outcome is satisfactory.
The processes occurring in the second substep are also visualised as a collection of sessions,
which clarifies the assessment processes and helps the designer to explore new mechanisms and
create a promising design concept.
2.1.4.

Compliant mechanism design using topology optimisation

Here, we discuss a topology optimisation method for the design of compliant mechanisms. First,
the concept of topology optimisation is briefly discussed. Next, the design requirements, the
corresponding objective functions, and the entire optimisation problem are formulated. In addition,
the optimisation algorithm is constructed based on the above formulations.
Consider the design problem of determining the boundary of the design domain d by minimising or maximising objective functions. The key idea of the topology optimisation method is
the introduction of a fixed, extended design domain D that includes the original design domain
d , a priori, as shown in Figure 6, and the utilisation of the following characteristic function
(Murat and Tartar 1985).

1 if x d
(1)
 (x) =
0 if x D\d
where x denotes a position in the extended design domain D. Using this function, the original
structural design problem is replaced by a material distribution problem incorporating an elasticity
tensor, E, in the extended design domain D, where E is the elasticity tensor in the original design
domain d . Since this characteristic function can be very discontinuous (i.e., resides in L (D)),
some regularisation or smoothing technique should be introduced for the numerical treatment. Two
types of methods have been proposed in order to regularise the design domain: the homogenisation
design method (HDM) (Bendse and Kikuchi 1988) and the solid isotropic material with penalisation (SIMP) method (Bendse and Sigmund 1999). In the HDM, a homogenisation method is
used to perform the relaxation of the solution space, by introducing microstructures that represent the composite materials. The SIMP method simply uses a fictitious isotropic material whose
elasticity tensor is assumed to be a function of penalised material density expressed by an exponent parameter. Design variables are approximated by piecewise constants in the finite element
implementation in both the HDM (Suzuki and Kikuchi 1991) and the SIMP method (Bendse and
Sigmund 2003), even though the material density is assumed to be continuously distributed almost
everywhere in the extended design domain D. Thus, we conjecture that there is inconsistency in

Figure 6.

Concept of the fixed design domain.

134

M. Kobayashi et al.

the procedures (i.e., the assumption of continuous material distributions and the piecewise distribution of design variables), and that the approximation based on a piecewise constant in each
element is a cause of numerical instability problems, such as checkerboard patterns.
To overcome the above problems, and to maintain procedural consistency, we locate the discretised design variables not at the centre of the elements but at their nodes, and assume continuous
material distributions using a continuous interpolation function at each node (Matsui and Terada
2004). That is, we approximate the design variable r(x) as,
r(x) r h (x) = N r (x)R =

n


Nir (x)Ri

(2)

i=1

where h represents the discretised quantity using finite element method, N r is a vector whose
components are Nir (x)(i = 1, . . . , n), R is a vector of nodal (discrete) design variables Ri (i =
1, . . . , n), and n is the total number of nodes, which is also the same as the number of design
variables in this formulation. Using the above approximation, the design variables can hold the
C 0 continuity over the domain due to the partition-of-unity of Nir (x), and they are continuously
distributed in and throughout the elements, as shown in Figure 7. The bi-linear interpolation
function is used for Nir (x) in the case of four-node quadrilateral elements for its simplicity in this
research, and because it preserves the C 0 continuity. Note that Nir (x)(i = 1, . . . , n) are selected
and evaluated independently of the shape functions for displacement fields. Also note that similar
formulations based on the SIMP method were presented by Rahmatalla and Swan (2003, 2004).
Although they pointed out some numerical problems such as layering and islanding using
coarse meshes (Rahmatalla and Swan 2004), the numerical examples obtained by the method
proposed here will show clear optimal configurations using sufficiently fine meshes, without the
above problems. Also note that the details of the node-based method and a comparison between
results when using traditional and node-based methods are discussed in other research (for details
see Matsui and Terada 2004).
Figure 8 shows the microstructure used for the relaxation of the design domain in the twodimensional problem. As shown in this figure, its shape is hexagonal and the design variable is a
geometrical parameter r. In order to for a unit cell to be void, r must be 1; and for it to be solid
material, r must be 0. This microstructure has an isotropic response. Using this microstructure,

Figure 7.

Distribution of shape functions.

Figure 8.

Microstructure used for the design domain relaxation.

Journal of Engineering Design

135

whose elasticity tensor is E, the homogenised elasticity tensor EH is calculated as,


1
E(x, y)[I y ( )]dY
EH =
|Y | Y
where indicates the characteristic deformations obtained by the following equation:


y (v)T E(x, y)y ( (x, y))dY =
y (v)T E(x, y)dY for v Vy
Y


y (v) =
T

v2
y2

v1
y1

1
2

v2
v1
+
y2
y1

(3)

(4)


(5)

y is the local coordinate defined in the microstructure, and Vy is the admissible space defined in
unit cell Y such that
Vy = {v = vi ei : Y -periodic in unit cell Y }

(6)

where |Y | stands for the area of the unit cell. We thus obtain the homogenised properties that are
then utilised in the optimisation procedure.
Next, let us consider that the original design domain for a compliant mechanism, d , is fixed at
boundary d , and is subjected to an applied traction t 1 at boundary 1 as shown in Figure 9(a). We
also consider an extended design domain D that includes d . Now, we intend to design a compliant
mechanism that starts to deform in the specified direction t 2 at boundary 2 in order carry out its
intended design function when we apply traction t 1 at boundary 1 . To implement this function in
the compliant mechanism, we must simultaneously take into account the kinematic and structural
requirements. For the kinematic requirement, the compliant mechanism must have sufficient
flexibility, which provides sufficient deformation along a direction specified by a dummy load t 2
at 2 when traction t 1 is applied at 1 as shown in Figure 9(a). This is obtained by maximising
the mutual mean compliance formulated by

2 1
t 2 u1 d u1 V 1
(7)
l (u ) =
2

where
V 1 = {v = vi ei : v = 0 on d }

(8)

Note that the deformation of the compliant mechanism may be considerable; however, we can
ignore the effect of large deformations in the topology design phase. That is, we design compliant

Figure 9.

Design specifications for a compliant mechanism design.

136

M. Kobayashi et al.

mechanisms based on a small linear deformation assumption, since our goal in this design phase
is that the compliant mechanism qualitatively deforms in the desired direction of motion, and it
is not necessary to consider utilising any additional functions based on non-linear effects, such as
buckling at this phase. This assumption is appropriate only if we take into account the qualitative
characteristics of the mechanism function.
Next, we discuss the structural requirement. The compliant mechanism must have sufficient
stiffness in appropriate locations in order to form the structure, even though our main goal is to
implement sufficient flexibility in the structure. We define this sufficient stiffness as the structural
requirement, and to achieve it we consider two different stiffnesses at two different boundaries.
One is aimed to provide sufficient stiffness at boundary 1 , as shown in Figure 9(b), when
traction t 1 is applied at boundary 1 , which maintains the shape of the compliant mechanism
when the compliant mechanism deforms due to traction t 1 . It is obtained by minimising the
mean compliance at boundary 1 in response to traction t 3 = t 1 while boundary 2 is fixed,
as follows:

l (u ) =
3

t 3 u3 du3 V 3

(9)

1

where
V 3 = {v = vi ei : v = 0 on d and 2 }

(10)

The other sufficient stiffness is at boundary 2 as shown in Figure 9(c), which maintains the
shape of the compliant mechanism against the reaction force imposed by the workpiece. Here,
the direction of the reaction force is assumed to be opposite to that of the dummy load t 2 and it
is obtained by minimising the mean compliance at boundary 2 in response to traction t 4 = t 2
while boundary 1 is fixed, as follows:

l 4 (u4 ) =

t 4 u4 du4 V 4

(11)

2

where
V 4 = {v = vi ei : v = 0 on d and 1 }

(12)

Note that these fixed conditions theoretically provide the compliant mechanism with overconstraints because the reciprocal theorem requires a constraint only in the direction along which
the traction is applied in the pseudo or quasi-static case. However, as a matter of practicality, we
impose fixed conditions instead of the exact boundary conditions mentioned above, because the
direction of the traction applied to the compliant mechanism keeps changing while the compliant
mechanism deforms. That is, if we consider the exact boundary conditions, such conditions might
not provide the compliant mechanism with sufficient flexibility because the direction along which
the traction is applied changes as the compliant mechanism deforms. Thus, we impose the fixed
conditions in order to obtain sufficient stiffness in both cases.
Thus, the following multi-optimisation problem taking the above three objective functions into
account must be solved in order to obtain the optimal configuration of a compliant mechanism.

maximise l (u ) =
2


t u d,

minimise l (u ) =

2

1

and minimise l (u ) =
4

t u d

2

t 3 u3 d,

(13)

Journal of Engineering Design

137

t3 = t1

(14)

subject to

t 4 = t 2

(15)

a(u , v ) = l (v ) for u V v V
1

(16)

a(u2 , v2 ) = l 2 (v2 ) for u1 V 2 v2 V 1

(17)

a(u , v ) = l (v ) for u V v V

(18)

a(u4 , v4 ) = l 4 (v4 ) for u4 V 4 v4 V 4

(19)

0r1

(1 r(x)2 )d s = (1 r(x)2 )d s 0

(20)


g(r) =

d

(21)

where


a(u, v) =

(v)T E(u)d
d


(v) =
T

v1
x1

v2
x2

1
2

(22)
v1
v2
+
x2
x1


(23)

and s is the total volume constraint.

In order to incorporate the above three objective functions, the following multi-objective
function is used. See Rahmatalla and Swan (2004) for details.
maximiser f =

l 2 (u1 )
w3 l 3 (u3 ) + w4 l 4 (u4 )

(24)

where w3 and w4 are the weighting coefficients

Figure 10 shows a flowchart of the topology optimisation procedure. As shown in this
figure, first, the homogenised coefficients for elasticity tensor EH are calculated. Next, the four

Figure 10.

Flowchart of the topology optimisation procedure.

138

M. Kobayashi et al.

equilibrium equations formulated by Equations (16)(19) are solved using the finite element
method. The mutual mean compliance formulated by Equation (7), the mean compliances formulated by Equations (9) and (11), the total volume constraint, and the objective function formulated
by Equation (24) are all computed. If the objective function converges, this procedure terminates;
otherwise, the sensitivities of the mutual mean compliance, the mean compliances, the total volume constraint, and the objective function are all computed. The design variables are updated
using sequential linear programming, and the procedure returns to the first step.
2.1.5. Additional mechanism design
The designer creates all of the additional mechanisms using his or her expertise, experience
and ideas. The detailed shape and behaviour of an additional mechanism are determined by
shape optimisation during the second step so that only principles of operation and rough shapes
sufficient to make initial shape optimisation models during the second step need to be created by
the designer.
2.2. Second step: determination of detailed shape using shape optimisation
In the second step, the detailed shape of the design concept arrived at first step is determined
using shape optimisation, by considering non-linear analysis, stress constraints and making
accurate quantitative performance evaluations. The second step consists of four substeps: preparation of an initial shape optimisation model, configuration of the shape optimisation design
conditions, execution of the shape optimisation, and assessment of the result of the shape
optimisation.
2.2.1.

Preparation of initial shape optimisation model

To begin the process, the designer manually creates an initial model for shape optimisation,
based on the design concept consisting of the topology optimisations and the additional designersupplied mechanisms. The modelling procedures are different for compliant mechanisms and the
additional designer-supplied mechanisms, so that the designer makes a model of each mechanism individually and then combines them into a unified initial shape optimisation model. The
procedural details will be explained below.
2.2.1.1. Modelling procedures for compliant mechanisms. For stiffness maximisation problems (i.e., the design of rigid structures), several methods that integrate topology and shape
optimisations have been developed (Bremicker et al. 1991 and Yldz et al. 2003), and certain
commercial software packages such as TOSCA, OPTISHAPE-TS or a combination of Altair
OptiStruct and Hyperstudy provide a similar function. In these methods and software packages,
image-processing techniques are used to prepare an initial shape optimisation model by extracting results from topology optimisation. However, extraction methods based on image-processing
techniques fail to consider the function or characteristics of structural parts that make up the
entire structure, and it is difficult to apply such methods to the design of compliant mechanisms, since certain parts of a compliant mechanism must have specific characteristics (i.e.,
appropriate stiffness or flexibility) to achieve the specified compliant mechanism behaviour that
requires specified structural deformation. Such characteristics must be retained even after the
extraction of the initial model from the topology optimisation results. Furthermore, compliant mechanisms often have hinges, devices where two rigid structural parts are connected by
a narrow flexible region, or a single node that acts as a hinge joint, as shown in Figure 11.

Journal of Engineering Design

Figure 11.

139

Geometrical features of a compliant mechanism.

Hinges may cause very high stress concentrations that exceed the strength of their materials,
so shapes extracted by image-processing techniques are seldom suitable for use as initial shape
optimisation models. To resolve these problems, a new extraction method is constructed, one
that focuses on the characteristics of certain components of the compliant mechanisms being
developed.
From the viewpoint of stiffness and flexibility, two types of components can be identified in
the basic structure of a compliant mechanism, namely hinges and non-flexible masses, as shown
in Figure 11. Hinges have high flexibility, whereas non-flexible masses have high stiffness. The
deformation properties of a given component can be controlled by changing its width, so the
width of each region in a compliant mechanism is used as a design variable. In addition to the
width, the positional relationships between flexible and non-flexible regions affect the deformation
properties, so these positions are also used as design variables. However, the more design variables,
the more difficult it is to reduce the computation time, enable stable convergence during shape
optimisation, and obtain an appropriate optimal structure, so the designer must carefully consider
the influence that each design variable has on the performance of a compliant mechanism and
appropriately allocate design variables or fixed values.
The detailed procedure for creating an initial model from a topology optimisation result consists
of the following three steps. In the first step, the designer recognises hinge and non-flexible mass
components of the compliant mechanism that appear in the results of the topology optimisation.
In the second step, design variables or parameters are assigned to the hinges and non-flexible
masses that characterise the behaviour of the compliant mechanism. As shown in Figure 12, XHi
and YHi represent the coordinates of the hinge Hi . WHi is the width of the hinge Hi and WLi is the
width at non-flexible mass Li . In the designed compliant mechanisms, two hinges are connected
by a non-flexible mass, so the width of the non-flexible mass at the point midway between two
hinges is used as a design variable. In the third step, spline curve control points are assigned,
based on the coordinates and width of hinges and non-flexible masses, and the outer shape of the
compliant mechanism is drawn using spline curves. The coordinates of the control points and the

Figure 12. Allocation of design variables.

140

M. Kobayashi et al.

Figure 13. Allocation of spline curve control points and drawing of an outer shape.

widths of the hinges are also regarded as design variables. The black points shown in Figure 13
are examples of control points and the dotted lines are examples of an outer shape drawn in this
fashion.
2.2.1.2. Modelling procedures for additional designer-supplied mechanisms. The procedure
for modelling other additional designer-supplied mechanisms varies according to the type of
mechanism being designed. The designer allocates design variables to any such parts that need
to be optimised and makes an outer shape of an initial model using lines and curves. Figure 14
shows an example of a model of a buckling stopper. In this model, four design variables, Wf , Wb ,
Rb and Db , are allocated. Wf is the width of the outer frame and Wb and Rb are the width and
curvature radius of the curved buckling stopper, respectively. Db is the length between the curve
centre and the stopper.
2.2.2.

Configuration of shape optimisation design conditions

Next, the designer configures the shape optimisation design conditions, such as the objective
function and boundary conditions conditions that vary according to the mechanisms use. The
displacement and reaction force at boundaries 1 (input point) and 2 (output point), and the stress
in the design domain are examples of physical quantities that are used as shape optimisation design

Figure 14.

Model of a buckling stopper.

Journal of Engineering Design

141

conditions. In this case, the optimisation problem can be formulated as below.

Maximise

dout

(25)

subject to
M allow

(26)

Fin Fmax

(27)

where dout is the displacement at boundary 2 , M is the von Mises stress, allow is the allowable
stress, Fin is the reaction force that is generated by the applied input displacement at 1 and Fmax
is its upper limit.
If the output force at 2 is applied to a workpiece, as would be the case for a gripper, 2 receives
a reaction force. Therefore, it is appropriate to treat this reaction force as a spring force with spring
element attached to 2 for the purposes of analysis and optimisation.
2.2.3. Execution of the shape optimisation
Shape optimisation is executed, using the entire initial model under the design conditions. In
order to strictly analyse various kinds of physical quantities such as displacement, reaction force
and stress, the analysis method used during the shape optimisation must be able to consider
non-linear and large deformations. In this paper, ANSYS is used as the structural analysis and
shape optimisation software. When using ANSYS, the first-order optimisation method is used as
the optimisation algorithm. This method calculates and makes use of derivative information to
appropriately steer the search direction in design space.
2.2.4. Assessment of the shape optimisation result
When the shape optimisation is finished, the designer assesses the result; if the result fulfils
the design requirements and the designer is satisfied, all design processes are finished. If the
unsatisfactory for any reason, the process returns to the first step, and new, more promising design
concepts are explored.

3.

Case study

To demonstrate the flow of the proposed procedure, two examples are presented. The first addresses
the design of a compliant gripper and clip set, while the second focuses on the design of a compliant
gripper having a stopper function.
3.1. First example
3.1.1. Design requirements for the first case study
In the first example, a compliant gripper and clip set are designed, with the gripper and clip being
independent parts, the clip being held by the gripper during manipulation. Since the gripper itself is
hand-held, the outer shape and size must meet certain ergonomic requirements. The inputoutput
relationships of the gripper and clip are as follows. For the gripper, the location and direction of
the input and output are unconstrained and the input force is constrained to be less than 20 N.

142

M. Kobayashi et al.

For the clip, the location and direction of the input are also unconstrained, and for the output the
clip tip is required to close when released, and open when a suitable input force is applied. The
material is ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene, with a Youngs modulus of 720 MPa and
Poissons ratio of 0.3. The thickness of each part is 10 mm.
3.1.2.

First step

In the first step, compliant mechanisms and additional mechanisms are created and the most
promising design concept is explored. This step is supported by two visualisation procedures.
The relational tree diagram resulting from the first step is shown in Figure 15.
In this example, two approaches are created, one for the gripper and the other for the clip, with
each approach focused on the individual part. Conceptually, the gripper tip closes when a user
forcibly squeezes the gripper, as shown in Figure 16(a), and the clip tip closes when the clip is
forcibly grasped by the gripper, as shown in Figure 16(b). These concepts are used for the design

Figure 15.

Hierarchical structure of the problem.

Figure 16. Two compliant mechanism concepts: (a) concept 1 and (b) concept 2.

Figure 17.

Design conditions for topology optimisation: (a) concept 1 and (b) concept 2.

Journal of Engineering Design

Figure 18.

Created mechanisms: (a) a compliant gripper and (b) a compliant clip.

Figure 19.

Design concept.

143

conditions of topology optimisation, as shown in Figure 17(a) and (b). Figures 18(a) and (b) show
the optimal structures of the gripper and the clip resulting from the topology optimisation. In
this example, we assume symmetrical shapes along a longitudinal axis, so the optimal structure
resulting from the topology optimisation only shows the upper half of the mechanism. The design
concept shown in Figure 19 is achieved by combining two compliant mechanisms.
The process of creating the above mechanisms and concepts are recorded as a collection of
sessions, but only a portion of the record is shown in Figure 20.
3.1.3.

Second step

3.1.3.1. Preparation of an initial model for shape optimisation. Based on the initial compliant
mechanisms shown in Figures 18(a) and (b), an initial model for shape optimisation is created.
Figures 21 and 22 show initial models of the gripper and the clip, respectively. For the gripper,
WH1 WH3 , the width of the three hinges H1 H3 , and WL1 WL3 , the width of the three nonflexible masses L1 L3 , are used as shape optimisation design variables. For the clip, WH4 and

Figure 20.

Flow of thoughts during the first step of design concept creation.

144

M. Kobayashi et al.

Figure 21. The gripper model.

Figure 22. The clip model.

WH5 , the width of the two hinges H4 and H3 , and WL4 WL6 , the width of the three non-flexible
masses L1 L3 , are used for the shape optimisation design variables. To represent the constraints
of the clip model used for the topology optimisation, a 0.5-mm segment is added to the lowest
edge of the clip model, to fulfil a topology optimisation constraint.
Figure 23 shows the entire initial model combining the initial models of the gripper and the
clip. The location and direction of the input at the defined location point Pin , and the constraints,
are also shown in Figure 23. Since this mechanism consists of two independent parts, it would be

Figure 23.

Combined initial model.

Journal of Engineering Design

Figure 24.

Optimal structure of the combined model: (a) half and (b) full.

Figure 25.

Deformation of optimal structure.

145

prudent to carry out contact analysis for the interface between the gripper and the clip. However,
in the current example, the combined model is only treated as a monolithic part, without contact
analysis in order to simplify the analysis process.
3.1.3.2. Configuration of shape optimisation design conditions. Concerning input, a displacement along the y axis is increased at input point Pin , rather than applying an external force, which
makes the non-linear analysis more stable. The maximum displacement at Pin is set to 1 mm.
Concerning constraints, the lower left corner is fixed in all directions, while the other lower end
of the model is only fixed in the y axis.
The maximum von Mises stress max is used as the objective function and is minimised. Displacement of the clip tip Dout is constrained to be more than 1 mm, and the reaction force Fin that
is generated by the applied displacement at input point Pin is constrained to be less than 20 N.
WH1 WH5 and WL1 WL6 are used as design variables.
3.1.3.3. Shape optimisation. Shape optimisation is executed using the entire initial model and
the shape optimisation design conditions. Figure 24 shows the optimal structure. The maximum
von Mises stress max is 39.8 MPa, the displacement of the clip tip Dout is 1.45 mm and the reaction
force at Pin , Fin , is 19.8 N, which satisfies the constraints.
The final result is a symmetrical mechanism, as shown in Figure 24. Figure 25 shows the result
of structural analysis based on the optimal structure under the constraints shown in Figure 23 and
1 mm applied displacement along the y axis at input point Pin .
3.2. Second example
3.2.1. Design requirements for the second example
In the second example, a compliant gripper, having a stopper function, is designed. This gripper
tip is required to open when released and close when a suitable input force is applied. The location

146

M. Kobayashi et al.

and direction of the input forces is unconstrained. The stopper is to function when the gripper
tip is closed, and keep the tip closed with no applied input force. The outer shape and size of
the gripper must meet certain ergonomic requirements, and the material is the same ultra-high
molecular weight polyethylene as in the first example. The thickness of each part is 5 mm, half
the thickness used in the first example.
3.2.2.

First step

Figure 26 shows an example selection of the session records representing the flow of the designers
thoughts. Although this figure only shows a limited portion, all flow processes are visualised and
recorded in a similar fashion. Figure 27 shows the relational tree diagram resulting from the first
step of the design process.
In the second example, four approaches are created, two each for the gripper and the stopper.
Based on these approaches, five initial mechanisms are created, as shown below in Figure 28.

Figure 26.

Flow of thoughts during the first step design concept creation.

Figure 27.

Hierarchical structure of the problem.

Journal of Engineering Design

Figure 28.

147

Created mechanisms: compliant mechanisms (a), (b) and (c), and stoppers (a) and (b).

Two compliant mechanism concepts are shown in Figure 29. For compliant mechanism concept
1, the gripper tip closes when opposing external forces are applied to both sides of the gripper.
For compliant mechanism concept 2, the gripper tip closes when an external force is applied to
the left-centre of the gripper. Based on compliant mechanism concept 2, two compliant mechanisms (Figure 28(b) and (c)) are created. The difference in their performance is evaluated as
the ratio of input to output displacement, a small value in the case of compliant mechanism (b)
but larger for mechanism (c). For the gripper, a longitudinally symmetrical shape is assumed,
so the design domains used for the topology optimisation are confined to the upper half of the
mechanism.
Exploring the various concept combinations leads to the adoption of a design concept consisting
of compliant mechanism (c) and stopper (a), as shown in Figure 30.

Figure 29. Two compliant mechanism concepts: (a) concept 1 and (b) concept 2.

148

M. Kobayashi et al.

Figure 30.

3.2.3.

Design concept.

Second step

3.2.3.1. Preparation of an initial model for shape optimisation. Based on the design concept
created in the first step, an initial model for shape optimisation is created. Figures 31 and 32
show initial models of compliant mechanism (c) and stopper (b), respectively. For the gripper,
WH1 WH7 , representing the width of the seven hinges H1 H7 , are used as shape optimisation
design variables. The width of the other hinges and non-flexible masses are fixed to reduce the
shape optimisation computation time and enable a stable optimisation. For the stopper, since a Vshaped stopper is assumed, the width and depth of the V-shaped section, Wb and Db , respectively,
are used as shape optimisation design variables. The width of the outer frame of the stopper is
fixed and not used as a design variable.
Figure 33 shows the entire initial model combining the initial gripper and stopper models. The
location and direction of the input force at the defined location point Pin , and the constraints, are
also shown in Figure 33.
3.2.3.2. Configuration of shape optimisation design conditions. Concerning input, a displacement along the x axis is increased at input point Pin , rather than applying an external force, which
makes the non-linear analysis more stable. Maximum displacement along the x axis at Pin is set
to 20 mm. Concerning constraints, the upper and under side of the outer frame of the buckling
stopper are fixed, as shown in Figure 33.
Displacement of the gripper tip Dout , as shown in Figure 33, is used as the objective function and
is maximised, and WH1 WH7 , Wb , and Db are set as design variables. The von Mises stress max

Figure 31.

Gripper model.

Journal of Engineering Design

Figure 32.

149

Stopper model.

is constrained to be less than 60 MPa in the entire design domain. Another constraint concerns the
stopper function. To check whether the stopper is functioning, a plot of the relationship between
displacement Din and reaction force Fin at input point Pin is monitored. If the stopper is functioning
properly, a plot of the relationship between Din and Fin will yield a curve similar to the one shown
in Figure 34.
3.2.3.3. Shape optimisation. Shape optimisation is executed using the entire initial model
and the shape optimisation design conditions. Figure 35 shows the optimal structure obtained
by the shape optimisation. The displacement of the gripper tip Dout is 6.18 mm and the maximum von Mises stress max is 54.9 MPa, which satisfies the constraints. Figure 36 shows the
relationship between reaction force Fin and the displacement Din at Pin . Fin is less than 0 N when
the displacement is about 16 mm, indicating that the stopper functions appropriately.
Figure 37 shows the deformation of the optimal structure under the constraints shown in
Figure 33, and with a 16 mm applied displacement along the x axis at input point Pin .

Figure 33.

Combined model.

150

M. Kobayashi et al.

Figure 34. Relationship between displacement and reaction force at the specified input point for typical bi-stable
mechanisms.

Figure 35.

Optimal structure resulting from shape optimisation.

Figure 36.

Relationship between Fin and displacement at Pin .

Journal of Engineering Design

Figure 37.

151

Operating deformation of optimal structure.

3.3. Discussion
In the proposed method, the topology optimisation only considers linear analysis while shape
optimisation can consider non-linear analysis. For years, topology optimisation methods that can
consider non-linear analysis have been proposed (see Section 1) to assist the design of compliant
mechanisms that have non-linear functions, especially bi-stability based on buckling. However,
there is as yet a severe computation time penalty exacted by such methods, in the range of an order
of magnitude more when compared with traditional methods that only consider linear analysis
(Buhl et al. 2000, Pedersen et al. 2001, Bruns et al. 2002; Bruns and Sigmund 2004). Whether
optimal configurations can be obtained or not strongly depends on the initial conditions, and
greyscales with intermediate density values and no physical meaning are obtained when appropriate initial conditions cannot be set (Buhl et al. 2000, Pedersen et al. 2001; Bruns and Sigmund
2004). In scenarios using traditional methods, the designer is therefore charged with finding
appropriate initial conditions based on trial and error and knowledge of topology optimisation. In
addition, consideration of buckling phenomenon in topology optimisation is by its nature numerically unstable and difficult (Bruns and Sigmund 2004). Thus, even the design of a simple buckling
stopper such as in Example 2 is elusive when using traditional optimisation methods, whereas an
experienced designer can easily and intuitively create one. Detailed analyses of the difficulties
inherent in topology optimisation methods that can consider non-linear analysis are described
in the literature (Buhl et al. 2000, Pedersen et al. 2001; Bruns and Sigmund 2004; Yoon and
Kim 2005), which should be consulted for further details. In contrast, our method uses topology
optimisation that only considers linear analysis and the designer, rather than the topology optimisation, creates designs for non-linear functions according to his or her experience and intuition.
It is difficult for our approach to rigorously optimise the performance of mechanisms, but this
is outweighed by its potential for effectively and easily achieving practical mechanism designs
that embody specific required functions. Note that the major focus of our paper is optimisation,
and the aim of our research is to integrate designer support into the workflow of the optimisation method. The role of the designer in our method is to supplement and support the topology
optimisation so that limitations of existing topology optimisation methods can be overcome. Our

152

M. Kobayashi et al.

method also enables the consideration of stress constraints and determination of detailed mechanism shapes at the shape optimisation stage, which is another advantage that the proposed method
offers.
In the first example, a mechanism consisting of two compliant mechanisms (a gripper and a
clip) is designed. When using existing methods in this design problem, the gripper and clip need
to be optimised separately, so estimating the load transmission between the two mechanisms and
their deformation is problematic. In contrast, when using our method, the two mechanisms are
combined into one shape optimisation model and optimised together using shape optimisation.
Load transmission between the two mechanisms, and their deformation, can then be estimated
quantitatively and precisely. This is a particular advantage of our method, when multi-part mechanisms such as a gripper and clip combination need to be designed. The proposed method can
also design mechanisms consisting of more than one compliant mechanism working together to
offer several functions, by introducing a compliant mechanism as one part of another compliant
mechanism. Multiple-function devices are rather common at present, such as an electric drill that
can be used to bore holes or turn screws by exchanging a drill bit with a screwdriver bit. Such
versatility is one of the goals that the proposed method seeks to accomplish, by facilitating the
design of multiple-function compliant mechanisms. However, this advantage is not confirmed in
this example and, since multi-functionality is not the main focus of this research, we only mention
this as a possible benefit that will be the subject of future research
In the second example, a compliant mechanism having a buckling stopper is designed. This
type of compliant mechanism can be designed using topology optimisation methods that consider
non-linear analysis, but such methods are not practical at this time due to several of the problems
described above. Furthermore, there is little difference in shape and performance between buckling
stoppers created by non-linear topology optimisation and those created by a designer, so an
efficient design method employs a designer to create additional mechanisms having non-linear
functions that can be added to compliant mechanisms provided by topology optimisation that
only considers linear responses.

4.

Concluding remarks

This paper proposed an innovative two-step approach to the design of practical and sophisticated
compliant mechanisms. The following points were addressed.
(1) To easily and efficiently create compliant mechanisms having additional functions, beyond
that achievable using traditional topology optimisation alone, this paper proposed a method
that combines initial compliant mechanisms generated by topology optimisation with
additional mechanisms prepared by the designer.
(2) The process of exploring the most promising combination requires significant designer trial
and error, so two support procedures based on visualisation of the design process were
constructed.
(3) The result of combining initial compliant mechanisms with additional designer-supplied
mechanisms requires further modification before the required function can be met, so
shape optimisation is subsequently executed in the second step, using the most promising
combination achieved in the first step as an initial model. Execution of shape optimisation
also enables consideration of stress concentration and large displacement effects, which would
be problematic for traditional topology optimisation alone.
(4) To confirm the effectiveness of the proposed method, two examples were presented. In the
first example, a compliant gripper and clip set were designed; in the second, a compliant
gripper having a stopper function was created.

Journal of Engineering Design

153

References
Ananthasuresh, G.K. and Kota, S., 1995. Designing compliant mechanisms. Mechanical Engineering, 117 (11), 9396.
Bendse, M.P. and Kikuchi, N., 1988. Generating optimal topologies in structural design using a homogenization method.
Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 71 (2), 197224.
Bendse, M.P. and Sigmund, O., 1999. Material interpolation schemes in topology optimization. Archive of Applied
Mechanics, 69, 635654.
Bendse, M.P. and Sigmund, O., 2003. Topology optimization. Theory, methods and applications. Berlin, Heidelberg,
New York: Springer-Verlag.
Bourdin, B., 2001. Filters in topology optimization. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 50,
21432158.
Bremicker, M., Chirehdast, M., Kikuchi, M. and Papalambros, P. Y., 1991. Integrated topology and shape optimization in
structural design. Mechanics of Structures and Machines, 19 (4), 551587.
Bruns, T. E. and Tortorelli, D.A., 2001. Topology optimization of non-linear elastic structures and compliant mechanisms.
Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 190, 34433459.
Bruns, T.E. and Sigmund, O., 2004. Toward the topology design of mechanisms that exhibit snap-through behavior.
Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 193, 39734000.
Bruns, T.E., Sigmund, O. and Tortorelli, D.A., 2002. Numerical methods for the topology optimization of structures that
exhibit snap-through. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 55, 12151237.
Buhl, T., Pedersen, C.B. and Sigmund, O., 2000. Stiffness design of geometrically nonlinear structures using topology
optimization. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 19, 93104.
Crane, N.B., Howell, L.L., Weight, B.L. and Magleby, S.P., 2004. Compliant floating-opposing-arm (FOA) centrifugal
clutch. Journal of Mechanical Design, 126, 169177.
Duysinx, P. and Bendse, M.P., 1998. Topology optimization of continuum structures with local stress constraints.
International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 43, 14531478.
Fujii, D. and Kikuchi, N., 2000. Improvement of numerical instabilities in topology optimization using the SLP method.
Structural Optimization, 19, 113121.
Her, I. and Midah, A., 1987. A compliance number concept for compliant mechanisms, and type synthesis. Journal of
Mechanisms, Transmissions, and Automation in Design, 109 (3), 348355.
Howell, L.L., 2001. Compliant mechanisms. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1.
Howell, L.L. and Midha, A., 1994. Method for the design of compliant mechanisms with small-length flexural pivots.
Journal of Mechanical Design, 116, 280289.
Jensen, B.D. and Howell, L.L., 2004. Bistable configurations of compliant mechanisms modeled using four links and
translational joints. Journal of Mechanical Design, 126, 657666.
Kobayashi, K., Yoshimura, M., Nishiwaki, S. and Izui, K., 2003. A method for supporting creative interaction during
collaborative design processes. In: Proceedings of DETC/CIE 2003, 36 September 2003 Chicago. DETC200348223.
Kobayashi, K., Yoshimura, M., Nishiwaki, S. and Izui, K., 2004. Collaboration support system based on visualization of
communication processes. In: Proceedings of DETC/CIE 2004, 28 September2 October 2004 Salt Lake City. New
York: ASME. DETC2004-57785.
Larsen, V.D., Sigmund, O. and Bouwstra, S., 1996. Design and fabrication of compliant micromechanisms and structures
with negative Poissons ratio. In: Proceedings of the 9th annual international workshop on micro electro mechanical
systems, 1115 February 1996. New York: IEEE. San Diego, CA, 365371.
Larsen, U.D., Sigmund, O. and Bouswstra, S., 1997. Design and fabrication of compliant mechanisms and material
structures with negative Poissons ratio. Journal of Microelectromechanical Systems, 6, 99106.
Mankame, N.D. and Ananthasuresh, G.K., 2004a. Topology optimization for synthesis of contact-aided compliant
mechanisms using regularized contact modeling. Computers & Structures, 82, 12671290.
Mankame, N.D. and Ananthasuresh, G.K., 2004b. Topology synthesis of electrothermal compliant mechanisms using line
elements. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 26, 209218.
Matsui K. and Terada K., 2004. Continuous approximation of material distribution for topology optimization. International
Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 59, 19251944.
Midha, A., Annamalai, Y. and Kolachalam, S.K., 2004. A compliant mechanism design methodology for coupled and
uncoupled systems, and governing free choice selection considerations. In: Proceedings of DETC/CIE 2004, 28
September 2 October 2004 Salt Lake City. New York: ASME. DETC2004-57579.
Murat, F. and Tartar, L., 1985. Optimality conditions and homogenization. In: A. Mario, L. Modica and S. Spagnolo, eds.
Nonlinear variational problems. Boston, MA: Pitman Publishing Program, 18.
Nishiwaki, S., Min, S.,Yoo, J. and Kikuchi, N., 2001. Optimal structural design considering flexibility. Computer Methods
in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 190, 44574504.
Ohsaki, M. and Nishiwaki, S., 2005. Shape design of pin-jointed multistable compliant mechanisms using snapthrough
behavior. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 30 (4), 327334.
Pedersen, C.B., Buhl, Y. and Sigmund, O., 2001/Topology synthesis of large-displacement compliant mechanisms.
International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 50, 26832705.
Pereira, J.T., Fancello, E.A. and Barcellos, C.S., 2004. Topology optimization of continuum structures with material
failure constraints. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 26, 5066.
Poulsen, T.A., 2003. A new scheme for imposing a minimum length scale in topology optimization. International Journal
for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 57, 741760.

154

M. Kobayashi et al.

Rahmatalla, S. and Swan, C.C., 2003. Form finding of sparse structures with continuum topology optimization. Journal
of Structural Engineering, 129, 17071716.
Rahmatalla, S. and Swan, C.C., 2004. A Q4/Q4 continuum structural topology optimization implementation. Structural
and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 27, 130135.
Saxena, A. and Ananthasuresh, G.K., 2001. Topology synthesis of compliant mechanisms for nonlinear force-deflection
and curved path specifications. Journal of Mechanical Design, 123, 3342.
Saxena, A. and Ananthasuresh, G.K., 2003. A computational approach to the number of synthesis of linkages. Journal of
Mechanical Design, 125, 110118.
Sekimoto, T. and Noguchi, H., 2001. Homologous topology optimization in large displacement and buckling problems.
JSME International Journal, Series A, 44, 616622.
Sigmund O., 1997. On the design of compliant mechanisms using topology optimization. Mechanics of Structures and
Machines, 25 (4), 495526.
Sigmund, O. and Petersson, J., 1998. Numerical instabilities in topology optimization: a survey on procedures dealing
with checkerboards, mesh-dependencies and local minima. Structural Optimization, 16, 6875.
Snmez, U., 2003. Introduction to compliant long-dwell mechanism synthesis using buckling arc theory. In: Proceedings
of DETC/CIE 2003, 36 September 2003 Chicgo. New York: ASME. DETC2003/DAC-48808.
Suzuki, K. and Kikuchi, N., 1991. A homogenization method for shape and topology optimization. Computer Methods
in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 93, 291318.
Swan, C.C. and Rahmatalla, S.F., 2004. Design and control of path following compliant mechanisms. In: Proceedings of
DETC/CIE 2004, 28 September 2 October 2004 Salt Lake City. New York: ASME. DETC2004-57441.
Yldz, A.R., ztrk, N., Kaya, N. and ztrk F., 2003. Integrated optimal topology design and shape optimization using
neural networks. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 25, 251260.
Yoon, G.H. and Kim, Y.Y., 2005. Element connectivity parameterization for topology optimization of geometrically
nonlinear structures. International Journal of Solids and Structures, 42, 19832009.
Yoon, G.H., Kim, Y.Y., Bendse, M.P. and Sigmund, O., 2004. Hinge-free topology optimization with embedded
translation-invariant differentiable wavelet shinkage. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 27, 139150.