Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 2 – uploaded by Tien-Fu Lu

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
Fig. 3. Flexure hinge geometries of a FEA model. Fig. 2. FEA mapped meshing.

Figure 3 Flexure hinge geometries of a FEA model. Fig. 2. FEA mapped meshing.

Related Figures (10)

Keywords: Circular flexure hinges; Empirical hinge design equations; Finite element analysis This article presents the comparison of various compliance/stiffness equations of circular flexure hinges with FEA results. The limitation o: these equations at different t/R (R is the radius and t is the neck thickness) ratios are revealed. Based on the limitations of these design equations, : guideline for selecting the most accurate equations for hinge design calculations are presented. In addition to the review and comparisons, genera empirical stiffness equations in the x- and y-direction were formulated in this study (with errors less than 3% when compared to FEA results) fo: a wide range of t/R ratios (0.05 < t/R < 0.8). Crown Copyright © 2007 Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. 0141-6359/$ — see front matter. Crown Copyright © 2007 Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi: 10.1016/j.precisioneng.2007.05.002 Abstract
Keywords: Circular flexure hinges; Empirical hinge design equations; Finite element analysis This article presents the comparison of various compliance/stiffness equations of circular flexure hinges with FEA results. The limitation o: these equations at different t/R (R is the radius and t is the neck thickness) ratios are revealed. Based on the limitations of these design equations, : guideline for selecting the most accurate equations for hinge design calculations are presented. In addition to the review and comparisons, genera empirical stiffness equations in the x- and y-direction were formulated in this study (with errors less than 3% when compared to FEA results) fo: a wide range of t/R ratios (0.05 < t/R < 0.8). Crown Copyright © 2007 Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. 0141-6359/$ — see front matter. Crown Copyright © 2007 Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi: 10.1016/j.precisioneng.2007.05.002 Abstract
Fig. 4. Percentage errors of w,/M-, compared to FEA results.
Fig. 4. Percentage errors of w,/M-, compared to FEA results.
Fig. 6. Percentage errors of Ay/F\ compared to FEA results. (a) Without shear compliance and (b) with shear compliance. Fig. 5. Percentage errors of Ax/F, compared to FEA results.
Fig. 6. Percentage errors of Ay/F\ compared to FEA results. (a) Without shear compliance and (b) with shear compliance. Fig. 5. Percentage errors of Ax/F, compared to FEA results.
Fig. 7. Deformation effect outside flexure hinge geometry (figure was provided by Schotborgh).
Fig. 7. Deformation effect outside flexure hinge geometry (figure was provided by Schotborgh).
* Paros and Weisbord. Suggested compliance/stiffness equations for a particular t/R range
* Paros and Weisbord. Suggested compliance/stiffness equations for a particular t/R range
Related topics:
EngineeringTechnologyPrecision Engineering
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved