Thesis Jos Lassooij PDF

Master of Science Thesis
Design of a Bi-Stable Compliant Grasper

Using Bi-Stable Beams and Disc springs
J. Lassooij
August 22, 2012
Title:
Design of a Bi-Stable Compliant Grasper Using Bi-Stable Beams and Disc Springs
Author:
J. Lassooij
Student nr:
1263900
Date:
August 22, 2012
Institute:
Delft University of Technology

Faculty of Mechanical, Maritime and Material Science Engineering
Department Bio Mechanical Engineering
Board of examiners:
Prof. Dr. F.C.T. van der Helm, Biomechanical Engineering, 3mE, TU Delft
Dr. Ir. J.L.Herder, Biomechanical Engineering, 3mE, TU Delft
Dr. Ir. N. Tolou, Biomechanical Engineering, 3mE, TU Delft
Content
Preface..................................................................................................................................................... 2
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................. 2
General Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 4
Paper 1: ................................................................................................................................................... 8
Design of a Bi-Stable Compliant Grasper with Bi-Stable Beams ......................................................... 9
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... 9
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 9
Method .......................................................................................................................................... 10
Conceptual Design ......................................................................................................................... 10
Dimensional Design ....................................................................................................................... 16
Evaluation ...................................................................................................................................... 18
Discussion ...................................................................................................................................... 22
Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 22
References ..................................................................................................................................... 23
Paper 2: ................................................................................................................................................. 24
Feasibility Study: Using Disc Springs to Create Bi-Stable Compliant Grasper ................................... 25
Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... 25
Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 25
Method .......................................................................................................................................... 27
Results ........................................................................................................................................... 30
Discussion ...................................................................................................................................... 36
Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 37
References ..................................................................................................................................... 38
General Discussion ................................................................................................................................ 39
General Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 40
References ............................................................................................................................................. 41
Appendices ............................................................................................................................................ 42
Appendix A: ANSYS modeling and sensitivity study .......................................................................... 42
Appendix B: ANSYS coding disc spring .............................................................................................. 56
Appendix C: Results 1st bi-stable element ........................................................................................ 60
Appendix D: Standard disc springs in holder..................................................................................... 66
Appendix E: Alternative design disc spring ....................................................................................... 70
Preface
The research I have performed on the design of a bi-stable compliant grasper is presented in this
thesis. During the course of my graduation, I investigated two different bi-stable elements that could
be used in the design of a bi-stable compliant grasper. This has divided the research (and thesis) in
three parts.
In the first part I used a bi-stable beam to create the negative stiffness needed to make the
compliant grasper bi-stable. In the second part I investigated the use of disc springs to make the
compliant grasper bi-stable. Finally, in the third part both designs are compared to each other.
In the appendices A and B steps taken in the research are explained in more detail. In Appendices C-E
some other experiments are presented. In Appendix C the results of a different bi-stable beam
combined with a compliant grasper are given. In Appendix D experiments are given in which the disc
spring is constrained in all translational degrees of freedom instead of only the z-translation. In
Appendix E a different fabrication method for disc springs is described. This method is using a
preload displacement to obtain the desired shape of the disc spring, instead using of plastic
deformation.
Acknowledgements
During the (long) process of my graduation I have had help from many fellow office members: Gerard
Dunning, Pieter Pluimers, Toon Lamers, Lodewijk Kluit, Sergio de Paula Pellegrini and Juan Gallego. I
would like to thank them for all answering all my questions, their new ideas, their different view on
problems and the many coffee breaks we had. In particular I would like to thank my daily supervisors
Doctor (!) Nima Tolou and Just Herder for their patience, guidance and critical reviews during my
graduation project. Furthermore I would like to thank Prof. Frans van der Helm for reviewing my
concept thesis. Also thanks to Hans Drop, Gerwin Smit, Aad Beeloo and Rien Waaijer, for producing
the disc springs, letting me use the measurement setup, and helping me countless times in the
workshop.
General Introduction
In the past decades the field of surgery has undergone much technical advancement. One of the
largest changes is the introduction of Minimally Invasive Surgery (MIS). This is a type of surgery in
which surgeons use small incisions and long slender instruments to operate on people, instead of
making one large incision and using their hands. Due to the smaller incisions the recovery time and
chance of infection are reduced.
Despite the benefits, this type of surgery also has some disadvantages. With MIS, the surgeon has
lost direct contact with the patients they are operating on. Instead of their hands, they now have to
use long slender instruments. As a result, all tactile information is lost. Also, the number of degrees
of freedom inside the patient is reduced (Gallagher, McClure et al. 1998). The surgeons also lose
direct (3D) vision on the operating area. Instead, they now have to look at a (2D) tv-screen
(Breedveld, Stassen et al. 1999). Finally, the surgeon often has to stand in uncomfortable positions
for longer periods of time (Van Veelen and Meijer 1999). These disadvantages make the surgery
more complex, and increase the chance for errors (Joice, Hanna et al. 1998).
In order to help the surgeon Intuitive Surgical Inc. made the DaVinci Surgical System. This is a masterslave system that allows the surgeon to operate on a patient through multiple robotic arms. The
instruments of the DaVinci have more degrees of freedom (DoF) than the conventional MIS
instruments due to an extra wrist joint near at the tip. The surgeon moves the handles in the master
console, and this movement is copied electronically to the slave arms. The system uses a 3D camera
that allows the surgeon to have a better view of the operating area. Disadvantages of the system are
that the DaVinci lacks force feedback, is very expensive to buy and maintain.
In order to overcome the problems of the conventional MIS instruments and the DaVinci system, the
Minimally Invasive Manipulator (MIM) was designed (Jaspers, Shehata et al. 2004). The MIM fills the
gap between the conventional (simpler) MIS instruments on the one hand, and the very complex
DaVinci system on the other hand. The MIM is a purely mechanical system. It uses cables and pulleys
to copy the movement of the hands of the surgeon to the tip of the instruments inside the patients.
Similar to the DaVinci system, the MIM also has the extra wrist joint and can be used with 3D vision.
Unlike the DaVinci system the MIM has some force feedback due to the mechanical coupling
between the surgeon and the instrument.
In Figure 1 the MIM is shown. In total the MIM copies seven DoF from the handle of the surgeon to
the tip of the instrument: six DoF for moving the tip and one to actuate the grasper. The first two DoF
are copied using a configuration of parallelograms. The other five DoF are copied using many cables
and pulleys.
The force feedback inside the MIM is influenced by the friction inside the system. This friction is
affected by the reaction forces on the cables and pulleys (De Vries, 2012). When the surgeon is
moving the MIM the reaction forces and friction are low. This changes when the surgeon starts to
grasp and hold objects like a common suturing needle. Due to the required force to hold the objects,
the reaction forces on the cables and pulleys of the MIM increase. This can be illustrated by an
example.
(a)
(b)
Figure 1: Schematic view of the Minimally Invasive Manipulator (MIM). The MIM copies seven DoF from the
handle to the tip. The seven DoF are: rotations round insertion (1&2), rotation of instrument around its axis
(3), translation of instrument along its axis (4), wrist rotations (5&6) and opening/closing of instrument (7).
In Figure 2 a close up of the tip of the instrument is shown. The tip is opened via a torsion spring and
is closed by pulling the two cables. The friction between the object and tip and in the pulley and
cables is not shown. In the figure, the tip is applying a pinch force to hold an object. This force is
generated by the cable force. The cable force (Fcable) multiplied by its arm (rcable) is equal to the pinch
force (Fpinch) multiplied by its arm (rpinch). In the current design for the tip the moment arm of the
pinch force is almost six times larger than the moment arm of the cable force. As a result, the
required cable force is six times larger than the desired pinch force. The DaVinci is able to generate a
pinch force of around 17 N (De Vries, 2012). For such a pinch force, the resulting cable and pulley
forces in the MIM are 85 N and 170 N respectively
The results of these high cable and pulley forces are: (1) high wear, (2) cables break as a result of too
much cable force and (3) a significant increase in friction in the MIM. In experiments, users
experienced that moving the MIM became harder when an object was held. As a result, their hands
became fatigued (De Vries, 2012).
5
The increased friction distorts the force feedback in all degrees of freedom of the MIM. When
holding an object, the surgeon does not need force feedback in the grasping motion, but for the
other degrees of freedom force feedback is desired. For example, when holding a needle, the
surgeon would like to feel if he is puncturing tissue or bone.
The goal of this report is to present two designs for a bi-stable compliant grasper. The grasper will
have two stable positions: open and closed. In those positions there is no need for an actuation force
from the surgeon. When the grasper is closed, it will produce enough pinch force to hold an object.
This report is organized as follows. First, the two designs are described in two papers. The first design
is a compliant grasper combined with bi-stable beam. Both the grasper and bi-stable element will be
a planer design. A large scale prototype is presented. The second design uses a disc spring as bistable element. This design is a 3D design, and is on the scale of the MIM. After these papers there
will be a general discussion. In this discussion the two designs will be compared to each other to see
which design should be used to design a bi-stable compliant grasper for the MIM. Finally some
conclusions are given about the entire project.
Figure 2: Actuation of the grasper. The grasper consists out of two jaws (Jaw 1 & 2). Each jaw is actuated by
a cable (Cable 1 & 2). Each cable runs to the jaw over a separate pulley. The grasper is closed by pulling both
cables. The grasper is opened by the torsion spring. Steering is done by pulling one of the two cables. The
large reaction forces are a result of the large moment arm of the pinch force with respect to that of the
cable force. The friction forces between the grasper and object, and the cables and pulleys are not shown.
Paper 1:
Design of a Bi-Stable Compliant Grasper with Bi-Stable Beams
Design of a Bi-Stable Compliant Grasper with Bi-Stable Beams

Abstract
The Minimally Invasive Manipulator (MIM) copies the movements of the hands of the surgeon to the
tip of the instrument inside the operating area. The movement is mechanically copied using cables
and pulleys. When the surgeon grasps and holds an object, the friction inside the MIM increases and
distorts the force feedback in the remaining degrees of freedom. The increased friction is the result
of the reaction forces on the cables and pulleys due to the required pinch force to hold the object.
The goal of this paper is to present a design of a bi-stable grasper. This grasper will have two stable
positions, open and closed. In these positions no actuation force from the surgeon is needed. Due to
the lack of actuation force, the grasper can hold an object, without high friction forces as a result.
The concept of a compliant grasper combined with bi-stable beams is presented. A large scale
prototype was designed fabricated. The prototype showed bi-stable behavior over a range of 8 mm.
Using finite element modeling, dimensions for a bi-stable beam suitable for the MIM are found.
Introduction
In the past decades the field of surgery has undergone much technical advancement. One of the
largest changes is the introduction of Minimally Invasive Surgery (MIS). This is a type of surgery in
which surgeons use small incisions and long slender instruments to operate on people, instead of
making one large incision and using their hands. Due to the smaller incisions the recovery time and
chance of infection are reduced.
Despite the benefits, this type of surgery also has some disadvantages: (1) All tactile feedback is lost,
(2) the number of degrees of freedom inside the patient is reduced (Gallagher, McClure et al. 1998)
and (3) the surgeon often has to stand in uncomfortable positions for longer periods of time (Van
Veelen and Meijer 1999). These disadvantages make the surgery more complex, and increase the
chance for errors (Joice, Hanna et al. 1998).
The Minimally Invasive Manipulator (MIM) is a device that is designed for use in the surgical field
(Jaspers, Shehata et al. 2004). The MIM has three major advantages compared to the standard
minimally invasive surgery (MIS): (1) the MIM allows the surgeon to have more freedom of
movement inside the operating area. (2) It allows the surgeon to sit comfortably during the
procedure. (3) The MIM uses cables and pulleys to mechanically copy the movement of the hands of
the surgeon to the tip of the instrument. Due to the mechanical coupling there is some force
feedback.
The force feedback inside the MIM is influenced by the friction inside the system. This friction is
affected by the reaction forces on the cables and pulleys (De Vries 2012). When the surgeon is
moving the MIM the reaction forces and friction are low. This changes when the surgeon starts to
grasp and hold objects like a common suturing needle. Due to the required force to hold the objects,
the reaction forces on the cables and pulleys of the MIM increase.
much cable force and (3) a significant increase in friction in the MIM. In experiments, users
experienced that moving the MIM became harder when an object was held. As a result, their hands
became fatigued (De Vries 2012). Also, due to the increased friction, the force feedback in all DoF is
distorted. When holding an object, the surgeon does not need force feedback in the grasping motion,
9
but for the other degrees of freedom force feedback is desired. For example, when holding a needle,
the surgeon would like to feel if he is puncturing tissue or bone. These three results increase the risk
of complications and errors during surgery.
This paper presents the first design of a bi-stable compliant grasper. This grasper will have two stable
positions, open and closed. In these positions no actuation force from the surgeon is needed. When
closed, the grasper will produce enough pinch force to hold an object. Due to the lack of actuation
force from the surgeon when the grasper is holding an object, the friction remains low. As a result,
the surgeon has some force feedback when moving the instrument.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. First the design approach and design requirements will
be given in the method. Next, the concept will be presented followed by the dimensional design.
Then the experimental validation will be presented, followed by a discussion of the results and
conclusions.
Method
In order to remove all reaction forces, the bi-stable part of the grasper needs to be as close to the
grasper as possible. The instruments of the MIM are designed to fit through an 8 mm trocar. To the
authors knowledge, a combination of a bi-stable element and a grasper on this scale does not exist.
This small scale introduces difficulties in assembly and evaluation of the design. For these reasons,
the prototype of the bi-stable grasper will be on a larger scale than the scale of the MIM. The
prototype will serve as a proof of principle for the design concept presented in this paper.
The prototype should have two stable positions (i.e. positions in which no actuation force from the
surgeon is required). These positions should be when the prototype is open and closed. In the closed
position, the bi-stable element should provide an actuation force that is actively closing the grasper.
This force results into a pinch force.
First, the concept is presented. Then the dimensions of this concept are determined with the help of
finite element modeling (FEM). The finite element model used for the bi-stable element has been
validated by (Dunning, Tolou et al. 2012). Dimensions for two scales are determined. The first
dimensions are for the bi-stable beam on the required scale for the MIM. The behavior of the bistable beam is combined with the behavior of the compliant grasper of Herder and Berg. The second
dimensions are for the large scale prototype. The prototype was validated by measuring the forcedisplacement and comparing them to the FEM results.
After fabrication the dimensions of the prototype are checked to determine the fabrication error.
Using the FEM an estimate is made on the change in behavior based on these fabrication errors. This
is also compared to the measurement and FEM results.
Conceptual Design
The design presented in this paper is adapted from the design of (Tolou and Herder 2009), shown in
Figure 1. It combines a compliant grasper with bi-stable elements.
Compliant grasper
Compliant mechanisms are mechanisms that obtain some or all of their movement through the
deformation of flexible members (Howell 1996). They typically have a low stiffness one direction of
motion, and high stiffness for the other directions of motion. Compliant mechanisms have no sliding
10
parts, and therefore no friction, wear, or the need for lubrication. Also, it is possible to make
compliant mechanisms out of one part (monolithic), eliminating the need for assembly and
simplifying the design. One disadvantage of compliant mechanisms is that they have (positive)
stiffness. Due the lack of friction and need for assembly, compliant mechanisms are chosen to be
used in the design.
In Figure 2, a conventional (Figure 2a) and compliant (Figure 2b) grasper are shown. In the compliant
grasper the joint is replaced by flexible members. The initial (i.e. relaxed) configuration of the
grasper is half open to reduce the stresses inside the grasper. To close the grasper a pulling force is
needed. To further open the grasper a pushing force is needed. The further the grasper opens or
closes, the more the force will increase, as shown in Figure 3a. In order to make the grasper bi-stable,
a higher negative stiffness needs to be added to the positive stiffness of the grasper.
Figure 1: Concept for a compliant grasper combined with bi-stable elements, presented in (Tolou and Herder
2009). The bi-stable elements have length l, in plane thickness t, out of plane thickness w and rise h.
(a)
(b)
Figure 2: (a) Conventional grasper with 2 rigid parts connected by a joint. (b) Compliant version of figure 2a,
grasper opens and closes by deformation of the flexible members.
11
Bi-Stable element
2
F [N]
1.5
1
Closed
Force [-]
0.5
Open
Stable Eq.
0
-0.5
Stable Eq.
-1
-1.5
X [mm]
-2
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
Position [-]
(a)
(b)
Figure 3: (a) Force displacement characteristic of a compliant grasper when the relaxed position of the
grasper is half opened. The grasper has a constant positive stiffness. (b) Force displacement characteristic
of a typical bi-stable mechanism. The graph has two stable equilibriums. The behavior shows negative
stiffness for -1.5<x<1.5.
Bi-Stable Beams
Negative stiffness is found in bi-stable elements like the pre-stressed initially-curved pinned-pinned
beams used in the design of Tolou. Figure 3b shows the force-displacement characteristic of a typical
bi-stable element. Such elements have two stable equilibriums. In these points the force is zero. In
between the stable positions there is a region in which there is negative stiffness (i.e. the force
decreases and becomes negative). In Figure 3b this is the part for -1.5<x<1.5. The range and
magnitude of the negative stiffness depend on the stroke and amplitude of the bi-stable element. In
order to obtain a bi-stable compliant grasper, only the part of the curve with negative stiffness can
be used. As a result, the total stroke of the bi-stable beam is larger than the stroke of the grasper.
Bi-Stable Compliant Grasper
2
1.5
1
Positive stiffness
Bi-Stable element
Combined system
Force [-]
0.5
0
-0.5
-1
-1.5
-2
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
Position [-]
Figure 4: The force displacement characteristic of a positive stiffness (black solid line), Bi-stable mechanism
(blue dashed line) and the combined system (green dash-dotted line).
12
When the compliant grasper and bi-stable mechanism are combined, their two curves can be added
together. The new curve has the same stroke as the grasper, and shows bi-stable behavior. Normally
bi-stable elements have a zero force in their stable positions. When the grasper and bi-stable beam
are combined, the goal is to have a non-zero force. This non-zero force will then generate the pinch
force needed to hold an object. This can be achieved when the stroke and magnitude are chosen
large enough. The resulting curve is shown in Figure 4. In this situation, the surgeon only has to apply
force to switch between an open or closed grasper.
The bi-stable beams used in the concept presented by Tolou have the highest stroke and force with
respect to their volume compared to other elements used to create negative stiffness (Dunning,
Tolou et al. 2011). For this reason, they will be used as a basis for the design presented in this paper.
Before the bi-stable beams could be used in the design, some changes were made. The pin-pin joints
were removed to remove friction, and reduce the number of parts. Also, to further reduce the
complexity, the number of beams was reduced. This was done by using one bi-stable beam that
spans the full width of the grasper instead of two that each span half.
Tuning
The behavior of the combined system depends on the intersection of the characteristics of the
compliant grasper and bi-stable beam. In order to compensate for fabrication errors, assembly and
other unforeseen circumstances the intersection point needs to be tunable. This can be done by
adding nuts in the middle of the bi-stable beam as shown in Figure 5a. By rotating the nuts, the
relative distance between the bi-stable beam and the grasper is changed. This will lead to a change in
the force displacement characteristic, as shown in Figure 5b. The final concept for the bi-stable
compliant grasper (BSCG) can be seen in Figure 6.
Shift bi-stable element
2
1.5
Nuts
Positive stiffness
Bi-Stable element
Combined system
Shifted Bi-stable element
Changed combined system
Bi-stable
element
Actuation
Force [-]
0.5
0
-0.5
-1
-1.5
-2
-3
-2
-1
1
Position [-]
(a)
(b)
Figure 5: (a) Concept for preloading and tuning the bi-stable element using nuts. (b) By rotating the nuts, the
curve of the bi-stable element shifts (blue dashed and blue dashed plusses lines). Due to this shift, the point
of intersection of the grasper and bi-stable element changes. This leads to a change in behavior of the
combined system (green dash dotted and green dash dotted plusses lines)
13
Flexible element
Grasper tip
Bi-stable beam Tuning nut
Figure 6: The final concept, the bi-stable element combined with the compliant grasper.
Symmetrical behavior
The bi-stable behavior of a bi-stable beam can be achieved in two ways. The first way is to preload an
initially straight beam from the sides, creating a curved preloaded beam. The second way is to
plastically deform a straight beam and shape it into a curved beam. The advantage of the second
method is that it does not need any preloading from the side. This means that the design would be
simpler to assemble.
The difference between these methods lies in the force-displacement behavior of the beams. Bistable behavior has a so called symmetry. This is the ratio between the maximum positive and
negative forces. The symmetry is an indication for how much one of the stable points is preferred. If
both points are preferred equally, the behavior is symmetrical. This means that the maximum
positive and negative forces have the same magnitude.
A bi-stable beam made using the first method is has symmetrical force-displacement behavior, and
does not have a preference for one of the two stable positions. A bi-stable beam made using the
second method will have a preference for the first stable position, namely its position it was shaped
into.
Figure 7a illustrates the difference between the behaviors. In the figure, two bi-stable behaviors can
be seen, a symmetrical behavior (blue dashed line) and a non-symmetrical behavior (blue dashed
plusses line). Both behaviors have a stroke (2 units) and the same difference between maximum
positive and negative force (4 units). The difference in symmetry can be seen by the ratio between
the maximum positive and negative forces. This ratio is 1 for the blue dashed line, and 3 for the blue
dotted line.
Both bi-stable behaviors can be used to make a compliant grasper (CG) bi-stable. The symmetrical bistable behavior is combined with a compliant grasper with symmetrical behavior (i.e. the relaxed
position of the grasper is halfway its stroke). The non-symmetrical bi-stable behavior is combined
with a compliant grasper that has a non-symmetrical behavior (i.e. the relaxed position of the
grasper is not in the middle of the stroke). This is illustrated in Figure 7b. As can be seen, both
grasper are made bi-stable, and have the same stroke. The symmetrical compliant grasper has a
symmetrical bi-stable behavior, and the non-symmetrical grasper has a non-symmetrical bi-stable
behavior.
14
In theory, both bi-stable behaviors can be used to design a bi-stable compliant grasper. Which
system is going to be used will depend on the fabrication method and required dimensions of the bistable beam. This will be discussed in the next section.
Symmetry in bi-stable behavior
3
Symmetrical behavior
Non-symmetrical behavior
2.5
2
1.5
Force [-]
1
0.5
0
-0.5
-1
-1.5
-2
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
Displacement [-]
(a)
Non-Symmetrical and Symmetrical Bi-Stable Compliant Grasper
3
Symmetrical CG
Non-Symmetrical CG
Symmetrical BS-beam
Non-symmetrical BS-beam
Symmetrical BSCG
Non-symmetrical BSCG
Force [-]
-1
-2
-3
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
Displacement [-]
(b)
Figure 7: (a) Symmetry in bi-stable behavior. A symmetrical behavior (blue dashed line) and a nonsymmetrical behavior (blue dashed plusses line). Both behaviors have a stroke (2 units) and the same
difference between maximum positive and negative force (4 units). The difference in symmetry can be seen
by the ratio between the maximum positive and negative forces. This ratio is 1 for the blue dashed line, and
3 for the blue dashed plusses line. (b) Influence of symmetry on behavior of combined system. The nonsymmetrical bi-stable beam (blue dotted plusses line) is combined with the non-symmetrical compliant
grasper (CG) (black solid plusses line). The combined system (green dash-dot plusses line) is also nonsymmetrical.
15
Bi-stable beam on MIM scale

40
Compliant Grasper
Bi-Stable Beam
BSCG
30
20
Force [N]
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-0.2
0.2
0.4
0.6
Displacement [mm]
0.8
(a)
FEM Results for Bi-Stable Compliant Grasper
80
Compliant Grasper
Bi-Stable Beam
BSCG
60
40
Force [N]
20
0
-20
-40
-60
-80
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
Displacement [mm]
(b)
Figure 8: (a) Expected behavior of bi-stable beam on MIM scale (b) Expected behavior of prototype based on
ANSYS modeling. With the behavior of the Compliant Grasper (black solid line, starred), Bi-Stable Beam (blue
dashed line, starred) and Bi-Stable Compliant Grasper (BSCG) (green dash-dotted line, starred)
Dimensional Design
In order to provide a basis for the dimensions of the concept, a finite element modeling (FEM) was
performed using a commercially FEM package, ANSYSTM 11.0, and the forces-displacements
behaviors were analyzed [ANSYS Inc. Version 11.0 Manual]. Because of large deflections, a non-linear
16
static analysis has been performed. PLANE82 and BEAM3 elements were used to mesh the grasper
and the bi-stable element respectively. The first type is a 2-D eight nodes element, with two
translational degrees of freedom per node. It provides more accurate results for mixed
(quadrilateral-triangular) automatic meshes and can tolerate irregular shapes without as much loss
of accuracy as well. The uni-axial BEAM3 element gives the shortest computation time while the
actual out of plane properties can also be provided using the real constant capability of ANSYSTM. The
BEAM3 element has three degrees of freedom at each node with tension, compression, and bending
capabilities. The material is assumed to follow linear elastic stress-strain behavior and to be isotropic.
The model was used to predict the dimensions of the bi-stable beam and compliant grasper for the
prototype and the dimensions of the bi-stable beam for the small scale compliant grasper. The
dimensions were made such that the maximum stresses inside the materials were not exceeded.
More details about this model and simulation can be found in Appendix A.
Small scale
The dimensions of the bi-stable beam were chosen such that the bi-stable element would fit inside a
tube with an inner diameter of 7 mm (i.e. the same size as the current MIM instruments). The bistable beam for the small scale compliant grasper has an effective length of 5.5 mm, an out of plane
thickness of 4.33 mm, a material thickness of 0.17 mm and a preload displacement of 0.022 mm. The
result is a bi-stable beam with a total stroke of 0.8 mm and maximum positive and negative forces of
32 N and -32 N respectively. The part of the graph with negative stiffness has a stroke of 0.46 mm.
This is shorter than the stroke of the compliant grasper of (Herder and Berg, 2000). The behavior of
the small scale bi-stable beam, compliant grasper from Herder and Berg and their combined behavior
can be seen in Figure 8a.
Large scale
The large scale bi-stable beam has a total length of the bi-stable beam is 45.50 mm. Due to the
tuning screws, and clamping, the effective length is lower: 30 mm. The preload displacement is 0.58
mm. The in plane thickness is chosen to be 0.15 mm. The out of plane thickness is 20 mm. The length
of the flexible elements of the grasper is 76 mm. The in plane thickness is 1.5 mm and the out of
plane thickness is 20 mm. The expected behavior of the large scale bi-stable beam, compliant grasper
and their combined behavior are shown in Figure 8b
Prototype
The bi-stable beam was cut out of a high quality stainless steel (ST 301) sheet. Material of this
thickness was easily found, and it is predicted to have sufficient negative stiffness to make the
grasper bi-stable. Relaxation in this material is low, and it can cope with high stresses. This material is
hard to machine. Due to limited fabrication methods, it was not possible to create the curvature in
the bi-stable beam by plastic deformation. For this reason, the desired curvature is created by
preloading from the side.
The grasper was made using a 3D printer (Solido SD300 Pro). The printer uses PVC sheets (0.168 mm
thick, E = 3.37E9) to build up the model. This method was chosen for its short production times and
capability to produces complex designs. The PVC used will have some relaxation, but this is expected
to be low since the stresses in the grasper are expected to be relatively low. The screw thread was
also used for actuating the bi-stable grasper. The sides of the bi-stable beam were fixed to the
grasper via two other screw threads and nuts. The prototype is shown in Figure 9.
17
Evaluation
Validation of the prototype was done by measuring the force-displacement behavior of the
compliant grasper and the BSCG. The prototype was mounted on a setup shown in Figure 10. The
compliant grasper was attached to the force sensor by a pulling rod. For each experiment, the
compliant grasper was first brought from its relaxed to its closed position. Then the compliant
grasper was brought to its fully opened position and back to its closed position. During this
movement, the pushing/pulling force (FETE RIS components - B3G-C3-50kg-6B, resolution = 0.06 N,
range = [0,50] kg) and displacement (Positek P101.200CL100, resolution: 0.045 mm, range = [0,200]
mm, namely LVDT) were measured. An amplifier (Scaime CPJ 25) and DaQ-mx Data Acquisition
system (NI USB6008) were used to read the data. Each measurement was repeated ten times. The
measurements were done for the compliant grasper with and without the bi-stable beam attached.
The bi-stable beam alone was not measured. The force-displacement behavior of the bi-stable beam
alone was obtained from the data of the other measurements.
The experimental results were compared to the FEM results. An estimate of the fabrication errors
was made for the compliant grasper and bi-stable beam. The influence of these errors on the
behavior is compared to the measurement and FEM results.
Flexible elements
Bi-stable beam
Grasper tip
Actuation (x)
Nut for preloading

Figure 9: Prototype of bi-stable compliant grasper.
Figure 10: The top view of test set-up: The stiffness characteristic and force displacement of Bi-Stable
Compliant Grasper was determined by measuring actuation force (Fact) and displacement (Xact) during
opening and closing of the Bi-Stable Compliant Grasper.
18
80
Compliant Grasper (FEM)
Compliant Grasper (Exp)
Bi-Stable Beam (FEM)
Bi-Stable Beam (Exp)
60
40
Force [N]
20
0
-20
-40
-60
-80
-4
-2
0
2
Displacement [mm]
(a)
80
BSCG (FEM)
BSCG (Exp)
60
40
Force [N]
20
0
-20
-40
-60
-80
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
Displacement [mm]
(b)
Figure 11: (a) Force-displacement results from FEM (starred lines) and measurements of the compliant
grasper (black solid lines) and bi-stable beam (blue dashed lines). (b) Force-displacement results from FEM
(green dash dotted starred lines) and measurements (green dash-dotted lines) of Bi-stable Compliant
Grasper.
19
Results
In Figure 11a, the results of the FEM models and measurements of the grasper and bi-stable beam
are shown. For the compliant grasper, the model predicted an almost linear behavior with a stiffness
of 2.6 N/mm. The measured stiffness was lower: 0.89 N/mm. When pulling, the stroke of the grasper
is only slightly shorter than predicted: -3.5 mm (exp) vs. -3.7 mm (FEM). The measurements show a
maximum hysteresis of around 0.665 N (25.8%).
For the bi-stable beam the model predicted a much higher negative stiffness (24 N/mm) compared to
the measurement results (10.55 N/mm). The measured stroke of the bi-stable element is slightly
larger as the stroke of the FEM, namely 8 mm and 7.6 mm respectively. The measurements show a
maximum hysteresis of 4.6 N (18.3%).
The force-displacement behavior of the combined bi-stable beam and compliant grasper is shown in
Figure 11b. As can be seen, when the grasper is closed (x = -3.5) there is a positive actuation force of
20 N, actively closing the grasper.
The following parameters have an influence on the behavior of the grasper: length, out of plane
thickness, in plane thickness and Youngs modulus. For the first three parameters the errors were
determined by measuring the actual dimensions. The real Youngs modulus could not be measured
and was estimated. An overview of the parameters and their values can be found in Table 1. The
influence of each parameter individually can be found in Appendix A1.
For the bi-stable beam the length, out of plane thickness, in plane thickness and preload
displacement determine the force-displacement behavior. The length, out of plane thickness and
preload displacement were slightly changed due to fabrication errors. The in plane thickness was
measured to be exactly 0.15 mm. An overview of the parameters and their values can be found in
Table 2. The influence of each parameter individually can be found in Appendix A1.
In Figure 12, the influence of all the fabrication errors combined can be seen for both the compliant
grasper and the bi-stable beam. A large influence on the stiffness of the compliant grasper due to the
fabrication errors can be seen (0.9 N/mm 5.1 N/mm). There is only a small influence on the
behavior of the bi-stable beam. Only the stroke of the bi-stable beam is affected, there is very little
change in the negative stiffness.
Parameter
Modeled
Measured errors
Length
[mm]
76
74-78
Out of plane thickness

[mm]
20
19-21
In plane thickness
[mm]
1.5
1.3-1.7
Youngs mod.
[GPa]
3.37
2.37-4.37
Table 1: Overview of parameters that influence the force-displacement behavior of the compliant grasper
and their fabrication errors.
Parameter
Modeled
Measured errors
Length
[mm]
30
29.9-30.7
Out of plane thickness

[mm]
20
19.6-20
In plane thickness
[mm]
0.15
0.15
Preload
[mm]
1.16
0.76-1.56
Table 2: Overview of parameters that influence the force-displacement behavior of the bi-stable beam and
their fabrication errors.
20
Compliant Grasper
20
FEM
FEM: Fabrication Errors
Measurements
15
10
Force [N]
5
0
-5
-10
-15
-20
-4
-2
0
2
Displacement [mm]
(a)
Bi-Stable Beam
100
FEM
Measurements
FEM: Fabrication Errors
80
60
Force [N]
40
20
0
-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
-5
0
Displacement [mm]
(b)
Figure 12: (a) Force-displacement characteristic of the FEM (black solid starred line) and measurements
(black solid line) of the compliant grasper. The influence of fabrication errors is shown (red solid circled
lines). (b) Force-displacement characteristic of the finite element modeling (blue dashed line) and
measurements (blue dashed starred line) of the bi-stable element. The influence of fabrication errors in the
dimensions is shown (red dashed circled lines).
21
Discussion
The small scale bi-stable beam is capable of making the compliant grasper of Herder and Berg bistable. The negative stiffness stroke of the bi-stable element is smaller than the stroke of the
compliant grasper. When closed, there is a positive actuation force that creates a pinch force.
The measurement results show that the large scale bi-stable compliant grasper was successfully
made. The grasper has two clear equilibrium points. When the grasper is closed (x = -3.5) a positive
force of 20 N is seen. This force results into a pinching force that can be used to hold objects.
In Figure 11b the displacement of the bi-stable grasper continues when the grasper is closed. This
was possible because the flexible members of the grasper would still deform when the grasper was
closed. The measurement was continued after the grasper was closed, to see when the force would
become zero.
For both the compliant grasper and bi-stable compliant grasper the FEM results do not match the
measurement results (see Figure 11a). As can be seen in Figure 12, for the compliant grasper, this
difference can partially be explained by the large influence of fabrication errors and variation in
Youngs modulus. The given Youngs modulus for PVC is 3.37 GPa. The 3D printer uses multiple layers
of PVC and glues these layers together. The Youngs modulus of the compliant grasper will be
different due to the influence of the layers and the glue.
For the bi-stable beam, the fabrication errors do not explain the difference between the FEM and
measurement results. The difference can be explained by the clamping of the bi-stable beam with
nuts. The total length of the bi-stable beam is 45.5 mm. The bi-stable beam is clamped with three
nuts, one on each side and on in the middle. This reduces the effective length by 3 times the size of a
nut (5.5 mm). As a result, the bi-stable beam was modeled to have an effective length of 30 mm. In
reality there is still material around nuts that contributes to force-displacement behavior of bi-stable
beam. As a result, the actual effective length is longer than 30 mm, but it is not certain how long
exactly. The increase in effective length leads to a decrease in negative stiffness.
There is some hysteresis found in the measurements of the compliant grasper. This is relatively low
and can partially be explained by the relaxation of the grasper. Another reason could be some
backlash in the design due to the use of thread to actuate the prototype and connect the bi-stable
elements to the compliant grasper. This also partially explains the hysteresis in the measurements of
the bi-stable compliant grasper. There was also some friction inside the part of the prototype that
contains the bi-stable element.
Conclusion
The MIM has important advantages over conventional MIS instruments. It allows the surgeon to have
more freedom of movement and sit comfortably while performing surgery. During surgery grasping
and holding objects for longer periods of time is a common need. Currently there are high reaction
forces on cables and pulleys when objects are grasped and held. Due to these forces there is a
significant increase in friction, high wear and breaking of cables. This increases the risk of
complications and errors during surgery.
We proposed to resolve this problem by combining a bi-stable element with a compliant grasper.
This grasper has two stable positions, open and closed. When closed the grasper is able to hold an
22
object without the need of an actuation force from the surgeon. The bi-stable element is located
close to the grasper to allow for compact design and remove the reaction forces in the cables and
pulleys.
The concept of the first bi-stable compliant grasper is presented. A large scale prototype was
designed, optimized and built based on finite element modeling. The prototype was evaluated by
measuring the force-displacement behavior. The prototype successfully shows bi-stable behavior and
generates a pinch force. A small scale design was presented that successfully made the compliant
grasper of Herder and Berg bi-stable. When this design implemented, the chance for errors and
complications during surgery will be reduced.
References
De Vries, K. (2012). Master Thesis: Testing and modeling of the Minimally Invasive Manipulator.
Dunning, A. G., N. Tolou, et al. (2011). "Review Article: Inventory of platforms towards the design of a
statically balanced six degrees of freedom compliant precision stage." Mech. Sci. 2(2): 157168.
Dunning, A. G., N. Tolou, et al. (2012). "Bistable compliant mechanisms: Corrected finite element
modeling for stiffness tuning and preloading incorporation." Journal of Mechanical Design,
Transactions of the ASME 134(8).
Gallagher, A. G., N. McClure, et al. (1998). "An ergonomic analysis of the fulcrum effect in the
acquisition of endoscopic skills." Endoscopy 30(7): 617-620.
Howell, L. L., Midha, A., Norton, T.W. (1996). "Evaluation of equivalent spring stiffness for use in a
pseudo-rigid-bodymodel of large-deflection compliant mechanisms." Journal of Mechanical
Design 118: 126-131.
Jaspers, J. E. N., M. Shehata, et al. (2004). Mechanical manipulator for intuitive control of endoscopic
instruments with seven degrees of freedom, Salt Lake City, UT.
Joice, P., G. B. Hanna, et al. (1998). "Errors enacted during endoscopic surgery - A human reliability
analysis." Applied Ergonomics 29(6): 409-414.
Tolou, N. and J. L. Herder (2009). Concept and Modeling of a Statically Balanced Compliant
Laparoscopic Grasper. Proceedings of the ASME Design Engineering Technical Conference,
San Diego, California, USA.
Van Veelen, M. A. and D. W. Meijer (1999). "Ergonomics and design of laparoscopic instruments:
Results of a survey among laparoscopic surgeons." Journal of Laparoendoscopic and
Advanced Surgical Techniques - Part A 9(6): 481-489.
23
Paper 2:
Feasibility Study: Using Disc Springs to Create Bi-Stable Compliant
Grasper
24
Feasibility Study: Using Disc Springs to Create Bi-Stable Compliant

Grasper
Abstract
The Minimally Invasive Manipulator (MIM) copies the movements of the hands of the surgeon to the
tip of the instrument inside the operating area. The movement is mechanically copied using cables
and pulleys. When the surgeon grasps and holds an object, the friction inside the MIM increases and
distorts the force feedback in the remaining degrees of freedom. This is the result of the reaction
forces on the cables and pulleys due to the required pinch force to hold the object. One solution to
this problem is to use a bi-stable compliant grasper. The bi-stable element used in paper 1 is a planar
design, whereas the instruments used by the MIM are circular. A bi-stable element that is circular
might be more effective in the circular environment of the MIM. Disc springs are commonly used to
apply a preload or flexible quality to a bolted joint or bearing. These springs are known to have the
potential to show bi-stable behavior. The goal of this paper is to present the first design of a bi-stable
compliant grasper which uses a disc spring as bi-stable element. The design will be the first design on
the required scale for the MIM. This was done by validating an ANSYS model and a database. Using
the model and database disc spring with suitable dimensions for the MIM scale was found. Two disc
springs in parallel were needed to make a bi-stable compliant grasper. Further investigation is
needed to see if the non-symmetric behavior of the disc spring will be a problem for a future design.
Introduction
Minimally Invasive Surgery (MIS) is a type of surgery in which surgeons use small incisions and long
slender instruments to operate on people, instead of making one large incision and using their hands.
Due to the smaller incisions the recovery time and chance of infection are reduced.
This type of surgery has some disadvantages: (1) All tactile feedback is lost, (2) the number of
degrees of freedom inside the patient is reduced (Gallagher, McClure et al. 1998) and (3) the surgeon
often has to stand in uncomfortable positions for longer periods of time (Van Veelen and Meijer
1999). These disadvantages increase the chance for errors (Joice, Hanna et al. 1998).
The Minimally Invasive Manipulator (MIM) is a device that is designed for use in the surgical field
(Jaspers, Shehata et al. 2004). The MIM has three major advantages compared to the standard
minimally invasive surgery (MIS): (1) more freedom of movement inside the operating area. (2) The
surgeon can sit comfortably during the procedure. (3) Some force feedback due to the use of cables
and pulleys to copy the movement of the hands of the surgeon to the tip of the instrument.
The reaction forces on the cables and pulleys influence the friction inside the system. When the
surgeon is moving the MIM the reaction forces and friction are low. When the surgeon starts to grasp
and hold objects like a common suturing needle, the reaction forces on the cables and pulleys of the
MIM increase.
much cable force and (3) a significant increase in friction in the MIM (De Vries 2012). Also, due to the
increased friction, the force feedback in all DoF is distorted. When holding an object, the surgeon
does not need force feedback in the grasping motion, but for the other degrees of freedom force
feedback is desired. For example, when holding a needle, the surgeon would like to feel if he is
25
puncturing tissue or bone. Due to the three reasons mentioned above the risk of complications and
errors during surgery is increased.
In paper 1 a bi-stable compliant grasper was proposed to solve this problem. This grasper has two
stable positions (open and closed). When closed, the grasper is able to produce a pinching force that
is able to hold an object. The compliant grasper is made bi-stable by adding a bi-stable beam to the
compliant grasper. A large scale prototype was made which proved the concept. A design was
presented for a bi-stable compliant grasper with the right dimensions for the MIM.
The bi-stable beam used in the design of paper 1 is a planar design. The bi-stable beam is a leaf
spring that is preloaded via a displacement from the sides. The orientation of the beam will be
orthogonal to the centerline of the instrument. When this design is applied in a circular environment
a problem arises. Due to the circular environment, the effective length l of the beam is depending
on the out of plane thickness w and vice versa (i.e. the longer the beam is, the lower the out of
plane thickness can be and vice versa). As a result, the available space might not be used effectively.
As a result the space used to generate a force-displacement behavior might be more than necessary.
(a)
(b)
Figure 1: (a) a single disc spring leaning against a stack of disc springs. (b) dimensions of disc spring that
determine the behavior. Figure showing: material thickness t, cone height h, outer radius r o and inner
radius ri. All dimensions are in meters.
Force /Force to flat (F/Fc) []
3.0
2.0
1.0
Deflection/Cone Height [-]

Figure 2: Normalized force deflection characteristic of disc spring. The three curves represent a cone
height/material thickness ratio of 1, 2 and 3. As can be seen, the force becomes negative when the ratio is
3, meaning that the disc spring is bi-stable.
26
The goal of this paper is to present the first design of a bi-stable compliant grasper which uses a disc
spring as bi-stable element. By using the circular disc spring, the space is used more effectively.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows: In the method section the theory behind disc springs is
given, followed by two simulation models, and validation method. In the results section the results of
the validation are shown. The results are then discussed followed by the conclusions.
Method
The feasibility of the disc springs was investigated in three steps. First a database was obtained and
finite element model was made in ANSYS to predict the behavior of the disc springs based on their
dimensions. Then the database and model were validated using a disc spring bought from a
manufacturer. This was done because disc springs with the required cone height/material thickness
ratios were not available in stores.
Second, a sensitivity analysis was performed after the validation. The sensitivity analysis was done in
order to gain more insight into the behavior of the spring, and how this behavior can be influenced.
In the third step, the database and model were used to find a disc spring with bi-stable behavior
dimensions of a disc spring with sufficient bi-stable behavior to make a compliant grasper bi-stable.
This is done by combining the behavior of the disc spring to that of a compliant grasper. As an
example for the laparoscopic application the dimensions of the MIM are used. The MIM uses
instruments with a diameter of 8 mm. For the compliant grasper the design of Herder and Berg was
used (Herder and Berg 2000).
Disc springs
Disc springs are commonly used to apply a preload or flexible quality to a bolted joint or bearing.
These springs are known to have the potential to show negative stiffness in part of their forcedisplacement characteristic (Belleville Springs 2012). In Figure 1a a typical disc spring is shown. The
behavior of a disc spring depends on the dimensions of the disc spring shown in Figure 1b.
The shape of the force deflection curve of a disc spring depends on the ratio between the height of
the spring, and the thickness of the material. This is illustrated in Figure 2. When the ratio is larger
than 1.5, the behavior shows negative stiffness in the region of interest (ROI) (25% - 75% of the
stroke). In order for the disc spring to become bi-stable, the force has to become negative, this
occurs when the ratio is larger than 3.
Modeling
The database was obtained from a spring manufacturer. It shows the result of a disc spring based on
the input dimensions. It also gives the stresses at the edges of the disc spring. The finite element
model was made in ANSYS using SHELL93 elements. These elements are particularly well suited to
model curved shells. Each element has six nodes, where each node has six degrees of freedom:
translations in the nodal x, y, and z directions and rotations about the nodal x, y, and z-axes. The
element has plasticity, stress stiffening, large deflection, and large strain capabilities.
27
(a)
(b)
Figure 3: (a) Disc spring used to validate database and ANSYS model. (b) Schematic overview of
measurement setup used to determine behavior of disc springs. The disc spring is pushed against a fixed
plate, with a pushing rod that has a slightly larger radius than the inner radius of the disc spring. The force
and displacement are measured during the deformation of the spring.
Validation
The validation was done with two identical disc springs were ordered from a company. The disc
springs were chosen based on their high cone height/thickness ratio of 1.5. This is the highest ratio
that was available at the company. The ratio was chosen as high as possible so that the stiffness in
the ROI was as close to the desired negative stiffness as possible. The disc spring is shown in Figure
3a, and has the following dimensions: outer radius of 9 mm, inner radius of 3.1 mm, material
thickness of 0.4 mm and a cone height of 0.6 mm.
The measurements were done using a measurement setup. A schematic drawing of this setup is
shown in Figure 3b. The pushing/pulling force (FETE RIS components - B3G-C3-50kg-6B, resolution =
0.06 N, range = [0,50] kg) and displacement (LCIT 2000, range = [0,100] mm) were measured. An
amplifier (Scaime CPJ 25) and DaQ-mx Data Acquisition system (NI USB6008) were used to record the
data. Matlab was used to process the data. The actuation force was generated using an air pressured
28
cylinder. Each measurement was repeated 10 times. The disc spring was placed against a fixed plate,
positioned over a hole. During the measurements the disc spring was compressed using a pushing
rod with a slightly larger radius than the inner radius of the disc spring. The hole allowed the disc
spring to be compressed further than the flat position, making it possible to measure the entire
stroke of the disc spring.
The database and model were compared to each other for: force, stroke and stresses. The stresses at
the inner edge and outer edge were compared when the spring was at maximum deformation. The
database and model were compared to the measurement results for only force and stroke, since it
was impossible to measure the stresses inside the disc spring during the experiments.
Sensitivity analysis
The sensitivity analysis was performed using the ANSYS model and the data processed with Matlab.
The following parameters were changed: inner radius r1, outer radius r2, cone height h and
material thickness t. The effects of changing the parameters on the stroke, maximum force and
stiffness in the ROI were calculated.
Conceptual design
The design of the compliant grasper was based on the design presented in (Herder and Berg 2000),
shown in Figure 4a. The grasper was designed to fit in a 5 mm trocar. It has a stiffness of 43 N/mm
and a stroke of 0.6 mm. In Figure 4b the concept of the bi-stable compliant grasper is shown, in this
concept the disc spring is combined with the compliant grasper.
(a)
(b)
Figure 4: (a) design of Herder and Berg, 2000. (b) Concept of bi-stable compliant grasper. The disc spring is
combined with the compliant grasper.
29
(a)
(b)
Figure 5: ANSYS model of disc spring with (a) top view and (b) front view. The outer diameter is constrained
in z-translation and rotation. The top and left side of the disc spring are constrained in x and y-translation
respectively. This to ensure the disc spring is not shifting, whilst allowing it to expand when moving.
Results
FEM
In Figure 5, the model used in ANSYS can be seen. The outer diameter is constrained in z-translation
and rotation. The top and left side of the disc spring are constrained in x and y-translation
respectively. This to ensure the disc spring is not shifting, whilst allowing it to expand when moving.
During the simulation, the inner diameter is pushed down until over a distance that is twice the cone
height. The coding used can be found in Appendix B.
Validation
The stresses given by both models when the disc springs are in maximally deformed are shown in
Table 1. As can be seen, the stresses are in the same order of magnitude. The difference between the
models is 320.9 MPa and 187.8 MPa for the inner and outer edge respectively. Note that for the
inner edge the ANSYS model is predicting higher stresses, whereas for the outer edge the database
predicts a higher stress.
30
Model
ANSYS
Database
Stress Inner edge [MPa]

3250.4
2929.5
Stress outer edge [MPa]

912.0
1099.8
Table 1: Comparison of stresses predicted by both models.
The force-displacement characteristics of the simulation models and the two springs are shown in
Figure 6a and b. The differences between the simulation models are very small. The measurements
show some differences with respect to the simulation models. The measured stroke of 1.4 mm of the
disc springs is larger than the predicted 1.2 mm. Also the models predict a small negative stiffness in
the ROI, whereas the experiments show a zero stiffness in this region. Hysteresis of 9.3 N (6.3%) and
11.2 N (7.0%) can be seen in the first and second disc spring respectively.
For both disc springs, the general shape of the force-displacement behavior is the same. In case of
the first disc spring the force are close to the predicted values. The measured constant force in the
ROI is slightly higher than the predicted value, 140 N and 135 N respectively. For the second disc
spring, the measured constant force in the ROI is much higher than predicted by the models, 160 N
and 135 N respectively. In both figures a clear step behavior can be seen.
Sensitivity analysis
In Figure 7a the effect of changing the outer diameter can be seen. When the outer diameter is
increased, the maximum force is decreasing while the stroke remains the same. The stiffness in the
ROI (0.3 0.9 mm) is almost unchanged when the outer diameter is increased.
In Figure 7b the effect of changing the inner diameter is shown. The effects on the maximum force
are small and the stroke does not change. The stiffness in the ROI is changing, but no clear pattern
can be seen.
Figure 7c shows the effect of changing the material thickness. By changing the material thickness, the
cone-height/material-thickness ratio is also changed. When the material thickness is increased, the
maximum force also increases. The stroke is not influenced by the change in material thickness. The
stiffness in the ROI increases and becomes positive.
Finally, in Figure 7d the effect of changing the cone height can be seen. The stroke and maximum
force increase when the cone height is increased. The stiffness in the ROI decreases and becomes
negative.
31
Standard Spring 1
300
Ansys model
Database
Measurements
250
Force [N]
200
150
100
50
-50
-0.2
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Displacement [mm]
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.2
1.4
1.6
(a)
Standard Spring 2
300
Ansys model
Database
Measurements
250
Force [N]
200
150
100
50
-50
-0.2
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Displacement [mm]
(b)
Figure 6: Force-displacement behavior of both disc springs. FEM (blue dashed and dotted lines) and
measurement (solid lines) results are shown. (a) Disc spring 1. (b) Disc spring 2.
32
Sensitivity: Outer diameter

550
rout = 8 mm
500
= 8.5 mm
= 9 mm
400
= 9.5 mm
350
rout = 10 mm
out
450
Force [N]
out
out
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Displacement [mm]
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.2
1.4
1.6
(a)
Sensitivity: Inner diameter
550
500
rin = 2.1 mm
450
r = 3.1 mm
400
r = 3.6 mm
350
rin = 4.1 mm
r = 2.6 mm
in
Force [N]
in
in
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Displacement [mm]
(b)
33
Sensitivity: Material thickness

550
t = 0.30
t = 0.35
t = 0.40
t = 0.45
t = 0.50
500
450
400
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
Force [N]
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Displacement [mm]
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.2
1.4
1.6
(c)
Sensitivity: Cone height
550
h
h
h
h
h
500
450
400
= 0.4 mm
= 0.5 mm
= 0.6 mm
= 0.7 mm
= 0.8 mm
Force [N]
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Displacement [mm]
(d)
Figure 7: Force-displacement behaviors of the disc spring. The influence of outer radius, inner radius,
material thickness and cone height on the behavior is shown. (a) Influence of outer radius r out. (b)
Influence of inner radius rin. (c) Influence of the material thickness t. (d ) Influence of the cone height h.
Suitable spring for laparoscopic application

The force-displacement characteristics of a suitable disc spring for the MIM, the compliant grasper
and the disc spring combined with compliant grasper are shown in Figure 8a. The dimensions of the
disc spring are: outer radius: 3.5 mm, inner radius: 1 mm, material thickness: 0.08 mm and cone
height: 0.32 mm. As can be seen, the negative stiffness is 75 N/mm. The maximum force is around
12.4 N, the minimum force around -4.8 N. The stroke that shows negative stiffness is 0.32 mm. The
stroke of the disc spring is smaller than that of the compliant grasper of (Herder and Berg 2000) (0.32
34
mm vs. 0.6 mm). As a result, the stroke of the disc spring combined with the compliant grasper will
be 0.32 mm. As can be seen, one disc spring is not sufficient to make the compliant grasper bi-stable.
When closed, the bi-stable compliant grasper has a positive actuation force which results into a pinch
force. When opened a small actuation force (1 N) is needed to keep the grasper open. This problem
can be solved by using two disc springs in parallel. The behavior of the resulting bi-stable compliant
grasper is shown in Figure 8b. Now the pinch force has increased, and bi-stable behavior is achieved.
15
Compliant Grasper
Disc Spring: Ansys model
Disc Spring: Database
Force [N]
10
-5
-10
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
Displacement [mm]
0.5
0.6
0.7
(a)
30
Compliant Grasper
Disc Spring: Ansys model
Disc Spring: Database
25
20
Force [N]
15
10
5
0
-5
-10
-15
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
Displacement [mm]
0.5
0.6
0.7
(b)
Figure 8: (a) Behavior of one disc spring combined with compliant grasper. Dimensions: Outer radius = 3.5
mm, inner radius = 1 mm, material thickness = 0.08 mm and cone height = 0.32 mm. (b) Behavior of two disc
springs in parallel and compliant grasper combined.
35
Discussion
The results show that it is possible to use disc springs as a bi-stable element for use in a circular
environment. When two disc springs are used in parallel the force-displacement behavior is clearly
bi-stable, and produces a high negative stiffness and maximum forces. When closed, the bi-stable
compliant grasper produces a pinch force.
The behavior is not symmetrical (i.e. the maximum force is higher in magnitude than the minimum
force. As a result, the second stable position of the bi-stable compliant grasper is less stable than the
first. This is no problem for the application of surgery.
The force-displacement behavior of the two simulation models used is virtually the same. There are
some differences in the predicted stresses. The difference between the models is 320.9 MPa and
187.8 MPa for the inner and outer edge respectively. For the inner edge the ANSYS model is
predicting higher stresses, whereas for the outer edge the database predicts a higher stress. It is
unclear as to why this is the case, but the assumption that it is due to the difference in complexity of
the models seems legit. The ANSYS model is far more complex, and accounts for non-linearity. The
database is a data base which interpolates between empirically obtained data.
The measurements show some differences with respect to the models. Firstly, the measured disc
springs show a 0.2 mm longer stroke. This can partially be explained by the deformation of the force
sensor. This was measured to be 0.13 mm when loaded with 250 N. The reason for the remaining
0.07 mm (5.8%) difference between the measurement results and the FEM is unknown.
The step behavior that is seen in the measurement results is due to the resolution of the
displacement sensor. Unfortunately a more accurate sensor was not available. For future research a
more accurate sensor needs to be used. Due to this limited accuracy, no conclusions can be made
about the exact forces and stroke of the disc spring. Nonetheless, the general force-displacement
behavior of the measurement results is clearly similar to that of the FEM.
The hysteresis found in the measurements can partially be explained by the friction between the disc
spring and the plate it is pushed against. During its deformation, the disc spring expands and slides
over the plate. Another explanation is backlash due to the screw-thread connection between the
sensor and the pushing rod.
The sensitivity study shows that only the maximum force is sensitive to changes in the outer radius.
This can be explained by looking at the cross section of the disc spring, the beams become longer
when the outer radius is increased, decreasing their stiffness. As a result, the force over the entire
stroke is lower.
The stroke, maximum force or the stiffness in the ROI are not sensitive to changes in the inner radius.
This is unexpected since when the inner diameter is decreasing, the difference between inner and
outer diameter is increasing. As a result the cross section of the disc spring will show longer beams.
It is expected that the stiffness of those beams would decrease. It seems that due to the circular
shape, these effects are cancelled.
The cone height is the only parameter that influences the entire behavior (stroke, maximum force
and stiffness in ROI) of a disc spring. This was expected since it was known that the stroke was only
depending on the cone height. When the cone height is changed, the cone height/material
36
thickness ratio is also changed. This explains why the stiffness in the ROI is decreasing when the
cone height (and with it the ratio) is increased.
The decrease in cone height/material thickness ratio also explains why the stiffness in the ROI
increases when the material thickness increased. Since the entire thickness is increased, the stiffness
outside the ROI also increases, resulting in a higher maximum force.
For the future, a prototype has to be made which successfully applies a disc spring in a design for a
bi-stable compliant grasper. The non-symmetrical behavior needs to be further investigated. It might
also be interesting to investigate if the circular disc spring is actually more efficient in a circular
environment as a bi-stable beam.
An advantage of conventional disc springs is the possibility to stack them in series to increase their
stroke. This could also be very interesting for the bi-stable disc springs, but due to the negative
stiffness, more study is required to see if this is feasible.
Conclusion
Using a bi-stable compliant grasper reduces the reaction forces in the cables and pulleys, thereby
reducing the risk of complications and errors. The bi-stable element used to make this grasper bistable is a planar design. Due to the circular environment of the surgical instruments of the MIM, the
planar design might not use the available space efficiently.
We proposed the use of disc springs as bi-stable element to make a compliant grasper bi-stable. In
order to investigate if this is feasible an ANSYS model and a database were validated. The model and
database are accurately predicting the behavior of the disc spring and can be considered valid.
A sensitivity analysis was done to determine the influence of parameters of the disc spring on its
behavior. The analysis shows that the stroke of a disc spring is only influenced by the cone height.
The dependency of the stiffness in the ROI by the cone height and material thickness is confirmed.
The maximum force is depending on the cone height, material thickness and outer radius.
A disc spring with suitable dimensions was found using the simulation models. Two of such disc
springs in parallel, combined with the compliant grasper, show bi-stable behavior. This is the first
concept for bi-stable compliant grasper on the required scale for the MIM using disc springs as bistable elements.
37
References
Belleville Springs, L. (2012). "http://www.bellevillesprings.com/disc-spring-characteristics.html."
Retrieved 21-08-2012, 2012.
Herder, J. L. and F. P. A. v. d. Berg (2000). Statically balanced compliant mechanisms (sbcm's) an
example and prospects. Proceedings of the ASME Design Engineering Technical Conference,
Baltimore, Maryland, USA, ASME.
Results of a survey among laparoscopic surgeons." Journal of Laparoendoscopic and
Advanced Surgical Techniques - Part A 9(6): 481-489.
38
General Discussion
In both papers a different design was introduced and tested. The design in the second paper was
introduced because it was believed to have the potential to perform better in a circular environment.
Both designs have successfully shown bi-stable behavior, but they havent been compared to each
other. This will be done in this section.
The designs will be compared on the required scale for the Minimally Invasive Manipulator (MIM). In
order to make an objective comparison, two steps are taken. First, a cylindrical volume is defined
based on the scale of the MIM. Both designs have to fit within this volume.
The dimensions of both designs are chosen such that they fit inside the volume and both have
approximately the same behavior. Once these dimensions are found, the stresses inside both designs
are compared.
The volume was chosen based on the dimensions of the bi-stable disc spring found in paper 2. The
diameter of the cylindrical space was 7 mm. The height of the volume was 0.64 mm. The disc spring
had the following dimensions: outer radius = 3.5 mm, inner radius = 1 mm, material thickness = 0.1
mm, cone height = 0.4 mm. For the bi-stable buckling beam this led to the following dimensions:
length = 5.50 mm, out of plane thickness = 4.33 mm, in plane thickness = 0.17, preload displacement
= 0.016 mm.
Using the finite element models (FEM) of both designs, the force-displacement behavior and stresses
were computed. The results are shown in Figure 2.
20
Disc spring: Excel
Disc spring: ANSYS
Bi-stable Beam
15
10
Force [N]
5
0
-5
-10
-15
-20
-0.1
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
Displacement [mm]
0.5
0.6
0.7
Figure 2: Force-displacement behavior results from FEM of bi-stable buckling beam and disc spring.
The maximum stresses inside the disc spring are 2929.5 GPa for the excel model and 3.250 GPa for
the ansys model. The maximum stresses inside the bi-stable buckling beam are 1.140 GPa.
39
As can be seen, the maximum positive and negative forces of the bi-stable beam are higher in
magnitude than those of the disc spring (18 N vs. 12.4 N and -17.3 vs. -4.8). This results in a higher
negative stiffness for the bi-stable beam. The stroke of both designs is the same.
The stresses inside both designs are very different. Inside the bi-stable buckling beam, the stresses
are much lower than in the disc spring: 1.140 GPa vs. 2929.5 GPa and 3.250 GPa. This means that the
disc spring produces a lower negative stiffness with higher stresses compared to the bi-stable beam.
More study is needed to determine what the maximum force and stroke of the bi-stable buckling
beam are. In the introduction, an estimate of 20 N as a pinch force was given based on the generated
pinch force by the DaVinci. The forces generated by both designs seem to be too low to generate a
sufficient pinching force. This can be soled by using multiple disc springs or bi-stable buckling beams
and putting them in parallel. In theory the stroke and both designs can be increased by putting
multiple disc spring or bi-stable beams in series, but due to the unstable behavior, this might not be
possible in reality. More study is necessary to determine how this can be applied in practice.
General Conclusion
Using a bi-stable compliant grasper reduces the reaction forces in the cables and pulleys, thereby
reducing the risk of complications and errors. This grasper has two stable positions, open and closed.
When closed the grasper is able to hold an object without the need of an actuation force from the
surgeon. The bi-stable element is located close to the grasper to allow for compact design and
remove the reaction forces in the cables and pulleys. Two different designs are presented.
In the first paper the concept of the first bi-stable compliant grasper is presented. A large scale
prototype was designed, optimized and built based on finite element modeling. The prototype was
evaluated by measuring the force-displacement behavior. The prototype successfully shows bi-stable
behavior and generates a pinch force. In the future, this principle needs to be applied on the
required scale for the MIM. When implemented, the chance for errors and complications during
surgery will be reduced.
In the second paper we proposed the use of disc springs as bi-stable element to make a compliant
grasper bi-stable. In order to investigate if this is feasible an ANSYS model and a database were
validated. The model and database are accurately predicting the behavior of the disc spring and can
be considered valid. A sensitivity analysis was done to determine the influence of parameters of the
disc spring on its behavior. Using the FEM a disc spring with suitable dimensions was found. Two of
such disc springs in parallel, combined with the compliant grasper, results in a compliant grasper that
shows bi-stable behavior. This is the first concept for bi-stable compliant grasper on the required
scale for the MIM using disc springs as bi-stable elements.
40
Both the bi-stable beam and the disc spring can be used in the design for a bi-stable grasper. The bistable beam is more effectively creating negative stiffness inside a circular space. As a result, it
should be able to produce more force and/or stroke in the same volume as a disc spring. This makes
the bi-stable beam more suitable for use in a bi-stable grasper than a disc spring.
References
Belleville Springs, L. (2012). "http://www.bellevillesprings.com/disc-spring-characteristics.html."
Retrieved 21-08-2012, 2012.
Dunning, A. G., N. Tolou, et al. (2011). "Review Article: Inventory of platforms towards the design of a
statically balanced six degrees of freedom compliant precision stage." Mech. Sci. 2(2): 157168.
Dunning, A. G., N. Tolou, et al. (2012). "Bistable compliant mechanisms: Corrected finite element
modeling for stiffness tuning and preloading incorporation." Journal of Mechanical Design,
Transactions of the ASME 134(8).
Howell, L. L., Midha, A., Norton, T.W. (1996). "Evaluation of equivalent spring stiffness for use in a
pseudo-rigid-bodymodel of large-deflection compliant mechanisms." Journal of Mechanical
Design 118: 126-131.
Tolou, N. and J. L. Herder (2009). Concept and Modeling of a Statically Balanced Compliant
Laparoscopic Grasper. Proceedings of the ASME Design Engineering Technical Conference,
San Diego, California, USA.
Results of a survey among laparoscopic surgeons." Journal of Laparoendoscopic and Advanced
Surgical Techniques - Part A 9(6): 481-489.
41
Appendices
Appendix A: ANSYS modeling and sensitivity study
In Figure A1, the ANSYS model of the compliant grasper is shown. The model is meshed with
PLANE82 elements. This type is a 2-D eight nodes element, with two translational degrees of
freedom per node (x and y). It provides more accurate results for mixed (quadrilateral-triangular)
automatic meshes and can tolerate irregular shapes without as much loss of accuracy as well. The
element does not have any rotations, or out of plane translation (z-direction) these degrees of
freedom were found to be not relevant in the design of the grasper. Initially a SHELL93 element was
used, which did have all six DoF, but the results from both models matched exactly. The PLANE82
elements were chosen decrease calculation speeds.
The outer legs of the grasper are constrained in all two translations. The inner leg of the grasper is
constrained in the y-translation and the x-translation is prescribed and used to actuate the grasper.
Figure A1: ANSYS model of compliant grasper, with the length of the flexible element l and the in plane
thickness of the flexible element t. The out of plane thickness (coming out of the paper) is referred to as
w.
In Figure A2 the ANSYS model of the bi-stable element is shown. This model is meshed with BEAM3
elements. This element gives the shortest computation time while the out of plane properties can
also be provided using the real constant capability of ANSYSTM. The BEAM3 element has three
degrees of freedom at each node (x,y-translation and rotation around z-axis) with tension,
compression, and bending capabilities. The material is assumed to follow linear elastic stress-strain
behavior and to be isotropic.
The model uses three load steps to: (1) preload, (2) shift and (3) actuate the bi-stable element. The
model is built from two beams that are connected such that there is a very slight V-shape. This is
done to control the direction of the curve after the first load step. During this first load step, the
sides of the model are moved towards the center of the beam, creating the curved shape. During this
movement, the rotation and translation in y-direction of the endpoints are constrained. The second
load step is done to shift the center of the bi-stable element to the origin. This was needed for
42
practical reasons. The final load step is the actuation of the bi-stable element. Here the center of the
model is moved while the endpoints of are constrained in all degrees of freedom.
(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure A2: The three load steps used in the ANSYS model of the bi-stable element, with length l, preload
displacement dl and rise h. (a) first load step: preloading the element from the sides, creating the curved
shape of the bi-stable element. The amount of preload dl determines the resulting rise h of the element.
(b) Second load step: the middle is shifted to the origin for practical reasons. (b) Third load step:
displacement of the middle of the bi-stable element to determine its behavior. The stroke of the bi-stable
element is two times the rise.
In order to see the influence of fabrication errors on the behavior of the grasper and bi-stable
element, a sensitivity analysis was performed. The dimensions of the grasper and bi-stable element
were changed and the change in behavior determined. The amount of change for each parameter
was chosen based on the magnitude of that parameter, and the effect of the change. Finally, a worst
case scenario is estimated based on the expected fabrication error. The results are shown in the next
section.
Results
In Figure Ax the sensitivity to changes in dimensions is shown for the length l, out of plane thickness
w, in plane thickness t and Youngs modulus E. As can be seen, the behavior of the grasper is the
most sensitive for changes in the in plane thickness. This is due to two reasons: (1) the relative large
change: 0.1mm on a total thickness of 1.5 mm, and (2) due to the exponential relation of the stiffness
with the in plane thickness: k = f(t3). The length also has this exponential relation, but the changes of l
43
with respect to the total length are much lower. Despite the higher exponential relation of the length
with the stiffness compared to the out of plane stiffness (stiffness = f(l3) vs. stiffness = f(w)), the
sensitivity of the stiffness with respect to the out of plane thickness is higher. This is due to the
relatively larger changes in out of plane thickness with respect to the total thickness.
Sensitivity: Length
20
l = 74 mm
l = 75 mm
l = 76 mm
l = 77 mm
l = 78 mm
15
10
Force [N]
5
0
-5
-10
-15
-20
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
Displacement [mm]
(a)
Sensitivity: Out of plane thickness
20
w=
w=
w=
w=
w=
15
10
19.0
19.5
20.0
20.5
21.0
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
Force [N]
5
0
-5
-10
-15
-20
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
Displacement [mm]
(b)
44
Sensitivity: In-plane thickness

20
t = 1.3 mm
t = 1.4 mm
t = 1.5 mm
t = 1.6 mm
t = 1.7 mm
15
10
Force [N]
5
0
-5
-10
-15
-20
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
Displacement [mm]
(c)
Sensitivity: Modulus of elasticity
20
E=
E=
E=
E=
E=
15
10
237
287
337
387
437
GPa
GPa
GPa
GPa
GPa
Force [N]
5
0
-5
-10
-15
-20
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
Displacement [mm]
(d)
45
Sensitivity: W orst cases

20
expected
lowest
highest
15
10
Force [N]
5
0
-5
-10
-15
-20
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
Displacement [mm]
(e)
Figure A3: Sensitivity of the stiffness of the grasper with respect to (a) length, (b) out of plane thickness, and
(c) in plane thickness. (e) The lowest and highest changes in stiffness that occur when all errors are
combined.
Figure A4 shows the sensitivity of the behavior of the bi-stable element to changes in dimensions
(length l, out of plane thickness w and in plane thickness t) and preload displacement pr. Despite
the lack of fabrication errors in the in plane thickness t, the influence of this parameter on the
force-displacement behavior was investigated. As can be seen, the behavior of the bi-stable element
is very sensitive to changes in the in plane thickness and preload displacement. The bi-stable element
is less sensitive to changes in length, and almost not sensitive to changes in out of plane thickness.
Sensitivity: Length
150
l = 15.53
l = 15.63
l = 15.73
l = 15.83
l = 15.93
100
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
Force [N]
50
-50
-100
-150
-2
4
6
Displacement [mm]
(a)
46
10
Sensitivity: Out of plane thickness

150
w=
w=
w=
w=
w=
100
19.6
19.7
19.8
19.9
20.0
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
Force [N]
50
-50
-100
-150
-2
4
6
Displacement [mm]
10
(b)
Sensitivity: In-plane thickness
150
t = 0.13
t = 0.14
t = 0.15
t = 0.16
t = 0.17
100
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
Force [N]
50
-50
-100
-150
-2
4
6
Displacement [mm]
(c)
47
10
Sensitivity: Preload displacement

150
pr =
pr =
pr =
pr =
pr =
100
0.38
0.48
0.58
0.68
0.78
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
Force [N]
50
-50
-100
-150
-2
4
6
Displacement [mm]
10
(d)
Sensitivity: worst cases
100
lowest
expected
highest
80
60
Force [N]
40
20
0
-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
-2
4
6
Displacement [mm]
10
(e)
Figure A4: Sensitivity of behavior of bi-stable element with respect to (a) length, (b) out of plane thickness,
(c) in plane thickness and (d) preload displacement. (e) The lowest and highest changes in stiffness that
occur when all errors are combined.
48
Ansys coding
Grasper:
FINISH
/CLEAR
!*************************************************
!define parameters
*SET,theta,0.20
*SET,sf,3.5
*SET,E,3.37e9
*SET,v,0.4
*SET,travelrange,4e-3
*SET,w,20.0e-3
*SET,TH,21.1e-3
*SET,t1,1.5e-3
*SET,t3,2.5e-3
*SET,t2,(TH-(t1+t3))
*SET,t4,t1
*SET,t5,t4
*SET,t6,t3-t4
! THETA MUST BE BIGGER THAN 0.01 OR ANSYS WILL NOT GET A SOLUTION
! For (rigid)pvc should be 3.37e9
! For pvc should be between 0.37 - 0.46
! out of plane thickness of the grasper
! in plane thickness of the grasper's segments
*SET,l1,10e-3
*SET,l2,76e-3
*SET,l3,70e-3
*SET,l4,TH
*SET,r1,l2/(theta)
*SET,r2,th/2
*SET,r3,t6
*SET,r4,t2/2
! Radius for opening curve

! Radius for grasper tip
! Radius Inner Small
! Radius Inner large
*SET,s1,sin(theta)
*SET,c1,cos(theta)
!*************************************************
! define element
/PREP7
ET,1,PLANE82
! real constant
KEYOPT,1,3,3,
R,1,w,
! Matherial properties
MPTEMP,1,0
MPDATA,EX,1,,E
MPDATA,PRXY,1,,v
!*************************************************
!define keypoints
K,1,0,
th,,
K,2,l1,
th,,
K,3,l1 + r1*s1,
th + r1*(1-c1),,
K,4,l1 + r1*s1 + l3*c1,
th + r1*(1-c1) + l3*s1,,
K,5,l1 + r1*s1 + l3*c1 + l4*s1,
th + r1*(1-c1) + l3*s1 - l4*c1,,
49
K,6,l1 + r1*s1 + l3*c1 + l4*s1 - l3*c1,

th + r1*(1-c1) + l3*s1 - l4*c1 - l3*s1,,
K,7,l1 + (r1+t1+t2+t5)*s1,
t6 + (r1+t1+t2+t5)*(1-c1),,
K,8,l1,
t6,,
K,9,l1,
0,,
K,10,0,
0,,
K,11,0,
t3,,
K,12,l1,
t3,,
K,13,l1 + (r1+t1+t2)*s1,
t3 + (r1+t1+t2)*(1-c1),,
K,14,l1 + (r1+t4)*s1 + r4*c1 + 2*r4*s1,
th - t4 + (r1+t4)*(1-c1) + r4*s1 - 2*r4*c1,,
K,15,l1 + (r1+t4)*s1 + r4*c1,
th - t4 + (r1+t4)*(1-c1) + r4*s1,,
K,16,l1 + (r1+t4)*s1,
th - t4 + (r1+t4)*(1-c1),,
K,17,l1,
th - t4,,
K,19,0,
th - t1,,
K,20,l1,
th + r1,,
!*************************************************
! define the lines
LSTR,1,2
LSTR,3,4
LSTR,4,5
LSTR,5,6
LSTR,6,7
LSTR,8,9
LSTR,10,11
LSTR,11,12
LSTR,13,14
LSTR,14,15
LSTR,15,16
LSTR,17,19
LSTR,19,1
LARC, 2, 3,20,r1
LARC,17,16,20,r1+t4
LARC,12,13,20,r1+t1+t2
LARC, 8, 7,20,r1+t1+t2+t5
LFILLT, 2, 3,r2,,
LFILLT, 5,17,r3,,
LFILLT,17, 6,r3,,
LFILLT, 9,10,r4,,
LFILLT,10,11,r4,,
! Mirror the second half of the grasper
LSYMM,Y,ALL, , , ,1,0
! Glue the two parts together
LGLUE,ALL
!*************************************************
! Make an area
AL, ALL,
!*************************************************
! mesh Area
TYPE,1
REAL,1
!mesh size
SMRT,5
MSHAPE,0
AMESH,ALL
50
!*************************************************
! Constrains
DL, 1,,ALL,0
DL,12,,ALL,0
DL,10,,ALL,0
DL,29,,ALL,0
DL, 8,,UY,0
DL,27,,UY,0
! Opening/closing the grasper
DK,10,UX,travelrange
!*************************************************
!Simulation options
BCSOPTION, , incore,16000, , ,off
NLGEOM,1
AUTOTS,1
NSUBST,200,0,0
OUTRES,ALL,1
!*************************************************
! Solving
/SOL
SOLVE
!*************************************************
! Plotting force-displacement
FINISH
/POST26
NUMVAR,200
KSEL,s,kp,,10
NSLK
node_nr = ndnext(0)
NSOL,2,node_nr,U,X,UX_1,
RFORCE,3,node_nr,F,X,FX
XVAR,2
PLVAR,3
! *************************************************************************************
! Save time history variables to file I:/Afstuderen/Matlab/
*CREATE,scratch,gui
*DEL,_P26_EXPORT
*DIM,_P26_EXPORT,TABLE,25,1
VGET,_P26_EXPORT(1,0),2
/OUTPUT,'xxx','txt','I:\Afstuderen\Matlab\GR_sensitivity\'
*VWRITE,_P26_EXPORT(1,0),_P26_EXPORT(1,1)
%14.5G %14.5G
/OUTPUT,TERM
*END
/INPUT,scratch,gui
! End of time history save
51
Bi-Stable Beam:
FINISH
/CLEAR
!****************************************************************
! ADJUSTABLE parameters
*SET,E,206e9
![Pa] ,E-modulus
*SET,v,0.3
![] ,Poisson Ratio
*SET,l,15.73e-3
![m] ,Length of each beam (symmetric mechanism)
*SET,w,20e-3
![m] ,Width beams
*SET,t1,0.15e-3
![m] ,Thickness beams
*SET,disp_pre,0.78e-3
![m] ,Pre-loading displacement
*SET,alpha,0.5
![deg],Angle of inclined tips
*SET,factor_S,2
![] ,if displacement wrong, change factor max:2
!****************************************************************
! FIXED parameters
*SET,c,1.00
![m]radius of curvature of pre-curved beams
*SET,al_r,alpha*3.14157/180
![rad],convert deg. to rad.
*SET,R,sqrt((0.5*l*cos(al_r)+c*sin(al_r))**2+(-0.5*l*sin(al_r)+c*cos(al_r))**2)
!****************************************************************
! Define element
/PREP7
ET,1,BEAM3
! Real constant
R,1,w*t1,w*t1**3/12,t1, , , ,
!****************************************************************
! Material properties
MPTEMP,1,0
MPDATA,EX,1,,E
MPDATA,PRXY,1,,v
!****************************************************************
! Define keypoints (small curvature in beam, to avoid axial buckling in straight beams)
K,1,0,
0,,
K,2,0.5*l*cos(al_r)+c*sin(al_r),
-0.5*l*sin(al_r)+c*cos(al_r),,
K,3,l*cos(al_r),
-l*sin(al_r),,
K,4,1.5*l*cos(al_r)-c*sin(al_r),
-0.5*l*sin(al_r)+c*cos(al_r),,
K,5,2*l*cos(al_r),
0,,
!****************************************************************
! Draw arc between keypoint
LARC,1,3,2,R,
LARC,5,3,4,R,
! Glue the lines to one beam
LGLUE, ALL,
!****************************************************************
! Mesh, create elements
LESIZE,ALL, , ,200, ,1, , ,1,
TYPE,
1
REAL,
1
LMESH, ALL
52
!****************************************************************
!Defining Analisis specifications
NLGEOM,1
OUTRES,ALL,1
LUMPM,0
NSUBST,300,0,0
KBC,0
!****************************************************************
TIME,1 !running first time range, pre-loading the beams (shift tips with x=|disp_pre|)
DK,1, ,disp_pre, ,0,UX, , , , , ,
DK,1, ,0, ,0,UY, , , , , ,
DK,1, ,0, ,0,ROTZ, , , , , ,
DK,5, ,0, ,0,ROTZ, , , , , ,
DK,5, ,0, ,0,UY, , , , , ,
DK,5, ,-disp_pre, ,0,UX, , , , , ,
DK,3, ,0, ,0,UX,ROTZ, , , , ,
/SOL
SOLVE
!Defining new parameters, read calc.displ.node2
*GET,UYSHIFT,NODE,2,U,Y
!*STAT !show defined parameters
*SET,shift,UYSHIFT
*SET,travelrange,factor_S*(-shift+(l*sin(al_r)))
!****************************************************************
TIME,2 !running second time range, shifting the beam (node2 to y=0, tipnodes to y=shift)
DK,1, ,disp_pre, ,0,UX, , , , , ,
DK,1, ,-shift, ,0,UY, , , , , ,
DK,1, ,0, ,0,ROTZ, , , , , ,
DK,5, ,0, ,0,ROTZ, , , , , ,
DK,5, ,-shift, ,0,UY, , , , , ,
DK,5, ,-disp_pre, ,0,UX, , , , , ,
DK,3, ,0, ,0,UX,ROTZ, , , , ,
/SOL
SOLVE
!****************************************************************
TIME,3 !running third time range, displace the midpoint for buckling y=[0 to travelrange]
DK,1, ,disp_pre, ,0,UX, , , , , ,
DK,1, ,-shift, ,0,UY, , , , , ,
DK,1, ,0, ,0,ROTZ, , , , , ,
DK,5, ,0, ,0,ROTZ, , , , , ,
DK,5, ,-shift, ,0,UY, , , , , ,
DK,5, ,-disp_pre, ,0,UX, , , , , ,
DK,3, ,0, ,0,UX, , , , , ,
DK,3, ,travelrange, ,0,UY, , , , , ,
DK,3, ,0, ,0,ROTZ, , , , , ,
/SOL
SOLVE
53
!****************************************************************
! Create element table, and plot stresses
/POST1
/ESHAPE,1
AVPRIN,0, ,
ETABLE,SMAXI,NMISC,1
AVPRIN,0, ,
ETABLE,SMAXJ,NMISC,3
/REPLOT,RESIZE
PLETAB,SMAXI,NOAV
! plot etable, max stresse no averaging
PLLS,SMAXI,SMAXJ,1,1 ! plot stresses along line max
PLESOL, S,EQV, 0,1.0
! plot element solution, vonmises stresses
!****************************************************************
! Plot graph
/POST26
NSOL,2,2,U,Y,
!Displacements node 2
RFORCE,3,2,F,Y,
!Forces node 2
XVAR,2
PLVAR,3
/AXLAB,X,DEFLECTION [m]
/AXLAB,Y,LOAD [N]
/REPLOT
!Renaming axis labels
! ********************************************************************
! Save time history variables to file I:/Afstuderen/Matlab/
*CREATE,scratch,gui
*DEL,_P26_EXPORT
/OUTPUT,'wchigh','txt','I:\Afstuderen\Matlab\BSB_sensitivity\'
%14.5G %14.5G
/OUTPUT,TERM
*END
/INPUT,scratch,gui
54
55
Appendix B: ANSYS coding disc spring

FINISH
/CLEAR
! ***********************************************************************
! Define variables
r1 = 3.1e-3
! [m]
,inner diameter
r2 = 9e-3
! [m]
,outer diameter
t = 0.4e-3
! [m]
,thickness of spring
l0 = 0.6e-3
! [m]
,total cone height
E = 206e9
! [Pa] ,Modulus of Elasticity
v = 0.3
! [?]
,viscocity
tr = 2*(l0)
! [m]
,Travelrange
! ***********************************************************************
! Define Element type
/PREP7
ET,1,SHELL93
! ***********************************************************************
! Real constant
R,1,t,t,t,t,
! ***********************************************************************
! Material properties
MPTEMP,1,0
MPDATA,EX,1,,E
MPDATA,PRXY,1,,v
! ***********************************************************************
! Define Keypoints
! centers of circles
K,1,0,0,0
K,2,0,0,-l0
! ***********************************************************************
! Draw Half Circles
CIRCLE,1,r2, , ,180,8,
CIRCLE,2,r1, , ,180,8,
! ***********************************************************************
! Draw extra lines and mirror lines
LSTR,4,13,
LSTR,5,14,
LSTR,6,15,
LSTR,7,16,
LSTR,8,17,
LSTR,9,18
LSTR,10,19,
LSYMM,Y,ALL, , , ,1,0
LSTR,3,12,
LSTR,11,20,
LGLUE,ALL
! ***********************************************************************
! Create areas
AL,1,17,9,47
AL,2,18,10,17
AL,3,19,11,18
AL,4,20,12,19
AL,5,21,13,20
AL,6,22,14,21
AL,7,23,15,22
56
AL,8,48,16,23
AL,50,46,52,48
AL,30,45,38,46
AL,29,44,37,45
AL,28,43,36,44
AL,27,42,35,43
AL,26,41,34,42
AL,25,40,33,41
AL,49,47,51,40
! ***********************************************************************
! Glue areas
AGLUE,ALL
! ***********************************************************************
! Mesh Area
TYPE,1
REAL,1
! ***********************************************************************
! Mesh size
MOPT,AMESH,ALT2
SMRT,5
MSHAPE,1
AMESH,ALL
! ***********************************************************************
! Define Constraints
DL,1, ,UZ,0
DL,2, ,UZ,0
DL,3, ,UZ,0
DL,4, ,UZ,0
DL,5, ,UZ,0
DL,6, ,UZ,0
DL,7, ,UZ,0
DL,8, ,UZ,0
DL,50,,UZ,0
DL,30,,UZ,0
DL,29,,UZ,0
DL,28,,UZ,0
DL,27,,UZ,0
DL,26,,UZ,0
DL,25,,UZ,0
DL,49,,UZ,0
DK, 3,UX,0
DK, 7,UX,0
DK, 3,UY,0
DK, 7,UY,0
DK, 3,ROTZ,0
DK, 7,ROTZ,0
DK,11,ROTZ,0
DK,25,ROTZ,0
DK, 3,ROTX,0
DK, 7,ROTY,0
DK,11,ROTX,0
DK,25,ROTY,0
DK,12,UZ,tr
DK,13,UZ,tr
57
DK,14,UZ,tr
DK,15,UZ,tr
DK,16,UZ,tr
DK,17,UZ,tr
DK,18,UZ,tr
DK,19,UZ,tr
DK,20,UZ,tr
DK,37,UZ,tr
DK,36,UZ,tr
DK,35,UZ,tr
DK,34,UZ,tr
DK,33,UZ,tr
DK,32,UZ,tr
DK,31,UZ,tr
! ***********************************************************************
! Simulation options
BCSOPTION, , incore,16000, , ,off
NLGEOM,1
AUTOTS,1
NSUBST,200,0,0
OUTRES,ALL,1
! ***********************************************************************
! Solving
/SOL
SOLVE
! ***********************************************************************
! Create element table, and plot stresses
/POST1
AVPRIN,0, ,
ETABLE,SMAXI,NMISC,1
AVPRIN,0, ,
ETABLE,SMAXJ,NMISC,3
/REPLOT,RESIZE
PLETAB,SMAXI,NOAV
PLLS,SMAXI,SMAXJ,1,0
PLESOL, S,EQV, 0,1.0
! ***********************************************************************
! Post Processing
FINISH
/POST26
NUMVAR,200
NSOL, 2, 10,U,Z,UZ10
RFORCE,3, 10,F,Z,FZ10
RFORCE,10,17,F,Z,FZ17
58
!
Adding all reaction forces together

ADD,200,3 ,4 ,,Temp1
ADD,199,5 ,6 ,,Temp2
ADD,198,7 ,8 ,,Temp3
ADD,197,9,10 ,,Temp4
ADD,196,11,12,,Temp5
ADD,195,13,14,,Temp6
ADD,194,15,16,,Temp7
ADD,193,17,18,,Temp8
ADD,192,200,199,,Temp9
ADD,191,198,197,,Temp10
ADD,190,196,195,,Temp11
ADD,189,194,193,,Temp12
ADD,188,192,191,,Temp13
ADD,187,190,189,,Temp14
ADD,19,188,187,,FTOT
XVAR,2
! setting second variable as x
PLVAR,19
! Plotting third variable against x
! ***********************************************************************
! Save time history variables to file I:/Afstuderen/Matlab/FTOT_xmm_16kp.txt
*CREATE,scratch,gui
*DEL,_P26_EXPORT
/OUTPUT,'FTOT_7mm_16kp','txt','I:/Afstuderen/Matlab'
%14.5G %14.5G
/OUTPUT,TERM
*END
/INPUT,scratch,gui
59
Appendix C: Results 1st bi-stable element

Introduction
The initial goal of the project was to make a statically balanced compliant grasper. Static balancing is
achieved using the same negative stiffness found in bi-stable elements. For the bi-stable compliant
grasper, the negative stiffness added to the positive stiffness of the grasper is required to be higher
in magnitude than the positive stiffness. In order to achieve a statically balanced compliant grasper,
the magnitude of the negative stiffness needs to be exactly the same as the magnitude of the
positive stiffness. The result is a compliant grasper with zero stiffness, thus having a constant
potential energy. This means it does not require any effort to open or close the grasper, the grasper
is in equilibrium in any position.
The initial approach was to make bi-stable elements that did not need a preload from the side. The
initial (i.e. relaxed) position of the bi-stable element is then a curved shape. The advantage of such a
bi-stable element is that it does not require any preload from the side, thereby allowing for a simpler
design. The disadvantage is that the resulting behavior of the bi-stable element is not symmetrical.
This means that the maximum force of the bi-stable element is higher in magnitude than the
minimum force.
Two of these balancers were made and evaluated. This is explained in the remainders of the
appendix. These results were not used for Paper 1 due to the large deviations in measurements and
finite element modeling (FEM). The reasons for these deviations can be found in the discussion of
this appendix.
Method
An initial finite element model (FEM) was made in ANSYS, but due to an error in the model the
model experienced convergence problems. The simulations that did converge produced results that
were deemed unreliable. Therefore it was decided to proceed forward based on a trial and error
approach. Two bi-stable elements were fabricated by plastically deforming a sheet of spring-steel [E
= 206GPa] was into a curved shape. The bi-stable element had a material thickness of 0.1 mm and
0.15 mm respectively.
These elements were fabricated and measured. Shortly after the experiments, the error in the ANSYS
model was solved with the help of G. Radaelli, MSc. The measurement results could therefore be
compared to the ANSYS model.
In order to measure the behavior of the bi-stable elements and grasper the prototype was mounted
on a setup shown in Figure C1. The compliant grasper was attached to the force sensor by a pulling
rod. For each experiment, the compliant grasper was first brought from its relaxed to its closed
position. Then the compliant grasper was brought to its fully opened position and back to its closed
position. During this movement, the pushing/pulling force (FETE RIS components - B3G-C3-50kg-6B,
resolution = 0.06 N, range = [0,50] kg) and displacement (Positek P101.200CL100, resolution: 0.045
mm, range = [0,200] mm, namely LVDT) were measured. An amplifier (Scaime CPJ 25) and DaQ-mx
Data Acquisition system (NI USB6008) were used to read the data. For each measurement the forcedisplacement of both pushing and pulling was recorded to measure the hysteresis.
60
Bi-stable Compliant
Grasper
Figure C1: The top view of test set-up: The stiffness characteristic and force displacement of the bi-stable
compliant grasper was determined by measuring actuation force (Fact) and displacement (Xact) during
opening and closing of the bi-stable grasper.
Three experiments were done: (1) Only the compliant grasper, (2) the compliant grasper combined
with 0.1 mm bi-stable element and (3) the compliant grasper with 0.15 mm bi-stable element. The
behavior of only the bi-stable element was obtained from the measurement data of the combined
grasper and bi-stable element. From this data, the stiffness of the grasper was subtracted, leaving
the behavior of only the bi-stable elements. This was compared to the FEM of the bi-stable elements.
Results
Figure C2a shows the force-displacement characteristic of the compliant grasper without bi-stable
elements. As can be seen, the grasper has a positive constant stiffness of 1 N/mm. A hysteresis of
1.5N can be seen. Figure C2b shows the compliant grasper with 0.1 mm bi-stable element. The
combined system shows zero-stiffness, with constant positive force, for a range of about 5 mm. The
graph shows hysteresis of about 0.6 N. Figure C2c shows the compliant grasper combined with the
0.15 mm bi-stable element. The combined system shows a bi-stable behavior in a range of 5.8 mm. In
this figure, hysteresis of 1.5N can be seen.
6
Force [N]
-2
-4
-6
-4
-2
2
4
Displacement [mm]
(a)
61
4
3.5
3
Force [N]
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
-0.5
-1
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
Displacement [mm]
(b)
15
Force [N]
10
-5
-10
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
Displacement [mm]
(c)
Figure C2: (a) Force-displacement characteristic of the compliant grasper. All three data sets are shown. The
grasper has a constant stiffness of 1N/mm. (b) Force-displacement characteristic of the compliant grasper
combined with 0.1 mm bi-stable elements. All two data sets are shown, both showing zero stiffness
behavior. (c) Force-displacement characteristic of the compliant grasper combined with 0.15 mm bi-stable
elements. All six sets are shown, all showing bi-stable behavior
In Figure C3 the measurement results are compared to the models for the (a) compliant grasper, (b)
compliant grasper combined with 0.1 mm bi-stable element and (c) compliant grasper combined
with 0.15 mm bi-stable element. The measured stiffness of the grasper is 1 N/mm. The FEM
predicted a stiffness of 2.6 N/mm. The measured negative stiffness of the 0.1 mm bi-stable element
62
is 1 N/mm and shows a linear behavior over a 5.8 mm. The results from the FEM show a linear
negative stiffness of 3.7 N/mm over a range of 3 mm. The measured a linear negative stiffness of the
0.15 mm bi-stable element is 6.25 N/mm over a range of approximately 3.5 mm. The results from the
FEM show a linear stiffness of 12.5 N/mm over the same range.
6
FEM
Measurements (3x)
4
Force [N]
-2
-4
-6
-4
-2
2
4
Displacement [mm]
(a)
14
FEM
Measurements (2x)
12
10
Force [N]
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
Displacement [mm]
(b)
63
50
FEM
Measurements (6x)
40
Force [N]
30
20
10
-10
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
Displacement [mm]
(c)
Figure C3: Comparison of measurement results with ANSYS model for each measurement. (a) compliant
grasper, (b) compliant grasper with 0.1 mm bi-stable element and (c) compliant grasper with 0.15 mm bistable element.
Discussion
As shown in the previous section, there are large differences between the measurements and the
FEM. These differences are contributed to a number of reasons. The first reason is the clamping of
the bi-stable element. It is unknown how these points behave when the bi-stable element is
actuated. It is assumed that their behavior is highly non-linear and outside the elastic domain. To the
authors knowledge it is not possible to model this in ANSYS.
The second reason is the method of fabrication. In the attempt to plastically deform the bi-stable
element the material was made non-isotropic, and stresses were induced. It is unknown how this
affected the behavior of the bi-stable element during actuation. It was observed that during the
assembly of the bi-stable element, the rise of the beam increased when the housing of the prototype
was closed. This indicates that there is some preloading from the side as well, which also influences
the behavior of the bi-stable element.
The third reason is the large reaction forces the bi-stable element exhibits on the housing of the
prototype, orthogonal to the direction of actuation. Due to these large forces, the housing will
deform and the bi-stable element loses energy in that direction. This will result into a lower force
produced in the direction of actuation.
Conclusion:
The results of the measurement and FEM did not match. There were multiple reasons found for this.
Based on these reasons, and the high mismatch, it was concluded that the type of bi-stable element
used was not suitable for this project. This was due to the need for plastic deformation of the bistable element. In order to remove the errors introduced by this process, it was decided to redo the
measurements with a bi-stable element that was preloaded from the side. These measurements
were done, and described in Paper 1.
64
65
Appendix D: Standard disc springs in holder

In paper 2, the behavior of two disc springs was measured. During this measurement, the disc spring
was pushed against a plate. This means that the disc spring was constrained in one translational
degree of freedom (z-translation) whilst keeping the other two translational degrees of freedom free
(x and y-translations). In other words, the spring is allowed to expand. This is illustrated by Figure D1,
where a top view of the disc spring can be seen. The top view is from the model used in ANSYS. The
crosses illustrate the constraint in the z-translation.
Figure D1: Top view of ANSYS model used. Crosses stand for translational constraints in z-direction. In the
model shown the x and y-translations of the outer edge have been left free. Only two keypoints have been
constrained in those directions to prevent the entire disc spring from moving. This has been done in such a
way that those constrains did not prevent the disc spring from expanding.
When the disc spring is compressed, the outer edge will slightly expand. In order to see the influence
of this expansion another experiment was done. The measurements were done using the same
measurement setup described in paper 2.
In this experiment the disc spring was placed inside a holder. This holder contained a stepped hole,
which constraints the outer edge of the disc spring in x, y and z translation. In model in ANSYS was
adapted to have the same constraint. The results of the measurements and ANSYS model are
compared to each other.
66
Results
In Figure D2 the results of the measurements and ANSYS model can be seen. The results from the
ANSYS model for both x and y-translations free and fixed are shown. The behavior of the disc spring
is clearly changed by the extra constraints. The ANSYS model shows that the disc spring is now bistable. The measurements are completely different from the ANSYS models. The stroke is very high
(2.5 mm) and there is no bi-stability. The disc spring does show negative stiffness, and the maximum
force is approximately the same. A very high hysteresis (90N) can be seen.
Disc Spring 1
350
300
250
Force [N]
200
150
100
50
ANSYS XY Free
ANSYS XY Fixed
Measurements (10x)
0
-50
-1
-0.5
0.5
1
1.5
Displacement [mm]
2.5
(a)
Disc Spring 2
350
300
250
Force [N]
200
150
100
50
ANSYS XY Free
ANSYS XY Fixed
Measurements (10x)
0
-50
-1
-0.5
0.5
1
1.5
Displacement [mm]
2.5
(b)
Figure D2: Results from measurements and ANSYS models for both disc springs.
67
Discussion and Conclusion

The predicted bi-stability by the ANSYS model seems feasible since part of the deformation energy is
now no longer dissipated by the expansion of the disc spring. It is unclear why the measurements
show such high hysteresis, and an increased stroke. The hysteresis might be partially explained by
the lack of pressure in the cylinder that provides the actuation force. When the pressure is too low,
the friction inside the cylinder will show in the measurements. The stroke is roughly 2x as high as
expected. In theory the stroke should not increase at all as a result of fixing the outer edge. It seems
that another section of the measurement setup was also deformed during the experiment. Therefore
it is concluded that these measurements are unreliable and need to be redone. This type of
measurements require a special type of setup because it is necessary to measure large force over a
very small range of motion. In future studies, a more controlled measurement setup will be needed,
and special care needs to be taken in the method of actuation and stiffness of the entire setup.
68
69
Appendix E: Alternative design disc spring

Fabrication disc springs
In paper 1 two different methods were discussed to obtain the curved shape of the bi-stable
element. The first method is to preload a straight beam from the sides. The second method is to
plastically deform the straight beam into a curved shape. As was seen, these different methods led to
different force-displacement behaviors. The first method had a non-symmetrical behavior meaning
the first stable position was preferred. The second method
This distinction can also be made for the disc springs. The disc springs used in paper 2 were plastically
deformed washers. The washers were initially flat, but plastically deformed to create the cone shape.
This begged the question if it would also be possible to create disc springs by preloading a flat
washer. If that is the case, it would mean that behavior of such a disc spring will be more
symmetrical.
A possible method to do this was found. A normal washer is taken, and a portion of the washer is
removed (shown in Figure E1a). When the two open ends of the washer are forced together (i.e. the
washer is closed), the washer will take the conical shape similar to the shape of a disc spring.
The dimensions of the closed washer are a function of the dimensions of the open washer. This is
illustrated in Figure E1b. The equations used to calculate the necessary dimensions of the open
washer based on the desired dimensions of the closed washer are given in Figure E1c. The inner
diameter r1 in mm, outer diameter r2 in mm and the gap angle in rad of the washer determine
the inner diameter r1,new in mm, outer diameter r2,new in mm and cone height h in mm of the disc
spring.
One possible risk is that the ends of the washer might slide during the loading of the closed washer.
This means it might be necessary to fix the ends of the washer by for example, welding. A
disadvantage of welding is that the material properties of the disc spring will change. Especially at
the weld, material becomes more brittle and increases the risk of breaking due to high stresses.
An attempt was made to model this preloading of a washer in ANSYS, but this turned out to be very
complex. The model did not converge, and there was not enough time to investigate how this could
be solved.
Evaluation
In order to prove this concept, two washers were made using this method. The ends of one washer
were welded together in order to see the effect of fixing the ends. In order to close the washers a
holder was made. This holder contained a hole with the exact diameter needed to close the washer.
When the washers were in the holder, their behavior was measured.
The behavior of the disc springs was measured using the measurement setup mentioned in the
paper. Each type of spring was measured 10 times. The welded disc springs were both measured
when placed inside a holder and placed against a plate with a hole. The difference is that inside the
holder, the spring is constrained in all translations, but when placed against a plate only the ztranslation is constrained. The hole in the holder is made such that it allows for loading past the flat
position of the disc spring.
70
r1
r2
h
r2,new
r1,new
r1
r2
(a)
(b)
(1)
C1,new 2 r1,new (2 ) r1 r1
2 r1,new
2
(2)
C2,new 2 r2,new (2 ) r2 r2
2 r2,new
2
(3a ) ( r2 r1 ) 2 ( r2,new r1,new ) 2 h 2

2 r2,new 2 r1,new
(3b)
( r2,new r1,new ) 2 h 2
2 2
2
(3c )
2 1
h 2 ( r2,new r1,new ) 2
r2,new r1,new
(c)
Figure E1: (a) washer with gap, the washer has an inner diameter r 1 in mm, outer diameter r 2 in mm and
gap angle in rad. (b) schematic drawing of the relationship between the parameters of the washer, and
the parameters of the disc spring resulting from closing the gap in the washer. The parameters of the disc
spring are the inner diameter r 1,new in mm, outer diameter r 2,new in mm and cone height h in mm. (c) The
equations needed to calculate the dimensions of the washer based on the desired dimensions of the disc
spring.
Results
In Figure E2 the measurement results for the closed washer without the weld is shown. As can be
seen the behavior shows negative stiffness, and even reaches a second bi-stable point on the return
way. The stroke of the spring is about 1.7 mm. The hysteresis is hard to see in the figure, but
estimated to be around 10 N.
In Figure E3 the measurement results of the welded closed washers can be seen. In Figure E3a the
washer is pushed against a plate, not constraining the expansion of the spring (see appendix D for
more explanation about the expansion). In Figure E3b the washer is placed in the holder, fixing all
degrees of freedom of the outer edge of the spring.
The influence of the welding can be seen using Figures E2 and E3. The washer without the weld
shows a much higher peak force negative stiffness. Also, the welded washer has a smaller stroke.
71
Closed washer: No weld

120
Measurements (10x)
100
Force [N]
80
60
40
20
-20
-0.5
0.5
1
Displacement [mm]
1.5
Figure E2: Force-displacement behavior of the closed washer that was not welded. On the return way the
washer reaches a second bi-stable behavior (around x = 1 mm).
Using Figure E3, the difference in using the holder can be seen. Both figures show a great difference
in behavior. When pushed against a plate the closed washer shows exponential like behavior. The
washer in the holder shows a peak force, followed by a region in which the spring shows negative
stiffness. Neither washers show bi-stable behavior. The stroke is estimated to be around 0.6 mm. The
stroke for the same spring in the holder is 1.3 mm. It was not possible to measure the hysteresis from
Figure E3a. The hysteresis of the washer placed in the holder was estimated to be 18 N.
Closed washer: W elded
120
Measurements (10x)
100
Force [N]
80
60
40
20
0
-0.1
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
Displacement [mm]
(a)
72
0.5
0.6
0.7
Closed washer: W elded, in holder

140
Measurements (10x)
120
100
Force [N]
80
60
40
20
0
-20
-0.5
0.5
1
Displacement [mm]
1.5
(b)
Figure E3: Force-displacement behaviors of the welded closed washer measured (a) without a holder,
pushed against a plate, and (b) with a holder.
Discussion & Conclusion

From the measurements it can be seen that welding the washer has a large influence on the forcedisplacement behavior. During the experiments with the washer without a weld no movement of the
ends of the washer was observed. This would indicate that there is no need for the weld. The
advantage of welding the washer is that it eliminates the need for a holder. However, given the
results shown in Figure E3a, the welding process makes the washer useless without a holder.
Some notes need to be placed at the method of measurements. Firstly, the alignment of the washers
was done manually. This introduces an error in the alignment of the load with respect to the washer.
If the alignment was shifted, or rotated, this will have had an influence on the measurements.
Secondly, the resolution of the displacement sensor is clearly visible in the measurements. Given the
small stroke of the washers, in the future a sensor with higher resolution needs to be used.
Finally, the method in general is very sensitive to fabrication errors. This can be explained by looking
at the dimensions of the washers used for these experiments. In Figure E4 the dimensions of the
open washer can be found. The dimensions of the closed washer were: outer diameter = 9 mm, inner
diameter = 6.2 mm, cone height = 0.6 mm.
The difference between the inner and outer radius of the open and closed washer is approximately
0.046 mm (0.5%). As a result, even a 0.01 mm error in the open washer, or holder could lead to a
large behavior change. This means that both the spring and the holder need to be made with a very
high precision.
73
Figure E4: Dimensions of washer used in experiments
The need for very high accuracy is a big disadvantage for this fabrication method. It will make the
fabrication process of the disc springs very expensive. It remains to be seen if the potential
advantage of symmetrical behavior is worth the extra costs. The different fabrication method has a
large influence on the behavior of the spring. From these measurements it cannot be concluded that
the method is better or worse than the original method.
In the future, many more accurately made washers need to be made, placed in precise holders and
tested on an accurate measurement setup. Then the differences between the two fabrication
methods can be found.
74

Thesis Jos Lassooij PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Thesis Jos Lassooij PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Master of Science Thesis

Design of a Bi-Stable Compliant Grasper

August 22, 2012

August 22, 2012

Delft University of Technology

Design of a Bi-Stable Compliant Grasper with Bi-Stable Beams

Bi-stable beam Tuning nut

Bi-stable beam on MIM scale

Nut for preloading

Out of plane thickness

Out of plane thickness

Feasibility Study: Using Disc Springs to Create Bi-Stable Compliant

Force /Force to flat (F/Fc) []

Deflection/Cone Height [-]

Stress Inner edge [MPa]

Stress outer edge [MPa]

Table 1: Comparison of stresses predicted by both models.

Sensitivity: Outer diameter

Sensitivity: Material thickness

Suitable spring for laparoscopic application

Sensitivity: In-plane thickness

Sensitivity: W orst cases

Sensitivity: Out of plane thickness

Sensitivity: Preload displacement

! out of plane thickness of the grasper

! in plane thickness of the grasper's segments

! Radius for opening curve

K,6,l1 + r1*s1 + l3*c1 + l4*s1 - l3*c1,

!Renaming axis labels

Appendix B: ANSYS coding disc spring

Adding all reaction forces together

Appendix C: Results 1st bi-stable element

Appendix D: Standard disc springs in holder

Discussion and Conclusion

Appendix E: Alternative design disc spring

(3a ) ( r2 r1 ) 2 ( r2,new r1,new ) 2 h 2

Closed washer: No weld

Closed washer: W elded, in holder

Discussion & Conclusion

Figure E4: Dimensions of washer used in experiments

You might also like

K,6,l1 + r1s1 + l3c1 + l4s1 - l3c1,