Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-5r2nc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-04T12:11:04.307Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Topology and Size–Shape Optimization of an Adaptive Compliant Gripper with High Mechanical Advantage for Grasping Irregular Objects

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 2019

Chih-Hsing Liu Open the ORCID record for Chih-Hsing Liu [Opens in a new window] ,
Chen-Hua Chiu ,
Mao-Cheng Hsu ,
Yang Chen  and
Yen-Pin Chiang
Chih-Hsing Liu*
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan. E-mails: zas988777@gmail.com, qwe.566@gmail.com, balrog705@gmail.com, slslpc1031@gmail.com
Chen-Hua Chiu
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan. E-mails: zas988777@gmail.com, qwe.566@gmail.com, balrog705@gmail.com, slslpc1031@gmail.com
Mao-Cheng Hsu
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan. E-mails: zas988777@gmail.com, qwe.566@gmail.com, balrog705@gmail.com, slslpc1031@gmail.com
Yang Chen
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan. E-mails: zas988777@gmail.com, qwe.566@gmail.com, balrog705@gmail.com, slslpc1031@gmail.com
Yen-Pin Chiang
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan. E-mails: zas988777@gmail.com, qwe.566@gmail.com, balrog705@gmail.com, slslpc1031@gmail.com
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: chliu@mail.ncku.edu.tw
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

This study presents an optimal design procedure including topology optimization and size–shape optimization methods to maximize mechanical advantage (which is defined as the ratio of output force to input force) of the synthesized compliant mechanism. The formulation of the topology optimization method to design compliant mechanisms with multiple output ports is presented. The topology-optimized result is used as the initial design domain for subsequent size–shape optimization process. The proposed optimal design procedure is used to synthesize an adaptive compliant gripper with high mechanical advantage. The proposed gripper is a monolithic two-finger design and is prototyped using silicon rubber. Experimental studies including mechanical advantage test, object grasping test, and payload test are carried out to evaluate the design. The results show that the proposed adaptive complaint gripper assembly can effectively grasp irregular objects up to 2.7 kg.

Keywords

Topology optimizationSize–shape optimizationMechanical advantageCompliant mechanismCompliant gripper
Type
Articles
Information
Robotica , Volume 37 , Issue 8 , August 2019 , pp. 1383 - 1400
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2019. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

Eschenauer, H. A. and Olhoff, N., “Topology optimization of continuum structures: A review,” ASME Appl. Mech. Rev. 54(4), 331–390 (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rozvany, G. I. N., “A critical review of established methods of structural topology optimization,” Struct. Multidiscipl. Optim. 37(3), 217–237 (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sigmund, O. and Maute, K., “Topology optimization approaches,” Struct. Multidiscipl. Optim. 48(6), 1031–1055 (2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Dijk, N. P., Maute, K., Langelaar, M. and van Keulen, F., “Level-set methods for structural topology optimization: A review,” Struct. Multidiscipl. Optim. 48(3), 437–472 (2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deaton, J. D. and Grandhi, R. V., “A survey of structural and multidisciplinary continuum topology optimization: Post 2000,” Struct. Multidiscipl. Optim. 49(1), 1–38 (2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bendsøe, M. P., “Optimal shape design as a material distribution problem,” Struct. Multidiscipl. Optim. 1(4), 193–202 (1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bendsøe, M. P. and Sigmund, O., “Material interpolation schemes in topology optimization,” Arch. Appl. Mech. 69(9–10), 635–654 (1999).Google Scholar
Bendsøe, M. P. and Sigmund, O., Topology Optimization: Theory, Methods, and Applications (Springer, Berlin, 2003).Google Scholar
Rietz, A., “Sufficiency of a finite exponent in SIMP (power law) methods,” Struct. Multidiscipl. Optim. 21(2), 159–163 (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, X. and Xie, Y. M., “Convergent and mesh-independent solutions for the bidirectional evolutionary structural optimization method,” Finite Elem. Anal. Des. 43(14), 1039–1049 (2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, X. and Xie, Y. M., “Bi-directional evolutionary topology optimization of continuum structures with one or multiple materials,” Comput. Mech. 43(3), 393–401 (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, X. and Xie, Y. M., Evolutionary Topology Optimization of Continuum Structures: Methods and Applications (Wiley, West Sussex, UK, 2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, X., Li, Y., Zhou, S. W. and Xie, Y. M., “Topology optimization of compliant mechanisms with desired structural stiffness,” Eng. Struct. 79, 13–21 (2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alonso, C., Querin, O. M. and Ansola, R., “A sequential element rejection and admission (SERA) method for compliant mechanisms design,” Struct. Multidiscipl. Optim. 47(6), 795–807 (2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alonso, C., Ansola, R. and Querin, O. M., “Topology synthesis of multi-material compliant mechanisms with a sequential element rejection and admission method,” Finite Elem. Anal. Des. 85, 11–19 (2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rahmatalla, S. and Swan, C. C., “Sparse monolithic compliant mechanisms using continuum structural topology optimization,” Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng. 62(12), 1579–1605 (2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhou, H., “Topology optimization of compliant mechanisms using hybrid discretization model,” ASME J. Mech. Des. 132(11), 111003 (2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhou, H. and Killekar, P. P., “The modified quadrilateral discretization model for the topology optimization of compliant mechanisms,” ASME J. Mech. Des. 133(11), 111007 (2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhu, B., Zhang, X. and Fatikow, S., “Level set-based topology optimization of hinge-free compliant mechanisms using a two-step elastic modeling method,” ASME J. Mech. Des. 136(3), 031007 (2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cao, L., Dolovich, A. T. and Zhang, W., “Hybrid compliant mechanism design using a mixed mesh of flexure hinge elements and beam elements through topology optimization,” ASME J. Mech. Des. 137(9), 092303 (2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, C.-H. and Huang, G.-F., “A topology optimization method with constant volume fraction during iterations for design of compliant mechanisms,” ASME J. Mech. Robot. 8(4), 044505 (2016).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, C.-H., Huang, G.-F. and Chen, T.-L., “An evolutionary soft-add topology optimization method for synthesis of compliant mechanisms with maximum output displacement,” ASME J. Mech. Robot. 9(5), 054502 (2017).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krishnakumar, A. and Suresh, K., “Hinge-free compliant mechanism design via the topological level-set,” ASME J. Mech. Des. 137, 031406 (2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petković, D., Pavlović, N. D., Shamshirband, S. and Anuar, N. B., “Development of a new type of passively adaptive compliant gripper,” Ind. Robot: Int. J. 40, 610–623 (2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sigmund, O., “On the design of compliant mechanisms using topology optimization,” Mech. Struct. Mach. 25, 493–524 (1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montambault, S. and Gosselin, C. M., “Analysis of underactuated mechanical grippers,” ASME J. Mech. Des. 123, 367–374 (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rus, D. and Tolley, M. T., “Design, fabrication and control of soft robots,” Nature 521, 467–475 (2015).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Odhner, L. U., Jentoft, L. P., Claffee, M. R., Corson, N., Tenzer, Y., Ma, R. R., Buehler, M., Kohout, R., Howe, R. D. and Dollar, A. M., “A compliant, underactuated hand for robust manipulation,” Int. J. Robot. Res. 33(5), 736–752 (2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deimel, R. and Brock, O., “A novel type of compliant and underactuated robotic hand for dexterous grasping,” Int. J. Robot. Res. 35(1–3), 161–185 (2016).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhou, X., Majidi, C. and O’Reilly, O. M., “Soft hands - An analysis of some gripping mechanisms in soft robot design,” Int. J. Solids Struct. 64–65, 155–165 (2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manti, M., Hassan, T., Passetti, G., D’Elia, N., Laschi, C. and Cianchetti, M., “A bioinspired soft robotic gripper for adaptable and effective grasping,” Soft Robot. 2(3), 107–116 (2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galloway, K. C., Becker, K. P., Phillips, B., Kirby, J., Licht, S., Tchernov, D., Wood, R. J. and Gruber, D. F., “Soft robotic grippers for biological sampling on deep reefs,” Soft Robot. 3(1), 23–33 (2016).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Katzschmann, R. K., Marchese, A. D. and Rus, D., “Autonomous object manipulation using a soft planar grasping manipulator,” Soft Robot. 2(4), 155–164 (2015).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nishioka, Y., Uesu, M., Tsuboi, H., Kawamura, S., Masuda, W., Yasuda, T. and Yamano, M., “Development of a pneumatic soft actuator with pleated inflatable structures,” Adv. Robot. 31(14), 753–762 (2017).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pettersson, A., Davis, S., Gray, J. O., Dodd, T. J. and Ohlsson, T., “Design of a magnetorheological robot gripper for handling of delicate food products with varying shapes,” J. Food Eng. 98, 332–338 (2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pettersson, A., Ohlsson, T., Davis, S., Gray, J. O., and Dodd, T. J., “A hygienically designed force gripper for flexible handling of variable and easily damaged natural food products,” Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 12, 344–351 (2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, C.-H. and Lee, K.-M., “Dynamic modeling of damping effects in highly damped compliant fingers for applications involving contacts,” ASME J. Dyn. Syst. Measur. Cont. 134, 011005 (2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, K.-M. and Liu, C.-H., “Explicit dynamic finite element analysis of an automated grasping process using highly damped compliant fingers,” Comput. Math. Appl. 64, 965–977 (2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ceccarelli, M., Figliolini, G., Ottaviano, E., Mata, A. and Criado, E., “Designing a robotic gripper for harvesting horticulture products,” Robotica 18(1), 105–111 (2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russo, M., Ceccarelli, M., Corves, B., Hüsing, M., Lorenz, M., Cafolla, D. and Carbone, G., “Design and test of a gripper prototype for horticulture products,” Robot. Comput.-Integ. Manuf. 44, 266–275 (2017).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dimeas, F., Sako, D., Moulianitis, V. and Aspragathos, N., “Design and fuzzy control of a robotic gripper for efficient strawberry harvesting,” Robotica 33(5), 1085–1098 (2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ma, J., Chen, S.-L., Teo, C. S., Kong, C. J., Tay, A., Lin, W. and Mamun, A. A., “A constrained linear quadratic optimization algorithm toward jerk-decoupling cartridge design,” J. Franklin Inst. 354(1), 479–500 (2017).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ma, J., Chen, S.-L., Kamaldin, N., Teo, C. S., Tay, A., Mamun, A. A. and Tan, K. K., “Integrated mechatronic design in the flexure-linked dual-drive gantry by constrained linear-quadratic optimization,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Elect. 65(3), 2408–2418 (2018).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, S.-L., Li, X., Teo, C. S. and Tan, K. K., “Composite jerk feedforward and disturbance observer for robust tracking of flexible systems,” Automatica, 80, 253–260 (2017).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sigmund, O. and Petersson, J., “Numerical instabilities in topology optimization: A survey on procedures dealing with checkerboards, mesh-dependencies and local minima,” Struct. Optim. 16(1), 68–75 (1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhou, M., Shyy, Y. K. and Thomas, H. L., “Checkerboard and minimum member size control in topology optimization,” Struct. Multidiscipl. Optim. 21(2), 152–158 (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poulsen, T. A., “A simple scheme to prevent checkerboard patterns and one-node connected hinges in topology optimization,” Struct. Multidiscipl. Optim. 24, 396–399 (2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sigmund, O., “Morphology-based black and white filters for topology optimization,” Struct. Multidiscipl. Optim. 33, 401–424 (2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rao, S. S., Engineering Optimization: Theory and Practice, 4th edn. (John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, New Jersey, 2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar