STIFFNESS ANALYSIS OF PARALLEL LEAF-SPRING FLEXURES

D.M. Brouwer1,2, J.P. Meijaard1 and J.B. Jonker1

1
Department of Mechanical Automation and Mechatronics
University of Twente
Enschede, the Netherlands
2
DEMCON advanced mechatronics
Oldenzaal, the Netherlands

ABSTRACT alignment of various sensors, optical

Approximate straight displacements are often components and slits. In MEMS for example
made using a parallel leaf-spring flexure. This comb-drive electrostatic actuators make use of
flexure serves as a typical case for studying the flexure-based straight guidances to yield a
influence of shear and the compliance of the relatively high axial stiffness to prevent actuator
reinforced mid sections of the leaf-springs in the pull-in. Many types of elastic straight guidances
support stiffnesses cz and cy. The conclusions exist, such as folded flexures, compound leaf-
drawn, however, hold true for the rotational spring flexures, crab leg flexures and double
stiffness crx also, while the stiffness in the ry and parallel leaf-spring flexures in its basic form the
rz direction can be approximated based on cz parallel leaf-spring flexure serves as a typical
and cy. It turns out that shear plays an important case which will be evaluated in the paper.
role for short relatively wide leaf-springs at small
deflections. The compliance of a reinforcement A drawback of a parallel guidance with prismatic
needs to be taken into account for determining leaf-springs is the limited capacity of managing
the support stiffness at small deflections. compressive loads. The danger of buckling is
very real. By reinforcing the mid-sections (Figure
INTRODUCTION 2) of the leaf-springs the maximum allowable
A design principle that plays an important role in compressive force and the support stiffness (cy,
precision manipulation is determinism [1]. This cz, crx, cry and crz) increase significantly [1][2] if
rule promotes the use of flexure mechanisms the displacement u is externally constrained.
because these mechanisms do not suffer from However, also the bending stresses increase. A
friction or backlash and therefore result in highly trade-off needs to be made.
repeatable behavior. Approximate straight
displacements are often made with two parallel
leaf-springs in a parallel leaf-spring flexure as is
shown in Figure. 1.
u leaf-spring
tr
lr reinforcement (notch hinge)
Shuttle rz, crz
leaf-spring
Leaf-spring wr
Base ry, cry z, cz
rx, crx l
y, cy
x, cx
l/2
Center of
w
Compliance
t

L FIGURE 2. Exactly constrained parallel leaf-

spring mechanism with reinforcements.

Although extensive analysis of the parallel leaf-

FIGURE 1. Parallel leaf-spring guidance. spring flexure has been reported in the past [2]
and so-called rules of thumb exist [1], they are
Applications for flexure-based parallel or straight generally restricted by the assumption that the
guidances can be found in precision motion or length over width ratio of the leaf-springs is large
so shearing effects do not need to be taken into
account, reinforcements are thick enough to be parallel leaf-spring guidance and a prismatic
taken rigid, the shuttle has a prescribed position leaf-spring guidance. The stiffnesses are scaled
u by a rigid external support in x- or drive by the respective stiffnesses at zero deflection
direction, and anticlastic curving effects are cy0 and cz0. The stiffnesses of the prismatic leaf-
small. We present the dominating support spring parallel guidance at zero deflection cy0
stiffnesses cz and cy taking into account flexibility can be calculated by:
of the reinforcement and shearing effects. The 2 Ewt
support stiffness crx has been calculated as well cz0  (2)
l (1  p)
but is not presented in this paper. The 1
conclusions drawn, however, hold true also for  12  11 b 4b 3  12ab 2  12a 2 b  (3)
c y 0    
crx. The stiffness in the ry and rz direction can be  10(1   ) Gtw Etw 3 
approximated for L >> t, if the distance L pl l (1  p )
between the leaf-springs is known: a ; b (4)
2 2
cry  1
2
2
cz L ; crz  1
2
2
cy L (1) The cz/cz0 stiffness is independent of the ratio
The stiffness change in the driving direction is length over width (l/w). The cz0-stiffness is
generally small. However for leaf-springs with increased by a factor of 3.5 due to reinforcing.
aspect ratio w2 / l·t > 4 the transverse stress Loading the shuttle in z-direction causes a 1st
due to Poisson contraction can be significant for order bending-mode in the leaf-spring at
deflections u/l larger than 0.1 [2]. deflection when loaded in the z-direction.
Reinforcement stiffens this 1st order bending-
Ideally the shuttle has a stiff external support in mode effectively, as the bending length is
the drive or x-direction. However, in general the shortened.
external support has a limited stiffness cd, the
‘drive-stiffness’. The strong influence of ratio Leaf-springs with a small l/w ratio show a
cd/cx on cz has been shown [4], and is in greater decrease in cy-stiffness during deflection
particularly important for MEMS applications. in the x-direction than leaf-springs with a large
l/w. This can be explained as follows: during
SUPPORT STIFFNESS deflection the cy-stiffness becomes a series
By reinforcing the mid-sections of flexures, as stiffness of bending and torsion stiffness. The
shown in Figure 2, the maximum allowable torsional component is caused by a combination
compressive force increases significantly [1] if cd of u-deflection and a force in y-direction of a
/cx is large. At the same time the reinforcement moment in rx-direction. A small l/w results in a
is advantageous for the support stiffness. The relatively large cy0-stiffness in relation to torsion
bending stress however increases unfavorable. stiffness of the leaf-springs, as the bending
As a fair compromise often the reinforcement stiffness is proportional to tw3 and the torsion
factor p = 5/7 is applied as a rule of thumb [1], stiffness is more or less proportional to t3w for
in which lr = p·l is the reinforcement length. Van these types of cross-sections. The large cy0-
Eijk [2] provide rules of thumb for the stiffness in stiffness for small w/l due to large w/t ratios is
z-direction in case the reinforcements are thick compromised more by the torsion stiffness at u-
enough to be taken rigid, the drive stiffness can deflection than that of leaf-springs with a large
be approximated at infinity, the l/w ratio is large w/l. The crx-stiffness shows comparable
so shearing effects do not need to be taken into behavior.
account. We present the stiffnesses cy and cz
taking into account limited reinforcement The ratio cy /cy0 becomes worse by reinforcing
thickness and shearing. leaf-springs for l/w < 2. A reinforced parallel leaf-
spring flexure is much stiffer than a comparable
The stiffnesses cy and cz of the shuttle at the prismatic version at zero deflection. Both are
center of compliance (shown in Figure 1) as a deformed predominately by shear, but the
function of the relative displacement u/t are reinforced version is deformed much less due to
calculated using the flexible multibody software shorter flexure parts. At deflection however the
package SPACAR which uses beam theory y-stiffness becomes a series stiffness of
including shear. The drive stiffness has been bending, shear and torsion stiffness. The torque
taken infinite. Figures 3a and 3b show a due to deflection and a force in y-direction is at
comparison of the relative stiffnesses cy /cy0 and its maximum near the shuttle and base in the
cz /cz0 between a rigidly reinforced, p = 5/7, flexures. Therefore the resulting twist of a
reinforced leaf-spring is not that much smaller
than the twist in a prismatic leaf-spring. In a 1 without shear:
10
series stiffness the most compliant link l/w = 0.5
predominantly determines the overall stiffness, l/w = 1
which in this case becomes the torsional cy /cy0 l/w = 2
compliance at large u-deflections. 10
0 l/w = 5
1

0.9

0.8
with shear:
10
−1
l/w = 0.5
0.7
cz /cz0 l/w = 1
0.6
l/w = 2
reinforced 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
0.5 l/w = 5 u/t
0.4

0.3
prismatic FIGURE 4. The cy/cy0 stiffness comparison
0.2
between the parallel leaf-spring guidance with
0.1
and without shearing effects taken into account.
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 REINFORCEMENT LENGTH
u/t

FIGURE 3a. The cz/cz0 stiffness comparison

between a reinforced and a prismatic parallel
p = 0.80
leaf-spring guidance.
cz /cz0
p = 0.71
0
0 10
10
l/w = 50
l/w = 20 p = 0.60

l/w = 10
cy /cy0 p=0
l/w = 5 10
−1
−1
10

0 5 10 15 20 25 30
u/t
l/w = 2
FIGURE 5a. The cz/cz0 stiffness of a reinforced
reinforced l/w = 1 parallel leaf-spring guidance for various
10
−2 prismatic l/w = 0.5 reinforcement factors p.
l/w = 10;
0 5 10 15
u/t 20 25 30
p = 0.80
p = 0.71
FIGURE 3b. The cy/cy0 stiffness comparison p = 0.60
between a reinforced and a prismatic parallel 0
10
p=0
leaf-spring guidance for various l/w ratios.
cy /cy0
SHEARING DECREASES THE SUPPORT l/w = 5;
l/w = 2; p = 0.80
STIFFNESS
−1
10 p = 0.80 p = 0.71
p = 0.71 p = 0.60
Shearing effects decrease the cy-stiffness p = 0.60 p=0
especially for small l/w at small deflections. To p=0
show the influence of shearing effects on the 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
cy/cy0 stiffness a comparison between a parallel u/t
prismatic leaf-spring guidance with and without
shearing effects taken into account is given in FIGURE 5b. The cy/cy0 stiffness of a reinforced
Figure 4. The cy /cy0 stiffness needs to be parallel leaf-spring guidance for various
calculated taking shearing effects into account reinforcement factors p.
for l/w ≤ 2 and u/t ≤ 5. The larger the deflection
the less the shearing plays a significant role in Figures 5a and 5b show the effect of the
the cy-stiffness. reinforcement factor p on the cz- and cy-stiffness
for l/w = 0.5, 2 and 5, for a rigidly reinforced
parallel leaf-spring guidance. The stiffnesses are mode frequencies should be considered. For
scaled by the respective stiffnesses at zero relatively large deformations u/t > 10, as a
deflection of a prismatic leaf-spring guidance. compromise between increased support
The larger p the higher the y- and z-stiffness, stiffness and dynamic properties the
however also the higher the x-stiffness [1]: reinforcement thickness can be taken tr ≤ 5t.
l/w = 10:
Ewt 3 1 tr /t =
cx  3 (5) cy /cy0 ∞
l 1  p3 20
10
5
and the bending stress [1]. 10
0
2
1
3Ehu 1 l/w = 2: l/w = 5
 (6)
tr /t = tr /t =
l 2 1  p3 ∞ ∞
−1
20 20
As a compromise p = 5/7 is often used, but for
10
10 10
5 5
specific requirements p can be tuned. 2 2
1 1
COMPLIANCE OF THE REINFORCEMENT
0 5 10 15
u/t 20 25 30

To find the influence of the reinforcement FIGURE 6b. The cy /cy0 stiffness of a reinforced
thickness tr on the stiffness the compliance of parallel leaf-spring guidance for various relative
the reinforcements is taken into account. Figures reinforcement thicknesses tr /t (p = 5/7).
6a and 6b show the effects for various tr /t on the
cz- and cy-stiffness for p = 5/7. The stiffnesses CONCLUSION
are scaled by the respective stiffnesses at zero It can be concluded that for the cy /cy0 stiffness of
deflection of a prismatic leaf-spring guidance. a parallel leaf-spring flexure shear plays an
important role for l/w ≤ 2 and u/t ≤ 5. But shear
can be neglected for deflections u/t > 12. The
compliance of a reinforcement even for tr = 20t
needs to be taken into account for determining
the support stiffness at small deformations. For
0
10

cz /cz0 t /t: u/l > 10 the optimal z-stiffness is approached for

r
∞ tr/t > 5, and the optimal y-stiffness is approached
20 for tr /t > 2. A trade-off is required between the
10
5 support stiffnesses due to a large reinforcement
2 factor p and the stress in the leaf-springs.
10
−1
1
REFERENCES
0 5 10 15
u/t 20 25 30
[1] Soemers HMJR, Design Principles for
Precision Mechanisms, Lecture notes of the
FIGURE 6a. The cz /cz0 stiffness of a reinforced
University of Twente, 930, 2010.
parallel leaf-spring guidance for various relative
[2] van Eijk J, On the design of plate-spring
reinforcement thicknesses tr /t (p = 5/7).
mechanisms, Ph.D. Thesis, Delft, The
Netherlands, 1985.
Even with a reinforcement thickness of tr = 20t
[3] Jonker JB and Meijaard JP, SPACAR –
the reinforcement cannot be taken as a rigid
Computer program for dynamic analysis of
body for small deflections. The support stiffness
flexible special mechanisms and
increases only slightly at large deflections when
manipulators, Multibody Systems
reinforcing more than 5 to 10 times the leaf-
Handbook, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp.123-
spring thickness. For l/w ≥ 5 and at limited
143, ISBN 0-387-51946-7.
deformations u/t < 10 it could make sense to
take the reinforcement thickness tr ≥ 10t.
[4] Brouwer DM, et al., Design and modeling of
a precision 6 degrees-of-freedom MEMS-
Furthermore, with respect to dynamic properties
based parallel kinematic TEM sample
the effects of increased mass of the
manipulator, Proc. ASPE, pp. 115-118.
reinforcement which cause lowered vibration