Stiffness Analysis of Parallel Leaf-Spring Flexures: RZ Direction Can Be Approximated Based On C
Stiffness Analysis of Parallel Leaf-Spring Flexures: RZ Direction Can Be Approximated Based On C
Stiffness Analysis of Parallel Leaf-Spring Flexures: RZ Direction Can Be Approximated Based On C
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
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