How to classify Compliant Mechanisms

Davide Russo[1] and Antonio Caputi[1]

1 DIGIP dept., University of Bergamo, Dalmine, 24044, Italy
davide.russo@unibg.it

Abstract. The design of compliant mechanisms is completely different from the

design of all other mechanisms. It is assumed that traditional mechanisms are
rigid or that they use rigid parts connected by mobile joints. As the name sug-
gests, the compliant mechanisms are not rigid, but flexible; they exploit defor-
mation to their advantage, thus also eliminating problems due to friction and play.
An analysis of the state of the art of the scientific literature on compliant mecha-
nisms revealed a chaotic proliferation of typologies, which differ in type, shape,
material, size, application, etc. And the lack of a unique and complete classifica-
tion. This problem has been addressed by proposing a series of classifications,
designed according to the different inputs that can be had in the early stages of
the design. These include a functional classification based on FBS ontology, used
to define the state of the art and identify areas of investigation that are still unex-
plored. Finally the classification by degrees of freedom, rotations and translations
allowed, which led to a system of organization of compliants families in the form
of a matrix. The matrix represents a first step towards the future possibility of
integrating this creation into a tool for modeling and optimizing the design by
compliants. In this article an example of how to organize the emerging Lamina
torsion mechanisms (LET) and the rotational joints in the matrix is proposed.
Keywords: Compliant mechanism, FBS, Let, Rotational joint

1 Introduction

A mechanism, as is known, is a mechanical device capable of transferring or trans-

forming pairs, forces or energy.
The traditional mechanisms realize this aspect through the presence of rigid parts
connected to each other through mobile joints, which allow their movement.
The compliant mechanisms perform the same function as the mechanisms, with the
difference that they consist of a single body and owe their mobility to the bending of
the members of which they are made, rather than to the joints [1].
The idea of compliant is intrinsic to the behavior of objects, but above all suggested
by nature. Many living things use this behavior to perform the most common vital func-
tions, such as the heartbeat. Heart valves can be considered as unidirectional compliant
valve systems capable of sustaining millions of cycles by flexing their own fibers [2].
Among the many advantages of this type of design, the most important are: the re-
duction of costs as they consist of a single body and a single material, the increase in
potential performance thanks to the absence of joints, the accumulation of energy that
2

can be obtained by preloading the flexible parts and miniaturization [3]. The disad-
vantages, on the other hand, concern the difficulty of analysis and design, the move-
ments of limited amplitude, or the resistance to bending of the conforming elements
and the resistance to loads and temperatures [4,5] and the low resistance to fatigue.
From the analysis of the state of the art of scientific literature on compliant mecha-
nisms a growing interest has emerged in heterogeneous fields of application with a very
wide range of use, from medical to war, involving components and mechanisms from
nanoscale to macro scales [3]. However, this analysis also reveals the lack of a unique
and comprehensive classification. This problem was addressed by proposing a classifi-
cation based on the relationships between structure, function and behavior according to
the FBS (function behavior system) methodology and other classifications based on
granted movements and applied loads.
By breaking down and rearranging according to different classifications the most
well-known mechanisms present in literature, maps have been produced that represent
the starting point of a wider and more complete cataloging work. The results of this
first screening has already led to the identification of investigations still unexplored on
which there are no answers to any design requests.
The structure of the article is based on different criteria for classifying the mecha-
nisms, which work at different levels of detail to meet the different needs of a designer.
chapter 2 collects functional classifications, such as an FBS-based organization. In
chapter 3 the FBS classification is used to create a conceptual map of the state of the
art in terms of scientific publications in order to visualize how the different research
areas of this topic and research opportunities are distributed. Chapter 4 proposes a more
targeted classification, created starting from the number of degrees of freedom, the ro-
tations and translations allowed. As previously the new organization follows an appli-
cation tool (introduced in chapter 5), in the form of a matrix and capable of hosting the
different families of compliants, according to a more operational design logic. To
demonstrate the potential of the instrument, the matrix was populated with LET mech-
anisms and rotational joints. Finally, the conclusions of the work.

2 Compliant Mechanisms Classification according to FBS

The first of the proposed classifications is based on a method of representing con-
ceptual design, called FBS [6]. According to the FBS ontology, a system can be de-
composed into function (F), behaviour (B), and structure (S). Practical definitions are
proposed as it follows:
 Function (F): the function (F) of a technical system is the motivation/purpose of its
existence, (i.e. what it is for). It should represent the designer’s intention, given as
the requirements that compliants must have. In this paper we classify mechanisms
according to the following purpose: energy storage, bi-stable mechanisms, force
multipliers and motions, transmission of constant force.
 Behaviour (B): it is a sequential change of states, what the system does to achieve
the purpose expressed by the function (F). The behavioral level is based on the
network of alternative behaviors (B) all deriving from the same functional concept.
 3

Our (B) level is built starting from the identification of the system function (F) and
generating all possible movements/deformations by which it is possible to achieve
the design purpose defined by the function (F). There are mechanisms designed in
the plane that deform as a result of a stress in the same plane, or mechanisms that,
although three-dimensional, act in the same plane of the deformation: under this
category we collect all the so-called planar systems. Instead, there are mechanisms
that from a solicitation in a plane react with a deformation in other planes. Depend-
ing on the way in which they deform and the configuration they assume at the end
of the solicitation, they are called lems, orthoplanar, metamorphic, spherical. Fi-
nally, there are origami inspired mechanisms that in resting configuration are
formed by planes that open up creating structures in space.
 Structure (S): describes the components of the object and their relationships. All
transformations provided by behaviors (Bs) in order to achieve the design task (F)
are realized thanks to the system structure (S). Therefore it is necessary to classify
the mechanisms according to the geometry of the element that allows flexibility. In
fact, some perform this behavior thanks to a reduction in thickness, creating a notch
with the most diverse shapes and sizes, others use thin sheets that function as bent
beams or thin segments that work by mechanical torsion. Always in the structural
classification criteria are material changes, sizing of lengths and all those design
parameters aimed at modifying local stiffness that are the basis of the optimization
process. An organic framework of how to represent and manage these parameters
is still under construction.
All types of compliant mechanisms can be subdivided according to function and behav-
ior as described in table 1.

Table 1. Subdivision of the main types of compliant mechanisms present in the literature based
on function and behavior.

Functional Classification
Mechanisms with energy storage. Compliant mechanism which,
if deformed, is able to store elastic potential energy, which can be
released later to bring the mechanism back to the starting configu-
ration with less implementation requirement [2,4].

Bistable mechanisms. Used in applications where you want to

reach two distinct positions of balance, keeping them without the
use of energy inputs [3].

Force multipliers and motions. These effects can be achieved with

zero clearance and high reliability, due to the distribution of mechani-
cal stresses on the whole mechanism [3].
4

Mechanisms of transmission of constant force. Provide a constant

output force for a wide range of input movements [4].

Behavioral Classification

Contact-Aided Compliant Mechanisms. 2D or 3D structures able to confer

movement to individual elements of which they are made, once a contact has oc-
curred [7].

Lamina Emergent Mechanisms (LEM). 2D structures that have flexible

segments arranged within a plane, whose peculiarity consists in the fact that
the motion takes place outside the manufacturing plane [5,8].

Ortho-planar mechanisms. 2D structures characterized by possessing all the

connections simultaneously in a plane, while the motion occurs orthogonally
to the plane itself [10].

Planar mechanisms. 2D or 3D structures whose peculiarity is to keep the motion

inside a plane [5,9].

Metamorphing mechanisms. 2D structures or Origami Inspired in

which the actual number of connections and mobility change from one
conformation to another [11].

Spherical mechanism. Structures that combine the compactness and top-

ological simplicity of LEMs with the three-dimensional motions of spher-
ical mechanisms [10].

Origami-Inspired compliant mechanism. Rigid-collapsible systems defined

as mechanisms with variable stiffness and continuous transformable shape,
and characterized by having regions separated by creases (or joints) that do not
need to bend or twist during the bending motion [2,5].
 5

3. Literature survey according to FBS classification

A literature survey has been conducted on Scopus in order to estimate the coverage of
each topic accord to this classification. The result of this survey has been proposed in
form of an infographic conceptual map in figure 1. All relationships between the dif-
ferent compliants families are shown in a qualitative way, introducing radial graphs.

Fig. 1. Synthetic conceptual map representing the classification of compliant mecha-

nisms [1-10].
6
Table 2 The list of papers inside conceptual map in figure 1
[1] Reddy, B.P., Zhou, H., 2017. “Synthesizing bi-
directional constant torque compliant mecha-
nisms.” ASME International Mechanical Engi-
neering Congress and Exposition, Proceedings
(IMECE), 4A-2017.
[2] Wang, P., Xu, Q., 2017. “Design of a flexure-
based micro-motion stage with constant output
force.” Proceedings - IEEE International Confer-
ence on Robotics and Automation, 7989343, pp.
2994-2999.
[3] Xu, Q., 2017. “Design of a constant-force mi-
crogripper mechanism for biological micromanip-
ulation.” 2017 IEEE 12th International Confer-
ence on Nano/Micro Engineered and Molecular
Systems, NEMS 2017, 8017055, pp. 418-421.
[4] Wang, P., Xu, Q., 2018. “Design and modeling
of constant-force mechanisms: A survey.” Mecha-
nism and Machine Theory, 119, pp. 1-21.
[5] Tolman, K.A., Merriam, E.G., Howell, L.L.,
2016. “Compliant constant-force linear-motion
mechanism.” Mechanism and Machine Theory,
106, pp. 68-79.
[6] Ouyang, P.R., Zhang, W.J., Gupta, M.M., 2008.
“A new compliant mechanical amplifier based on
a symmetric five-bar topology.” Journal of Me-
chanical Design, Transactions of the ASME,
130(10), pp. 1045011-1045015.
[7] Bharanidaran, R., Srikanth, S.A., 2016. “A new
method for designing a compliant mechanism
based displacement amplifier.” IOP Conference
Series: Materials Science and Engineering,
149(1),012129.
[8] Stavenuiter, R.A.J., Birglen, L., Herder, J.L.,
2017. “A planar underactuated grasper with adjust-
able compliance.” Mechanism and Machine The-
ory 112, pp. 295-306.
[9] Sarojini, D., Lassche, T.J., Herder, J.L., Anan-
thasuresh, G.K., 2016. “Statically balanced com-
pliant two-port bistable mechanism.” Mechanism
and Machine Theory, 102, pp. 1-13.
[10] Cirone, S.A., Hayes, G.R., Babcox, B.L., (...),
Adair, J.H., Lesieutre, G.A., 2012. “Design of con-
tact-aided compliant cellular mechanisms with
curved walls.” Journal of Intelligent Material Sys-
tems and Structures, 23(16), pp. 1773-1785.
[11] Aguirre, M.E., Frecker, M., 2011. “Design of
a multi-contact-aided compliant mechanism.” Pro-
ceedings of the ASME Design Engineering Tech-
nical Conference
6(PARTS A AND B), pp. 255-259.
[12] Eastwood, K.W., Francis, P., Azimian, H.,
(...), Drake, J.M., Naguib, H.E., 2019. “Design of a
contact-aided compliant notched-tube joint for sur-
gical manipulation in confined workspaces.” Jour-
nal of Mechanisms and Robotics, 10(1),015001.
[22] Jacobsen, J.O., Chen, G., Howell, L.L., Mag-
leby, S.P., 2009. “Lamina Emergent Torsional
(LET) Joint.” Mechanism and Machine Theory,
44(11), pp. 2098-2109.
[23] Liu, K., Shan, C.-C., Cao, Y., 2015. “
Theoretical modeling and finite element analy-
sis of planar tensile compliant joint.” 2015 IEEE
International Conference on Robotics and Biomi-
metics, IEEE-ROBIO 2015, 7419065, pp. 1991-
1996.
[24] Xie, Z., Qiu, L., Yang, D., 2017. “Design and
analysis of Outside-Deployed Lamina Emergent
Joint (OD-LEJ).” Mechanism and Machine The-
ory, 114, pp. 111-124.
[25] Sessions, J., Pehrson, N., Tolman, K., (...),
Fullwood, D., Howell, L., 2016. “A material selec-
tion and design method for multi-constraint com-
pliant mechanisms.” Proceedings of the ASME
Design Engineering Technical Conference, 5A-
2016.
[26] Tan, T.W., Douglas, G.R., Bond, T., Phani,
A.S., 2011. “Compliance and longitudinal strain of
cardiovascular stents: Influence of cell geometry.”
Journal of Medical Devices, Transactions of the
ASME, 5(4),041002.
[27] Wilding, S.E., Howell, L.L., Magleby, S.P.,
2012. “ Introduction of planar compliant joints
designed for combined bending and axial loading
conditions in lamina emergent mechanisms.”
Mechanism and Machine Theory, 56, pp. 1-15.
[28] Chen, C., Lan, C., 2017. “An Accurate Force
Regulation Mechanism for High-Speed Handling
of Fragile Objects Using Pneumatic Grippers.”
IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and En-
gineering.
[29] Kuribayashi, K., Tsuchiya, K., You, Z., (...),
Ito, T., Sasaki, M., 2006. “Self-deployable origami
stent grafts as a biomedical application of Ni-rich
TiNi shape memory alloy foil.” Materials Sci-
ence and Engineering A, 419(1-2), pp. 131-137.
[30] Parise, J.J., Howell, L.L., Magleby, S.P.,
2001. “Ortho-planar linear-motion springs.” Mech-
anism and Machine Theory, 36(11-12), pp. 1281-
1299.
[31] Teichert, G.H., Jensen, B.D., 2013. “Design
and fabrication of a fully-compliant mechanism for
control of cellular injection arrays.” Production
Engineering, 7(5), pp. 561-568.
[32] Anderson, S., Jensen, B.D., 2009. “Viscoelas-
tic damping of ortho-planar springs.” 2008 Pro-
ceedings of the ASME International Design Engi-
neering Technical Conferences and Computers
and Information in Engineering Conference,
DETC 2008, 2(PART A), pp. 323-330.
 7

[13] Jovanova, J., Frecker, M., 2017. “Two stage
design of compliant mechanisms with superelastic
compliant joints.” ASME 2017 Conference on
Smart Materials, Adaptive Structures and Intelli-
gent Systems, SMASIS 2017, 2.
[14] Morgan, J., Magleby, S.P., Howell, L.L.,
2016. “An approach to designing origami-adapted
aerospace mechanisms.” Journal of Mechanical
Design, Transactions of the ASME,
138(5),052301.
[15] Balkcom, D.J., Mason, M.T., 2008. “Robotic
origami folding.” International Journal of Robotics
Research, 27(5), pp. 613-627.
[16] Dai, J.S., Cannella, F., 2008. “ Stiffness char-
acteristics of carton folds for packaging.” Journal
of Mechanical Design, Transactions of the ASME,
130(2),022305.
[17] Alfattani, R., Lusk, C., 2017. “Design of a bi-
stable origami reverse-fold using spherical kine-
matics.” Proceedings of the ASME Design Engi-
neering Technical Conference, 5B-2017.
[18] Dureisseix, D., 2012. “An overview of mech-
anisms and patterns with origami.” International
Journal of Space Structures, 27(1), pp. 1-14.
[19] Huang, H., Deng, Z., Qi, X., Li, B., 2013.
“Virtual chain approach for mobility analysis of
multiloop deployable mechanisms.” Journal of
Mechanical Design, Transactions of the ASME,
135(11),111002.
[20] Xie, Z., Qiu, L., Yang, D., 2018. “Design and
analysis of a variable stiffness Inside-Deployed
Lamina Emergent Joint.” Mechanism and Machine
Theory 120, pp. 166-177.
[21] Ku, J.S., 2017. “Folding thick materials using
axially varying volume trimming.” Proceedings of
the ASME Design Engineering Technical Confer-
ence
5B-2017.
[33] Qiu, C., Qi, P., Liu, H., Althoefer, K., Dai,
J.S., 2016. “Six-Dimensional Compliance Analy-
sis and Validation of Orthoplanar Springs.” Jour-
nal of Mechanical Design, Transactions of the
ASME, 138(4),042301.
[34] Valentini, P.P., Pezzuti, E., 2016. “Computer-
aided tolerance allocation of compliant ortho-pla-
nar spring mechanism.” International Journal of
Computer Applications in Technology, 53(4), pp.
369-374.
[35] Carroll, D.W., Magleby, S.P., Howell, L.L.,
Todd, R.H., Lusk, C.P., 2005. “Simplified manu-
facturing through a metamorhic process for com-
pliant ortho-planar mechanisms.” American Soci-
ety of Mechanical Engineers, Design Engineering
Division (Publication) DE, 118 A(1), pp. 389-399.
[36] Howell L. L., 2001. Compliant Mechanisms.
Wiley, New York
[37] Chen, Q., Lin, Q., 2013. “Analysis on meta-
morphic of the cable-driven parallel mechanism in
wind tunnel test.” Applied Mechanics and Materi-
als, 336-338, pp. 1196-1203.
[38] Ding, X., Yang, Y., Lv, S., Dai, J., 2011. “To-
pology and kinematic performance analysis of
Hoeken straight-line COPMM for micro-opera-
tion.” International Journal of Nanomanufactur-
ing, 7(5-6), pp. 544-558.
[39] Zirbel, S.A., Aten, Q.T., Easter, M., Jensen,
B.D., Howell, L.L., 2012. “Compliant constant-
force micro-mechanism for enabling dual-stage
motion.” Proceedings of the ASME Design Engi-
neering Technical Conference, 4(PARTS A AND
B), pp. 191-198.
[40] Li, D., Zhang, Z., Dai, J., Zhang, K., 2010.
“Overview and prospects of metamorphic mecha-
nism.” Jixie Gongcheng Xuebao/Journal of Me-
chanical Engineering, 46(13), pp. 14-21.
[41] Howell L. L., 2001. Compliant Mechanisms.
Wiley, New York
[42] Carroll, D.W., Magleby, S.P., Howell, L.L.,
Todd, R.H., Lusk, C.P., 2005. “Simplified manu-
facturing through a metamorhic process for com-
pliant ortho-planar mechanisms.” American Soci-
ety of Mechanical Engineers, Design Engineering
Division (Publication) DE, 118 A(1), pp. 389-399.

These graphs, based on the recurrence in the bibliography, show which functions
have been implemented for each behavior and function.
As we can see in figure 1, the most common conformal structure is the two-dimen-
sional one, as it shows a greater behavioral versatility, while the three-dimensional and
Origami Inspired ones are less studied. As for the functions, it is clear that the accumu-
lation of energy is common to all the mechanisms, as a peculiarity of the compliant
mechanisms, while to provide other functions there are only specific types able to sat-
isfy this need.
8

4 Single compliants family classification

The functional classification is not the only one possible. It is useful for determining
the macro type of compliants but it is much less effective when choosing a device within
the same family. For this purpose, those classifications that describe in more detail how
compliants behave are much more interesting. In literature there many different alter-
natives. One example is based on the degrees of freedom and free movements [13], as
shown in table 2 where rotational joints family is divided in three macro classes dealing
with the number of degrees of freedom. Although very effective in terms of classifica-
tion, the major limitation of this classification is that the degree of freedom to choose a
device is not enough.

Table 2 shows a classification of rotational joints.

No translation allowed but only rotations

Compliant Revolute Joints

1degree These joints serve to create a
of purely rotary movement that
freedom is a bending around a single
axis

Compliant Universal Joints

2 degrees They are characterized by two
of rotational degrees of freedom
freedom and can therefore rotate
around two axes

3 degrees Compliant Spherical Joints

of They are characterized by three
rotational degrees of freedom
freedom

To improve this limit in Table 3 Ivanov [14] proposes a dual-segment joint geome-
tries classification according to the type of stress and applied load. Choosing among
bending, torsion, tension, compression, we are more in line with the designer's way of
thinking.
The two classifications have been chosen among the many present in the literature
because both are useful even if they are not sufficient on their own to collect the entire
range of compliants families. The idea behind this article is to integrate these two clas-
sifications and develop both criteria in order to create a new and more versatile one.
 9

Table 3 Dual-segment joint geometries classified by Ivanov [14] according to the type of stress
, rotation angle and applied load.

5 Proposal for an universal compliants family classification

The previous criteria for the organization of the structures can be combined together
to create a single organizational framework capable of positioning entire families or
individual components in an orderly and univocal manner. A matrix, shown in figure
2, contains as many lines as there are allowed primary movements (rotation and trans-
lation). They are produced according to the applied load (only flexion, lateral bending,
torsion and all other combinations). Moreover each cell is characterized by a different
color indicating the number of degrees allowed.
In this way the designer has an additional choice mode designed according to his
constraints and the project specifications. To give a practical example of the usefulness
of this tool we put representatives of Let Joints and Rotational Joints families present
in the literature within the matrix.
As can easily be seen in figure 2, it appears to be incomplete in terms of content, as
there is a vast presence of unoccupied cells. This means that many behavioral combi-
nations have not been investigated, and to obtain a complete degree of filling, these
unexplored spaces must be filled.
10

Figure 2 Proposal for an universal compliants family classification

A future work could trivially consists in combining the existing LET joints in order
to find the missing geometries. In fact if we want to create a new mechanism for filling
an empty space cell we can hybridize already existent geometries. For example, taking
into account cell 1.3.4, that is a torsional rotation, allowing a shear + compression dis-
placement, we can combine one topology present in the shear-only column and in the
torsion-only row. The result is visible in figure 3.

Figure 3 An example of hybridization of cell 3 and 1.4 in order to create cell 1.3.4
 11

According to this approach, Madotto and Casati [15], improved the coverage of Let
joints increasing population from nine (already present in the literature) to sixteen
mechanisms, namely precisely 50% of partial coverage. This allows the designer to
have a greater number of topologies, extending the choice range.
The general idea is to populate the matrix by adding all the devices now present in
literature. This allows the designer a broad overview of all the options he can draw on
depending on what his project requirements are. A tool organized in this way does not
require being an expert in the field.
The designer can now find in each cell at least one mechanism from which to take
inspiration. The next step will be to move from a purely qualitative suggestion to one
to quantitatively size the mechanism.

6 Conclusions and future developments

The first step to build a tool to push designers to use compliants instead of traditional
joints is to find all the types of compliants that exist today and classify in order to have
them ready according to the specifications of design required. The method by which
they are classified is crucial. In literature most classification methods are not functional
to the creation of a design tool but are useful as a means for teaching and archiving
In this work a selection was made of those methods that are most useful for a com-
pliants design activity, i.e. functional methods such as FBS-based and those that work
on allowed movements and forces.
A preliminary application of this approach has shown how research has proceeded
in a chaotic way leaving entire areas uncovered. The uncovered areas can be filled by
combining different topologies of compliants belonging to the same family or even to
different families as long as they are organized according to the same functional scheme
An example of hybridization of LET joints is proposed as an exemplary case to
show how a good organization can also be used to show design combinations that do
not yet have a geometry known in literature. More generally, the same classification
tool was used to organize LET joints and rotational joint families, as a starting point to
populate the representatives of all other compliants families in the same environment.

References

1. Howell L. L.: Compliant Mechanisms. Wiley, New York (2001)

2. Merriam, E.G., Jones, J.E., Magleby, S.P., Howell, L.L.: Monolithic 2 DOF fully compliant
space pointing mechanism. Mechanical Sciences, 4(2), 381-390 (2013)
3. Youngseok Oh: Synthesis of Multistable Equilibrium Compliant Mechanisms. Department
of Mechanical Engineering, University of Michigan, 4-8 (2008)
4. Chen Y.-H., Lan C.-C.: An Adjustable Constant-Force Mechanism for Adaptive End-Effec-
tor Operations. Journal of Mechanical Design, Transactions of the ASME, 134(3), 031005
(2012).
12

5. Hegde, S., Ananthasuresh, G.K.: Design of single-input-single-output compliant mecha-

nisms for practical applications using selection maps. Journal of Mechanical Design, Trans-
actions of the ASME, 132(8), 0810071-0810078 (2010)
6. Montecchi T., Russo D.: FBOS: function/behaviour–oriented search.Procedia engineering
131: 140-149 (2015)
7. Mankame, N.D., Ananthasuresh, G.K.: Contact aided compliant mechanisms: Concept and
preliminaries.Proceedings of the ASME Design Engineering Technical Conference, 5 A,
109-121 (2002)
8. Jacobsen, J.O., Winder, B.G., Howell, L.L., Magleby, S.P.: Lamina emergent mechanisms
and their basic elements.Journal of Mechanisms and Robotics, 2(1), 1-9 (2010)
9. Dodgen, E., Stratton, E., Bowden, A., Howell, L:Spinal Implant Development, Modeling,
and Testing to Achieve Customizable and Nonlinear Stiffness. Journal of Medical Devices,
Transactions of the ASME, 6(2), 021010 (2012)
10. Parise, J. J., Howell, L. L., and Magleby, S. P.: Ortho-planar mechanisms. Proceedings of
the 2000 ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences & Computers and Information
in Engineering Conference, DETC2000/MECH-14193 (2000)
11. Dai, J. S., and Jones, J. R.: Matrix representation of topological changes in metamorphic
mechanisms. Journal of Mechanical Design, Transactions of the ASME, 127(4), pp. 837–
840 (2005)
12. Wilding, S.E., Howell, L.L., Magleby, S.P.: Spherical lamina emergent mechanisms. Mech-
anism and Machine Theory, 49, 187-197 (2012)
13. Isaac L. Delimont: Compliant Joints Suitable for Use as Surrogate Folds, https://scholarsar-
chive.byu.edu/etd/4231/ (2014)
14. Ivan Ivanov: Methodical development of a parallel kinematic positioning system based on
monolithic structures with flexure hinges. Verlagshaus Mainz GmbH (2016)
15. S.Casati, L. Madotto: Metodo di progettazione dei Compliant mechanisms. Master’s degree
thesis at University of Bergamo (2018)