Toward a Unified Design Approach for Both Compliant Mechanisms and Rigid-Body Mechanisms: Module Optimization
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rigid-body mechanisms (RBMs) and compliant mechanisms (CMs) are traditionally treated in significantly different ways. In this paper, we present a synthesis approach that is appropriate for both RBMs and CMs. In this approach, RBMs and CMs are generalized into modularized mechanisms that consist of five basic modules, including compliant links (CLs), rigid links (RLs), pin joints (PJs), compliant joints (CJs), and rigid joints (RJs). The link modules and joint modules are modeled through beam elements and hinge elements, respectively, in a geometrically nonlinear finite-element solver, and subsequently a beam-hinge ground structure model is proposed. Based on this new model, a link and joint determination approach—module optimization—is developed for the type and dimensional synthesis of both RBMs and CMs. In the module optimization approach, the states (both presence or absence and sizes) of joints and links are all design variables, and one may obtain an RBM, a partially CM, or a fully CM for a given mechanical task. Three design examples of path generators are used to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed approach to the type and dimensional synthesis of RBMs and CMs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it