2026-09-18T20:47:28Zhttps://dspace.mit.edu/server/oai/request

oai:dspace.mit.edu:1721.1/367412022-01-13T07:54:36Zcom_1721.1_7582com_1721.1_7581col_1721.1_131024

Martin L. Culpepper. Labuz, James (James R.) Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dept. of Mechanical Engineering. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Mechanical Engineering 2007-03-12T17:49:27Z 2007-03-12T17:49:27Z 2006 2006 http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/36741 77564828 Thesis (S.B.)--Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, 2006. Includes bibliographical references (leaf 36). The purpose of this research was to demonstrate the feasibility for creating a three-dimensional monolithic compliant six-axis nanopositioner. Much of this work was based off of the original two-dimensional HexFlex manipulator created by Prof. Martin Culpepper and a three-dimensional design by Samuel Korb. The compliant mechanism was manufactured from a single sheet of 1/8 inch 5052 Aluminum. The mechanism was designed to be fabricated on the non-precision, abrasive water-jet and to be formed using bending processes. The fabrication process was successful. The entire machining process was on the order of one hour. The forming process was repeated multiple times without failure of the mechanism in all cases. The formed mechanism was tested to characterize its ability to manipulate the positioning stage both in- and out-of-plane. The transmission ratio for in-plane was measured at 6.4 while the out out-of-plane ratio was 6.3. The input deflection vs. output deflection curves display a linear relationship, but there was .0003 inches of hysteresis seen in the out-of-plane data after a max deflection of .0009 inches. This amount of hysteresis is undesirable and leaves further testing to determine its causes. by James Labuz. S.B. 38 leaves eng Massachusetts Institute of Technology M.I.T. theses are protected by copyright. They may be viewed from this source for any purpose, but reproduction or distribution in any format is prohibited without written permission. See provided URL for inquiries about permission. http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/7582 Mechanical Engineering. Design, fabrication, and testing of a three-dimensional monolithic compliant six-axis nanopositioner Thesis application/pdf Publication unknown unknown <Publication xmlns="https://www.openaire.eu/cerif-profile/1.1/" id="c3463583-1993-40c3-a043-00a87f3e178f"> <Type xmlns="https://www.openaire.eu/cerif-profile/vocab/COAR_Publication_Types">http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_1843</Type> <Language>eng</Language> <Title>Design, fabrication, and testing of a three-dimensional monolithic compliant six-axis nanopositioner</Title> <PublishedIn> <Publication> </Publication> </PublishedIn> <PublicationDate>2006</PublicationDate> <Authors> <Author> <DisplayName>Labuz, James (James R.)</DisplayName> <Affiliation> <OrgUnit> </OrgUnit> </Affiliation> </Author> </Authors> <Editors> </Editors> <Publishers> <Publisher> <DisplayName>Massachusetts Institute of Technology</DisplayName> <OrgUnit /> </Publisher> </Publishers> <License>http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/7582</License> <Keyword>Mechanical Engineering.</Keyword> <Abstract>The purpose of this research was to demonstrate the feasibility for creating a three-dimensional monolithic compliant six-axis nanopositioner. Much of this work was based off of the original two-dimensional HexFlex manipulator created by Prof. Martin Culpepper and a three-dimensional design by Samuel Korb. The compliant mechanism was manufactured from a single sheet of 1/8 inch 5052 Aluminum. The mechanism was designed to be fabricated on the non-precision, abrasive water-jet and to be formed using bending processes. The fabrication process was successful. The entire machining process was on the order of one hour. The forming process was repeated multiple times without failure of the mechanism in all cases. The formed mechanism was tested to characterize its ability to manipulate the positioning stage both in- and out-of-plane. The transmission ratio for in-plane was measured at 6.4 while the out out-of-plane ratio was 6.3. The input deflection vs. output deflection curves display a linear relationship, but there was .0003 inches of hysteresis seen in the out-of-plane data after a max deflection of .0009 inches. This amount of hysteresis is undesirable and leaves further testing to determine its causes.</Abstract> <Access xmlns="http://purl.org/coar/access_right" > </Access> </Publication>