Javier L

opez-Martınez
Department of Engineering,
University of Almerıa,
Almerıa 04120, Spain
e-mail: javier.lopez@ual.es
Design of Three New Cam-Based
Daniel Garcıa-Vallejo
Department of Mechanical Engineering
Constant-Force Mechanisms
and Manufacturing, Constant-force mechanisms are designed to keep a constant or nearly constant input
University of Seville, force along a prescribed stroke of the mechanism. The implementation of this kind of
Seville 41092, Spain mechanisms has been approached in literature using compliant mechanisms or through a
e-mail: dgvallejo@us.es certain combination of springs and nonlinear transmissions. In this work, three new
constant-force mechanisms based on the use of springs, rollers, and cams are presented
Francisco Manuel Arrabal- and analyzed. The rolling friction forces between the rollers and the cam are included in
Campos the force equilibrium equations and considered in the integration of the cam profile. The
Department of Engineering, influence of the friction force on the input force as well as the design parameters involved
University of Almerıa, is studied based on numerical techniques and simulations. In fact, the results evidence
Almerıa 04120, Spain that to obtain a precise constant-force mechanism, rolling friction forces must be consid-
e-mail: fmarrabal@ual.es ered in the cam profile definition. The main design guidelines for the three constant-force
mechanisms proposed are described. [DOI: 10.1115/1.4040174]
Jose Manuel Garcia-Manrique
Department of Civil Engineering, Keywords: constant-force mechanism, cam profile, rolling friction
Materials and Manufacturing,
University of Malaga,
Malaga 29071, Spain
e-mail: josegmo@uma.es

1 Introduction et al. [25] designed a weight compensation mechanisms based in a

noncircular pulley and a linear spring, and studied the reduction
Constant-force mechanisms (CFMs) are designed to provide a
on the actuators torques values required to keep a static posture.
nearly constant input force over a prescribed range of displace-
In the second group, one or both spring ends moves along curved
ments. These mechanisms are gaining interest in recent years,
surfaces, using rollers to reduce friction. A smaller number of
increasing the number of applications where they are advanta-
these devices have been found in the literature [3,26,27]. Liu et al.
geous and developing new design solutions to the problem of
[26] designed an adjustable constant-force mechanism to pas-
achieving constant-force for each particular application.
sively regulate contact force, which mainly consist of a linear
One of the simplest and widely used constant-force mecha-
spring and a cam mechanism. In a later work, the same authors
nisms are based on negator springs [1]. A negator spring is a flat
proposed another solution also based on linear compression
spiral strip of spring steel, which exerts a constant force when it is
springs, rollers, and a curved surface [27]. Bidgoly et al. [3]
uncoiled. These springs are used in several commercial items as
implemented a rotational nonlinear spring with a user-defined
retractable measuring tapes and weight counterbalancing devices.
torque-angle profile, based on the combination of a cam and a
Constant-force mechanisms can be classified into two main
stretched translational linear spring, where one end of the spring
approaches [2,3]. In the first approach, compliant mechanisms are
is hinged to the center of the cam and the other end is allowed to
used, where the mobility of the mechanism is gained from the
move over the cam surface through a roller. They designed cam
deflection of flexible members [4–6]. Compliant constant-force
profiles to generate different nonlinear springs, including
mechanisms are mainly implemented in small size components,
constant-torque springs. In these previous works, the cam profiles
showing reduced wear and high precision. Pseudo-rigid body
were obtained using static models which neglects friction forces.
models [5,7–9] and optimization techniques [7,10–13] are usually
Nevertheless, as it will be demonstrated in this paper rolling fric-
used in the design of compliant constant-force mechanisms. Sev-
tion between the rollers and the cam will modify the theoretical
eral design solutions found in literature are based on a positive
force value, differing from a real constant force [26,27]. Besides
stiffness besides a negative stiffness generated by a bistable com-
these two main approaches used to obtain constant-force mecha-
pliant mechanism [10,14–17], where the bistability is provided by
nisms, other authors have proposed devices based in pneumatic
buckling a curved-beam structure [18,19]. In the second approach,
systems [28], or dielectric elastomers [29].
constant-force mechanisms combine a linear spring and a nonlin-
Gravitational force static balancing mechanisms can be imple-
ear transmission. According to Bidgoly et al. [3], two different
mented through constant-force mechanism, allowing the reduction
groups may be differentiated inside this second approach. In the
of the total mass of a device as well as actuators efforts [7,30]. In
first group, a linear spring has one end hinged while the other end
addition, the use of CFMs instead of free weights in exercise
is pulled by a cable which wound on a noncircular cam or pulley
machines avoids the inertial effects of these large masses on
[20,21]. This constant-force mechanism is also found in an exer-
the resultant exercise strength, where the necessary accelerations
cise machine patent [22]. In other field as Robotics, the profile of
during the exercise execution lead to a non-constant force. Also,
the cam is designed to achieve not only a constant-torque profile
constant-force exercise machines without free weights are
but also a predefined nonlinear torque-angle profile [23,24]. Endo
required for low gravity environments [22,31–33].
More recent applications of constant-force mechanisms have
Contributed by the Mechanisms and Robotics Committee of ASME for
publication in the JOURNAL OF MECHANICAL DESIGN. Manuscript received January 18,
been proposed in Robotics, especially concerning contact forces
2018; final manuscript received April 26, 2018; published online May 28, 2018. and object manipulation, where the use of CFMs minimizes the
Assoc. Editor: Massimo Callegari. need of sensors and complex force control. Lan and Chen [14]

Journal of Mechanical Design Copyright V

C 2018 by ASME AUGUST 2018, Vol. 140 / 082302-1

Downloaded From: http://mechanicaldesign.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/27/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 presented an adjustable constant-force mechanism to adapt the
end effector of the robot to an unknown surface with variable
height. Lan and Wang [34] designed a forceps for robot-assisted
surgical manipulation to generate a constant torque regardless of
the input rotation. The same authors also proposed a compliant
gripper that can provide a constant gripping force to handle
objects of various sizes [35]. The use of compliant constant-force
mechanisms has also been extended to others applications. In par-
ticular, a fully compliant grasper for minimal invasive surgery
was proposed by Lamers et al. [8]. Wang and Xu [36] proposed
a CFM with applications in biological cell micromanipulation.
Furthermore, Constant-force mechanisms have been used for
overload protection [10], snap-fit connectors [37], automotive
clutches [38], grippers [15], and electrical contacts [11,39].
In this paper, three different proposals of constant-force
mechanism are presented and discussed. All solutions are based
on the use of linear springs, rollers, and cams; then, they can be
classified within the second group of the second approach
according to Bidgoly et al. [3]. The quasi-static model of each
design is presented and the cam profiles are obtained by numeri-
cal integration methods. Friction forces have been considered in
the calculus of the cam profile to improve the ability of the
mechanism to maintain the constant force. The influence of the
rolling friction in the shape of the cams profiles as well as
the deviations of the force for a certain cam profile when the
rolling friction coefficient changes is studied. The solutions pro-
posed are discussed in terms of its reliability versus friction
changes, working stroke, and mechanical implementation.
Besides the numerical results, simulations of the three constant
force mechanisms have been performed to verify the results and
to study the influence of occasional defects of the mechanisms
in its force response.
In the remaining sections, the design of three new constant-
force mechanisms is described in Sec. 2. In Sec. 3, the mathemati-
cal models from quasi-static analysis are formulated and the
conditions for constant-force requirements are established. In
Sec. 4, the geometry of the cam profile of each mechanism is
obtained through numerical integration taking into account the
rolling friction forces. Next, the influence of the friction forces
and design parameters in the performance of the mechanism is
discussed in Sec. 5. In Sec. 6, simulations are performed for vali-
dation and further analysis of the mechanisms. Section 7 summa-
rizes the main difference between the three designs proposed and
compares them with the existing CFMs. Finally, Sec. 8 summa-
rizes the conclusions of this work.
2 Conceptual Designs
In this section, the conceptual design of three new constant-
force mechanisms is described. All of them are based on a noncir-
cular cam and a linear spring that is deformed when one or both
of its ends move along the cam surface. A three-dimensional
CAD design is presented for each mechanism proposed.
Fig. 1 Sketches of the three constant-force mechanisms proposed: (a) CFM-1, (b) CFM-2, and (c) CFM-3
082302-2 / Vol. 140, AUGUST 2018
Downloaded From: http://mechanicaldesign.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/27/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
Figure 1(a) is a schematic of the first proposed mechanism,
CFM-1, a constant-force mechanism that comprises a double cam
geometrically symmetric with respect to a vertical axis. Each
curved surfaces of the cam guides the rolling movement of a
roller. The rollers are connected one to each other through an
extension linear spring whose ends are fixed, respectively, to the
axis of each roller. The vertical displacement of the spring and
rollers is realized by means of a horizontal rod pulled by a vertical
cable. The cable is coincident with the axis of symmetry of the
mechanism and may be properly guided by an external pulley (not
drawn) to keep its vertical direction. To avoid the slipping of the
roller, a double roller is used in such a way that each roller rotates
freely along the cam and the horizontal rod, respectively. The pro-
file of the cam can be determined to maintain a constant force
value in the traction cable for any position of the roller over the
cam, where for greater elongation of the spring, the angle between
the tangent line to the cam surface and the spring axis (spring
restitution force direction) approaches 90 deg. Although the sche-
matic solution showed in Fig. 1(a) is realized for a pulling force,
simple modification of the mechanism can be done to allow it to
work with constant compression forces. As an example, the hori-
zontal rod could be pushed from the bottom side instead of being
pulled with a cable. Another solution would be to fix the horizon-
tal rod and to allow vertical movement of the cam when the latter
is pushed from up to down.
The second conceptual design, CFM-2, is shown in Fig. 1(b). It
can be seen as a simplified version of CFM-1, where the horizon-
tal rod and its rollers have been removed and the traction cable
has been attached to both roller axes through individual braces.
This solution is mechanically simpler than the first one and also
can be modified to work with compression forces. To do that, the
cable could be fixed and, as described above, the vertical move-
ment of the cam could be allowed under the action of the external
force.
Finally, CFM-3 is based on the rotation of the spring instead of
a translational movement. In Fig. 1(c), CFM-3 includes a cam and
an extension spring. One end of the spring is hinged to the center
of the cam while the other end of the spring is articulated to a
main roller that can move rolling along the cam surface. The
movement of the roller takes place thanks to the action of a roller
chain, with one end attached to the main roller axis and the other
end being pulled by an external force. The roller chain is wound
around and rolls along the cam surface. The cam profile can be
defined to achieve a constant force at the roller chain end for any
angular position of the spring.
Figure 2 shows the CAD design of each one of the CFMs
described above, showing a more realistic mechanical implemen-
tation. In all cases, it have been adopted a solution that includes
two spring arranged in parallel. The cam profiles showed in the
CAD designs have been derived for a certain value of the coeffi-
cient of rolling friction (the procedure to obtain the cam profile is
detailed in Secs. 3 and 4). Additionally, Fig. 2(b) shows a modifi-
cation in the axis of the roller assembly to include a larger number
Transactions of the ASME
 Fig. 2 Three-dimensional CAD designs of the three constant-force mechanisms: (a) CFM-1, (b) CFM-2 with four springs
arranged in parallel, and (c) CFM-3

of springs arranged in parallel (Fig. 2 shows four spring in parallel
but a larger number is possible).
3 Constant-Force Condition Equations
From the operating principle of the CFMs described in Sec. 2,
one can define the shape of the cam in order to achieve a constant
force at the input link. Based on a quasi-static force analysis of
the mechanisms, the mathematical conditions that must be ful-
filled will be used to define the cam profiles. In the following, it is
assumed that inertial forces due to the moving masses are negligi-
ble. This assumption is accurate enough for low accelerations and
in static position. Also, when the weights of the springs and the
rollers are small compared with the input force, as will be usual,
their contribution in the dynamics of the mechanism will be negli-
gible even for higher acceleration.
along the surfaces, only rolling friction occurs [40]. These friction
forces can be expressed as the product of the coefficient of the
rolling friction lr and the normal force at the contact
Ff ¼ lr N (1)
From the force diagram at Fig. 3, the equilibrium equations in
the horizontal and vertical directions can be written as
FK þ Ff 1 þ Ff 2 sin b ¼ N2 cos b (2)
N1 ¼ N2 sin b þ Ff 2 cos b (3)
where b is the angle between the tangent to the imaginary curve
that describes the axis of the roller and the vertical axis. The slope
of this curve is defined as

3.1 Analysis of Constant-Force Mechanism-1. The external dx

tan b ¼ (4)
force acting at the input link of the mechanism can be expressed dy
as a function of the parameters of the mechanism. Figure 3 depicts
the forces acting on the rollers assembly when the rollers move Note that x defines the cam profile while y defines the axis of sym-
upward, where N1 and N2 are the normal forces at the contact with metry of the cam.
the horizontal rod and the cam, respectively; Ff 1 is the rolling fric- The spring force FK, for an ideal linear spring, is expressed as
tion force between the roller and the rod; Ff 2 is the rolling friction
between the roller and cam surface; and FK is the restitution force FK ¼ 2KDx (5)
of the linear spring. Assuming that the rollers roll without slipping
where K is the stiffness coefficient and 2Dx is the total elongation
of the spring. According to Fig. 3, this elongation 2Dx is the dif-
ference between the actual length 2x and the rest length 2x0 of the
spring.
Using Eqs. (1), (3), and (5), Eq. (2) can be written as
 
l sin b  cos b
2KDx þ N1 lr1 þ r2 ¼0 (6)
sin b þ lr2 cos b

Since the mechanism is symmetric, the normal force N1 will be

the half of the external force F

F
N1 ¼ (7)
2
Finally, substituting Eq.(7) in Eq. (6), the input force F is
expressed as a function of the stiffness coefficient K, the spring
elongation Dx, the coefficients of rolling friction, lr1 and lr2 , and
the slope of the curve
 1
1  lr2 tan b
F ¼ 4K Dx  lr1 (8)
tan b þ lr2
|fflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl{zfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl
ffl}
Fig. 3 Forces diagram for the rollers assembly of CFM-1 A

Journal of Mechanical Design AUGUST 2018, Vol. 140 / 082302-3

Downloaded From: http://mechanicaldesign.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/27/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Since spring stiffness K is a constant, the geometric condition The tension force of the brace is related with the force F
of the cam profile for constant-force results in according to
 1
1  lr2 tan b F ¼ 2Ft cos a (15)
A ¼ Dx  lr1  constant (9)
tan b þ lr2
Finally, substituting Eq. (14) in Eq. (15), the input force F is
Then, for given values of force F and spring stiffness K, the determined as
required value of the constant A is obtained from Eq. (8) and a  1
unique profile of the cam that complies with Eq. (9) can be 1  lr tan b
F ¼ 4K Dx  tan a (16)
derived. The shape of the cam profile will depend on the spring tan b þ lr
|fflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl{zfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl}
stiffness. The influence of this design parameter in the perform- B
ance of the mechanism will be studied in Sec. 5.
The direction of the friction forces drawn in Fig. 3 represents The previous expression is quite similar to the Eq. (8) for
an upward displacement of the rollers. Alternatively, if the rollers CFM-1 but including a new parameter, the angle a of the brace.
move downward, the friction forces turn to the opposite direction For a given spring stiffness K and a required constant force value,
and the signs preceding the rolling friction coefficient in Eq. (8) the shape of the cam must verify that the term in parenthesis in
changes as follows: Eq. (16) keeps constant
 1  1
1 þ lr2 tan b 1  lr tan b
F ¼ 4KDx þ lr1 (10) B ¼ Dx  tan a  constant (17)
tan b  lr2 tan b þ lr

Finally, when friction is ignored, the force equation reduces to When friction is ignored, the Eq. (16) simplifies to
0
F ¼ 4KDx tan b (11)  1
1
F0 ¼ 4KDx  tan a (18)
3.2 Analysis of Constant-Force Mechanism-2. In a similar tan b
way, the equilibrium equations and the constant-force condition
are obtained for CFM-2. The free-body diagram of the roller is
shown in Fig. 4. The equilibrium equations in the horizontal and 3.3 Analysis of Constant-Force Mechanism-3. Figure 5
vertical directions can be written as shows the forces acting on the roller for CFM-3. The equilibrium
equations in the radial and circumferential directions are written
FK þ Ft sin a þ Ff sin b ¼ N cos b (12) as

FK þ Ff sin b ¼ N cos b þ F sin b (19)

N sin b þ Ff cos b ¼ Ft cos a (13)
N sin b þ Ff cos b ¼ F cos b (20)
where a is the angle between the brace and the y-axis and Ft is the
tension force of the brace. Using Eqs. (1), (5), and (13), Eq. (12)
can be written as: For a linear spring, the spring force is given by
  FK ¼ KDr (21)
l sin b cos a  cos b cos a
2KDx þ Ft sin a þ r ¼0 (14)
sin b þ lr cos b
where the elongation of the spring Dr is the difference between
the actual length r and the rest length r0 of the spring. Using
Eqs. (1), (20), and (21), Eq. (19) can be written as

Fig. 4 Forces diagram for the roller of CFM-2 Fig. 5 Forces diagram for the roller of CFM-3

082302-4 / Vol. 140, AUGUST 2018 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://mechanicaldesign.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/27/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

   !
lr cos b sin b cos2 b 4.1 Detailed Definition of the Trajectory of the Roller
KDr þ F ¼F þ sin b Center of Constant-Force Mechanism-1. In order to obtain the
sin b þ lr cos b sin b þ lr cos b trajectory of the roller center required in design CFM-1, Eq. (9) is
(22) rewritten as follows:
0 1
or dx
B1  lr2 C
    B dy C
lr cos b sin b 1 þ lr cos b sin b Dx ¼ AB  lr1 C (29)
KDr þ F ¼F (23) @ dx A
sin b þ lr cos b sin b þ lr cos b þ lr2
dy

Finally, simplifying Eq. (23) the input force F for CFM-3 is where tan b in Eq. (9) has been substituted by dx=dy in agreement
defined as follows: with the definition of axes in Fig. 3. The following nonlinear first-
order differential equation can be obtained from the previous one
F ¼ K Drðsin b þ lr cos bÞ (24)
|fflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl{zfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl} as follows:
C
dx 1  lr2 f ð xÞ
The condition for a constant-force mechanism requires that the ¼ (30)
dy lr2 þ f ð xÞ
term in parenthesis be constant
where
C ¼ Drðsin b þ lr cos bÞ  constant (25)
1
f ð xÞ ¼ ð x  x0 Þ þ lr1 (31)
Finally, if friction is neglected, Eq. (24) can be simplified to A

F0 ¼ KDr sin b (26) An implicit first-order integration formula is utilized to solve

Here, further comments on the force given by Eq. (24) are
required. As shown in Fig. 5, the force F is acting to the axis of
the roller. This force will be different to the force required at the
other end of the roller chain as some friction takes place between
the rollers of the chain and the cam. This friction force will
depend, among others, on the value of the force F, on the distance
between chain rollers and on the winding angle, which continu-
ously varies with the movement of the mechanism. In this work,
the friction of the roller chain has not been included in the model
and, therefore, the only rolling friction effect considered is that of
the main roller.
4 Numerical Integration of the Trajectory of the
Roller Center
Each one of the three conceptual designs of constant force
mechanism presented in this paper requires a different trajectory
of the roller center that in principle can be obtained from Eqs. (9),
(17), and (25), respectively. Note that the cam profile can be eas-
ily obtained from the trajectory of the roller, x–y, its radius, R, and
the normal to the cam profile. In particular, according to Figs. 3
and 4, the Cartesian coordinates of the cam profile for concepts
CFM-1 and CFM-2 can be obtained as follows:
     
xc x cos b
¼ þR (27)
yc y sin b
where xc  yc are the coordinates of the contact point in the cam
profile and angle b defines the orientation of the normal to the
cam profile at the contact point, see Figs. 3 and 4. On the other
hand, the Cartesian coordinates of the cam profile for concept
CFM-3 are obtained as follows:
     
xc x cosðh  bÞ
¼ þR (28)
yc y sinðh  bÞ
where xc  yc are again the coordinates of the contact point in the
cam profile and angles b and h are used to obtain the orientation
of the normal to the cam profile at the contact point, see Fig. 5.
This section deals with the utilization of the previous
referred equations to precisely obtain each one of the trajecto-
ries of the roller centers. In Sec. 5, a discussion on the use of
each cam mechanism depending on its friction characteristics is
included.
differential Eq. (30). The numerical scheme is based on Euler’s
backward finite difference formula

dx  xk  xk1
¼ þ OðhÞ (32)
dy yk h
where h is the integration step size in variable y. The use of the
previous equation leads to the following iteration equation:
1  lr2 f ðxk Þ
xk  xk1  h ¼0 (33)
lr2 þ f ðxk Þ
which has to be solved for an initial value of x (xðy0 Þ ¼ X0 with
y0 ¼ 0) by using an iterative algorithm for solving nonlinear equa-
tions. Note that X0 is different to x0, meaning that the spring may
be elongated at y ¼ 0. In this research, Newton–Raphson method
[41] has been used to solve Eq. (33). While the order of the finite
difference formula utilized for the integration could be improved,
it has demonstrated to be enough for the purpose of this research.
Figure 6 shows different trajectories of the roller center
obtained for a certain combination of target force, F, and spring
properties, see figure caption, and different values of the rolling
friction coefficient. In the figure, it has been shown in the same
color curves corresponding to the same rolling friction value, but
with opposite direction of the motion. For each pair of curves in
the same color, the one at the left corresponds to the motion of the
roller in upward direction according to Fig. 3. It is interesting that
the trajectory of the roller center only ensures a constant force in
one direction of the motion. Note that a nonrealistic and exces-
sively large value of the rolling friction (lr ¼ 0:02) has been
included to remark the different shapes required for the cam
depending on the motion direction.
The robustness of the numerical integration algorithm used to
obtain the trajectory of the roller center has been studied through a
convergence test. The test consists of finding the same trajectory for
different values of the step size, h, ranging from 1:0  101 mm to
1:0  102 mm. As it is shown in Fig. 7, the roller center trajectories
obtained for 1:0  101 mm and for 1:0  102 mm are almost the
same and the generation of the profiles with h ¼ 1:0  101 mm
seems to be accurate enough for the purpose of this investigation.
4.2 Detailed Definition of the Trajectory of the Roller
Center of Constant-Force Mechanism-2. In order to obtain the
trajectory of the roller center required in design CFM-2, Eq. (17)
is rewritten as follows:

Journal of Mechanical Design AUGUST 2018, Vol. 140 / 082302-5

Downloaded From: http://mechanicaldesign.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/27/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 where

 2 !12
1 x x
f ð xÞ ¼ ð x  x0 Þ þ 1 (37)
B lt lt

The implicit first-order integration formula in Eq. (32) has been

used once more to obtain the following iteration equation:

1  lr f ðxk Þ
xk  xk1  h ¼0 (38)
lr þ f ðxk Þ

which has to be solved for an initial value of x (xðy0 Þ ¼ X0 with

Fig. 6 Trajectory of the roller center of concept CFM-1
obtained by numerical integration. All curves are generated for
a target force of 30 N and a spring with natural length of 180 mm
and stiffness constant, K, of 4 N/mm.
Fig. 7 Convergence of the numerical integration scheme for
different step sizes. All curves are generated for a target force
of 30 N, a value of the rolling friction, lr of 0.002 and a spring
with natural length of 180 mm and stiffness constant, K, of
4 N/mm.
y0 ¼ 0) by using an iterative algorithm for solving nonlinear equa-
tions. As occurs in concept CFM-1, X0 is different to x0, meaning
that the spring is elongated at y ¼ 0. Again, Newton–Raphson
method [41] has been used to solve Eq. (38) since it has demon-
strated to be efficient enough for the purpose of this research.
Figure 8 shows different trajectories of the roller center
obtained for a certain combination of target force, F, cable
length, and spring properties, see figure caption, and different
values of the rolling friction coefficient. In the figure, it has
been shown in the same color curves corresponding to the same
rolling friction value, but with opposite direction of the motion.
For each pair of curves in the same color, the one at the left
corresponds to the motion of the roller in upward direction
according to Fig. 4. Again, a nonrealistic excessively large value
of the rolling friction (lr ¼ 0:02) has been included to remark
the different shapes required for the cam depending on the
motion direction.
As a mean of comparison between design concepts CFM-1
and CFM-2, different trajectories of the roller center have been
obtained and shown in Fig. 9 for the same combination of target
force, rolling friction, and spring characteristics. As shown in
the figure, there are slight differences in both designs that disap-
pear as the brace length of CFM-2 tends to large values. Of
course, this is reasonable since in concept CFM-2 the direction
of the pulling force ends up to be vertical when the brace are
infinitely long and therefore concept CFM-2 converges to con-
cept CFM-1.
A convergence test similar to the one shown in Fig. 7 was per-
formed to select an appropriate value of the integration step size.
The test is not shown again for not to unnecessarily increase the
text length.

0 1
dx
B 1  l r C
B dy C
Dx ¼ BB  tan aC (34)
@ dx A
þ lr
dy

where again tan b in Eq. (17) has been substituted by dx=dy in

agreement with the definition of axes in Fig. 4. Furthermore, tan a
in Eq. (34) can be developed in terms of variable x as

 2 !12
x x
tan a ¼ 1 (35)
lt lt

Finally, the following nonlinear first-order differential equation

can be obtained from the previous two as follows:
Fig. 8 Trajectory of the roller center of concept CFM-2
obtained by numerical integration. All curves are generated for
dx 1  lr f ð xÞ a target force of 30 N, a cable of length lt, of 250 mm and a
¼ (36) spring with natural length of 180 mm and stiffness constant, K,
dy lr þ f ð xÞ of 4 N/mm.

082302-6 / Vol. 140, AUGUST 2018 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://mechanicaldesign.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/27/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 between the tangent and the perpendicular to the radius vector
from the center of the cam to the center of the roller, see again
Fig. 5, the term cos b can be easily evaluated by using the expres-
sion of the scalar product as follows:
dr
t
cos b ¼ dh  (40)
 dr 
ktk   
 dh 

where h is an angular coordinate used to describe the trajectory of

the roller center in cylindrical coordinates. In Eq. (40), t is a vec-
tor perpendicular to the radius vector r

t ¼ ½ r sin h r cos h T (41)

and ðdr=dhÞ is a vector tangent to the cam profile,

 T
dr dr dr
Fig. 9 Comparison of the trajectory of the roller center for con-
¼ r sin h þ cos h r cos h þ sin h (42)
dh dh dh
cept CFM-1 and concept CFM-2 width several values of brace
length lt. All curves are generated for a target force of 30 N, a
Therefore, the expression of cos b can be reduced to
value of the rolling friction, lr of 0.002 and a spring with natural
length of 180 mm and stiffness constant, K, of 4 N/mm. r
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
cos b ¼ s 2  2 (43)
dr dr
4.3 Detailed Definition of the Trajectory of the Roller r sin h þ cos h þ r cos h þ sin h
Center of Constant-Force Mechanism-3. In this section, dh dh
Eq. (25) is utilized to find the trajectory of the roller center of
mechanism CFM-3. In order to do that, the mentioned equation is Finally, the trajectory of the roller center is obtained by approxi-
rewritten as follows: mating the derivative ðdr=dhÞ again by using an implicit first-
order finite difference formula as
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi C
1  cos2 b þ lr cos b ¼ (39) 
r  r0 dr  rk  rk1
¼ þ Oðhh Þ (44)
dh hk hh
where it has been used that Dr ¼ r  r0 , being r0 the natural
length of the spring according to Fig. 5. Since b is the angle which leads to the following iterative nonlinear problem:

pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi C
1  cos2 bk þ lr cos bk  ¼ 0;
rk  r0
rk
cos bk ¼ sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 2  2 (45)
rk  rk1 rk  rk1
rk sin hk þ cos hk þ rk cos hk þ sin hk
hh hh

The previous nonlinear problem is solved for an initial value of
r (rðh0 Þ ¼ R0 with h0 ¼ 0) by using an iterative algorithm for
solving nonlinear equations. Note that R0 is different to r0,
meaning that the spring may be elongated at h ¼ 0. As previ-
ously mentioned, Newton–Raphson method [41] is used to find
the trajectory of the roller center in terms of cylindrical coordi-
nates, r and h.
Figure 10 shows different trajectories of the roller center
obtained for a certain combination of target force, F, and spring
properties, see figure caption, and different values of the rolling
friction coefficient. In the figure, it has been shown in the same
color curves corresponding to the same rolling friction value, but
with opposite direction of the motion. For each pair of curves in
the same color, the one with the smallest radius corresponds to the
rotation of the roller in counterclockwise direction according to
Fig. 5. Again, a nonrealistic excessively large value of the rolling
friction (lr ¼ 0:02) has been included to remark the different
shapes required for the cam depending on the motion direction.
A convergence test similar to the one shown in Fig. 7 was per-
formed to select an appropriate value of the integration step size.
The test is not shown again for not to unnecessarily increase the
text length.
5 Influence of the Rolling Friction and Design
Considerations
Since rolling friction affects the value of the force at the input
link, it is important to study its influence in the response of the
mechanism concerning the constant-force condition. In a first
approach to the design problem, one can define the trajectory of
the roller center by two different ways. In the first case, the trajec-
tory of the roller center is derived ignoring friction effects. As far
as authors know, this is the procedure used in all previous works.
Liu et al. [26,27], for a friction analysis, once designed the cam
profile without friction consideration, studied the deviation of the
force applied to the input link due to the friction force. In the
second case, the cam profile can be designed accounting for
the friction forces as shown in Sec. 4. This strategy is useful when
the requirement of constant-force condition is preferable only in
one movement direction of the mechanism stroke. Note that since

Journal of Mechanical Design AUGUST 2018, Vol. 140 / 082302-7

Downloaded From: http://mechanicaldesign.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/27/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use


Fig. 10 Trajectory of the roller center of concept CFM-3
obtained by numerical integration. All curves are generated for
a target force of 30 N and a spring with natural length of 180 mm
and stiffness constant, K, of 4 N/mm.
the friction force is opposed to the movement of the roller, as pre-
viously showed, the cam profile that meets constant-force condi-
tions will be different for the loading movement than for the
unloading movement of the mechanism. Also, to obtain a precise
cam profile, the coefficient of rolling friction must be known.
Since such rolling friction coefficient is difficult to be known
accurately, and may change over time due to wear or changes in
operational conditions, the study of the influence of the coefficient
of rolling friction in the performance of the mechanism is of inter-
est. In this section, the influence of the friction forces and the
design parameters in the performance of the three mechanisms
proposed is analyzed.
For CFM-1, from Eqs. (8) and (11), the ratio of the force with-
out friction F0 and the force with friction F results a function of
the slope of the cam profile and of the coefficients of rolling fric-
tion as
 
F0 1  lr2 tan b
¼ tan b  lr1 (46)
F tan b þ lr2
The ratio F0 =F as a function of the angle b is plotted in Fig. 11
(continuous lines) for different values of the coefficient of rolling
friction. Note that these curves are independent of any other
design parameter of the mechanism. Values of angle b close to
zero or to p/2 lead to a higher influence of the friction forces. Dis-
continuous lines represent the ratio F0 =F when the rollers move in
the opposite direction (negative direction of y-axis in Fig. 3) and
then Eq. (10) instead of Eq. (8) is used. Figure 11 is useful to
know the deviation in the target force F0 , for an estimated rolling
friction coefficient, when a cam profile without friction considera-
tions is designed. In the same way, similar curves can be obtained
to estimate the variations in the force value, due to changes in the
friction coefficient value, when a cam profile is designed for a
given rolling friction coefficient. This study is of interest when the
working conditions of the mechanism are subject to significant
changes in the coefficient of rolling friction. In any case, it is
recommended to use materials for the cam and the rollers with a
rolling friction coefficient as low as possible.
As described in Sec. 3, for a required constant force value and a
given spring stiffness constant, there exists a cam profile that
meets the constant force condition. Then, in the design process, a
pair of cam profile and spring stiffness must be selected. To visu-
alize the influence of the friction depending on the cam profile,
Fig. 12(a) shows in solid lines the trajectory that must describe
082302-8 / Vol. 140, AUGUST 2018
Downloaded From: http://mechanicaldesign.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/27/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
Fig. 11 CFM-1. Ratio of the force without friction F 0 and the
force with friction F for different values of the rolling friction
coefficient, when the rollers moves in positive direction of y-
axis (continuous lines) and when the rollers moves in negative
direction of y-axis (discontinuous lines).
the center of the roller for a desired constant force F of 30 N when
the rollers move in positive direction of y-axis (with a rolling
friction coefficient of 0.002) and for different spring stiffness
coefficients K; while Fig. 12(b) shows the corresponding forces
ratio F0 =F for coefficients of rolling friction lr1 ¼ lr2 ¼ 0:002
(this value of rolling friction may correspond to a hard material as
hardened steel [40]). According to Figs. 12(a) and 12(b), to reduce
the influence of the rolling friction, given a target constant force,
it is preferable to use springs with small stiffness values. This
leads to cam profiles with small slope values, see the cam profile
depicted in black in Fig. 12(a). The choice of the spring-cam pair
is a critical factor regarding the friction effects, especially when
the mechanism requires a long stroke. Although it is not clearly
appreciable in Fig. 12(b), the ratio F0 =F has a maximum for values
of y around 1 mm; for smaller values in the y-axis, the ratio F0 =F
decreases rapidly, as can also be understood from Fig. 11 when
the angle b approximate to p/2.
Other factors must be taken into account in the design process,
as space limitations that may limit the cam width, or the admissi-
ble elongation of the spring. The spring elongation is directly
related with the stroke of the mechanism. Thus, when the largest
possible stroke is required, one must select springs with values of
stiffness coefficient K and maximum admissible elongation 2Dx
that allows the maximum stroke of the mechanism (coordinate y
in Fig. 12(a)). Spring elongation may be a limitation for the use of
these mechanisms in applications where a large stroke is required.
A design solution to increase the stroke of the mechanism is to
use, instead of two springs, a larger number of softer springs
arranged in parallel, with the same resultant force (see Fig. 2(b)).
In this way, since softer springs have larger allowable maximum
elongation, the stroke of the mechanism can be increased. The
possibility to add and remove springs in parallel allows to modify
the resultant equivalent stiffness K, giving the mechanism the
ability to easily change its input force F, as can be seen from
Eq. (8).
Next, in a similar way, from Eqs. (16) and (18), the ratio of the
force without friction F0 and the force with friction F for CFM-2
results in
  1
F0 1  lr tan b 1
¼  tan a  tan a (47)
F tan b þ lr tan b
where, in addition to the slope of the cam profile and the
coefficient of rolling friction, the angle a between the brace and
Transactions of the ASME
 Fig. 12 (a) Solid lines show the trajectories of the roller center for a desired constant force F of 30 N, a value of the rolling fric-
tion coefficients, lr 1 5 lr 2 , of 0.002 and different spring stiffness for concept CFM-1 while dashed lines show the trajectories of
the roller center for a desired constant force F of 30 N, a rolling friction value, lr, of 0.002 and different spring stiffness
(lt 5 250 mm, x0 5 90 mm, X0 5 90 mm) for concept CFM-2 and (b) solid lines show the corresponding ratios of the force without
friction F 0 and the force with friction F (lr 1 5 lr 2 5 0.002) for concept CFM-1 while dashed lines show the corresponding ratios
of the force without friction F 0 and the force with friction F (lr 5 0.002) for concept CFM-2

the y-axis appears. In this case, to obtain the ratio F0 =F, some geo-
metric parameters of the mechanism must be known. For a brace
length lt ¼ 250 mm, a spring rest length 2x0 ¼ 180 mm and an ini-
tial condition X0 ¼ 90 mm, Fig. 12 shows in dashed lines the
required trajectory of the roller center for a desired constant force
F of 30 N when the rollers move in positive direction of y-axis
(with a rolling friction coefficient of 0.002) and the corresponding
forces ratio F0 =F. Similarly to CFM-1, for softer springs, a wider
cam profile is preferred to decrease influence of the friction force.
Also, space considerations and the required stroke for the
mechanism are limitations for the cam width and spring selection
(stiffness coefficient and admissible elongation). In addition, for
CFM-2, the brace length lt must be selected, where the angle a in
Eq. (47) depends on the brace length lt (see Fig. 4). Figure 13
shows the effects of the brace length in the ratio F0 =F. For smaller
values of lt, the angle a will be larger and the tension force at the
brace increases (see Eq. (15)); this results in higher values of the
normal force and therefore of the friction forces. Then, a large
brace length is preferable instead a shorter one. Comparing the
forces ratio F0 =F for CFM-1 and CFM-2 in Fig. 12(b), it can be
seen that the influence of the friction forces is somewhat lower in
CFM-1. The differences between CFM-1 and CFM-2 curves will
decrease for larger brace lengths of CFM-2; also the trajectories
of the roller center of CFM-2 in Fig. 12(a) will approximate to
CFM-1, as was shown in Fig. 9.
Finally, for CFM-3, from Eqs. (24) and (26), the ratio of the
force without friction F0 and the force with friction F results as
F0 1
¼ (48)
F 1 þ lr
tan b
where the ratio F0 =F depends on the angle b and on the coefficient
of rolling friction lr.
The ratio F0 =F in function of the angle b is plotted in Fig. 14
for different coefficients of rolling friction. The friction force
increases with lower values of the angle b, i.e., when the spring
elongation, and therefore the normal force between the roller and

Fig. 14 CFM-3. Ratio of the force without friction F 0 and the

Fig. 13 CFM-2. Ratio of the force without friction F 0 and the force with friction F for different coefficients of rolling friction,
force with friction F for different brace lengths lt (F 5 30 N, K 5 4 when the spring rotates counterclockwise (continuous lines)
N/mm, lr 5 0.002, x0 5 90 mm, X0 5 90 mm). and when the spring rotates clockwise (discontinuous lines).

Journal of Mechanical Design AUGUST 2018, Vol. 140 / 082302-9

Downloaded From: http://mechanicaldesign.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/27/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Fig. 15 CFM-3: (a) Trajectory of the roller center for a desired constant force F of 30 N, a rolling friction value, lr, of 0.002 and
different spring stiffness (r0 5 180 mm, R0 5 180 mm), and (b) the corresponding ratios of the force without friction F 0 and the
force with friction F for a coefficient of rolling friction lr 5 0.002 along the arc length

the cam, increases. Note that these curves of F0 =F versus b are
independent of the size of the cam and of any other design param-
eter of the mechanism. It is convenient to remember here that the
force F in Eq. (48) represents the force acting on the roller axis
instead the force at the final end of the roller chain, i.e., the fric-
tion between the roller chain and the cam has not been included.
This means that the ratio F0 =F, in case that F is the force at the
end of the roller chain, will differ from the curves shown in
Fig. 14, mainly for angles b close to p/2, where the ratio F0 =F
would be less than one.
Figure 15(a) shows the trajectory of the center of the roller for
a desired constant force F of 30 N (with a rolling friction coeffi-
cient of 0.002) and for different spring stiffness coefficients K,
while Fig. 15(b) shows the corresponding forces ratio F0 =F along
the traveled arc length when the spring rotates counterclockwise
for a coefficient of rolling friction lr ¼ 0.002. The traveled arc
length, Dl, has been numerically integrated by using the following
formula:
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ð lf ð h f  2
dr
Dl ¼ dl ¼ þ ðr Þ2 dh (49)
l0 h0 dh
where the polar coordinates have been used for simplicity
(x ¼ r cos h; y ¼ r sin h). Figure 15(b) shows larger values of the
force ratio than those in Fig. 12(b) for the same spring stiffnesses.
As for CFM-1 and CFM-2, a soft spring is preferable in order to
minimize the influence of the friction and to increase the stroke of
the mechanism. Again, the use of soft springs leads to small slope
cam profiles.
force, spring stiffness, spring natural length, and brace length for
CFM-2, are equal to those used in Sec. 4. Additionally, rollers
with a diameter of 30 mm have been used. The roller center trajec-
tory used in the construction of the cam profile was obtained
according to the method described in Sec. 4, where an upward dis-
placement of the rollers (positive direction of the y-axis) and a
rolling friction coefficient of 0.002 were considered in the condi-
tion of constant force. Figure 16 shows the trajectory described by
the roller axis and its corresponding cam profile. Due to the proce-
dure used to obtain the cam profile from the roller center trajec-
tory, it may happen to find arcs of the cam profile that are locally
concave. In particular, this happens for the arc of roller center tra-
jectory between points 0 and 1 in Fig. 16. Since such concave arcs
of the cam profile are not usable, the simulation has been per-
formed for fully convex arcs of cam profile. Therefore, an initial
coordinate y1 different to zero has been defined for each simula-
tion. Table 1 summarizes the minimum and maximum values of
the roller axis coordinate y (y1 and y2) for an input displacement
(stroke) of 100 mm, and its corresponding angles b (b1 and b2).
For CFM-3, values of minimum and maximum angles h are given
as more representative values instead of the coordinate y.
In the simulations, the contacts between the solids have been
defined as no penetration but separation allowed. A value of fric-
tion coefficient lr of 0.002 has been used for the contact between
the rollers and the cams. The same value has been used for the
friction lr2 between the roller and the horizontal bar in CFM-1.
Additionally, deformation of the solids due to the contact forces is
calculated during the simulations, where a contact stiffness of
100 GPa is used to approximate the material stiffness at the
boundary of interaction between the two solids in contact

6 Validation of the Constant-Force Mechanism

Designs Based on Computational Simulation
Table 1 Model parameters
Simulations of the constant force mechanisms have been made
to validate the cam profiles obtained from the numerical integra- Parameter CFM-1 CFM-2 CFM-3
tion method described in Sec. 4 and also to study the response of
the mechanism to some possible manufacturing defects or not Desired constant force (N) 30 30 30
ideal working conditions. Simulations were carried out by using Spring stiffness coefficient (N/mm) 4 4 4
the well-known commercial software SOLIDWORKS motion, whose Spring natural length (mm) 180 180 180
simulation capabilities employ the simulation engine ADAMS/ Brace length (mm) — 250 —
Solver to solve the equations of motion and calculates forces act- Roller diameter (mm) 30 30 30
ing in each component of the assembly. Stroke (mm) 100 100 100
Min/max y coordinate, y1 =y2 (mm) 6.4/110.4 5.2/112.3 -/-
Min/max h angle, h1 =h2 (rad) -/- -/- 0.094/0.56
6.1 Models Definition. Design parameters used in the simu- Initial/final cam angles, b1 =b2 (rad) 0.37/0.091 0.39/0.089 0.62/0.17
lations are shown in Table 1. Values for the desired constant

082302-10 / Vol. 140, AUGUST 2018 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://mechanicaldesign.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/27/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Fig. 17 Force hysteresis loops of the three CFMs for rolling
friction coefficient lr 5 0:002. Light color curves have been
obtained for lr 5 0.

Fig. 16 Roller axis trajectory and its equidistant curve that
define the cam profile
elastic contact behavior was not taken into account in the develop-
ments of Sec. 3. Figure 18 shows, for CFM-1, the force results for
different contact stiffness values, where larger differences with
respect to the desired force are drawn for softer materials. These
results show that, in addition to their beneficial lower rolling fric-
tion coefficient, hard materials such as steel are also preferable
due to their lower deformation during contact. It should be pointed
out that, although the hysteresis loop for CFM-3 in Fig. 17 is
smaller than for CFM-1 and CFM-2, this force curve for CFM-3
has been obtained without friction forces in the contact between
the roller chain and the cam. The influence of the roller chain fric-
tion will depend on the length where the roller chain is in contact
with the cam, which varies with the displacement.

(100 GPa is the default value for steel in SolidWorks material

data).
For CFM-1 and CFM-2, simulations have been carried out start-
ing with an upward displacement of the roller from the lower end
of the cam profile (y1). Once the rollers achieve the maximum dis-
placement at y2, it returns downward to the initial position. In a
similar way, the simulations of the CFM-3 model have been real-
ized with an input displacement of 100 mm, varying the roller axis
position from h1 to h2 and returning back to h1. The simulations
were carried out in all cases in quasi-static conditions using very
slow velocities.
6.3 Response to Defects. Further simulations have been car-
ried out to study the response of the constant-force mechanisms
under some occasional defects. In the following, simulations with
the CFM-1 model have been made to analyze the effect of irregu-
larities in the cam profile, which can be caused by manufacturing
errors, wear, or the presence of hard granular contaminants in
dirty environments. The irregularities have been modeled as three
small cusps located along the cam surface. Figure 19(a) show
high value force peaks, up to 10 N for cusps of 0.1 mm height,
when the rollers reach these irregularities. The force peaks are

6.2 Validation of the Constant-Force Mechanisms. Figure 17

shows the results of the force value versus displacement for the
three CFMs. Force values in the upward displacement maintain a
quite constant value, and near to the desired force of 30 N. An
appreciable hysteresis loop is drawn when the rollers move in the
opposite direction, with a small fall in the force values. Figure 17
also shows the force curves obtained when the simulations are
done without friction (lr ¼ 0) in light color (where there is no
hysteresis). The relation between the values of the force without
friction F0 and the force in upward direction F for each CFM can
be compared with those obtained in Sec. 5 (Figs. 12(b) and 15(b)),
where very similar values are obtained. As example, for CFM-1,
Fig. 17 gives a relation F0 =F  0:98 at an input displacement of
80 mm, which fits the value given by Fig. 12(b) for y ¼ y1 þ 80 ¼
6:4 þ 80 ¼ 86:4 mm. Thus, simulation results are consistent with
Secs. 4 and 5. Average values of the force obtained in the simula-
tions for CFM-1, CFM-2, and CFM-3 are slightly lower than the
desired force of 30 N. These differences are attributed to the pene-
tration in the contact between the rollers and the cam, which is Fig. 18 Force hysteresis loops of CFM-1 for different roller-
calculated during the simulations. It must be noted that such cam contact stiffness, Kc

Journal of Mechanical Design AUGUST 2018, Vol. 140 / 082302-11

Downloaded From: http://mechanicaldesign.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/27/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Fig. 19 Force peaks due to the presence of cusps at three points in the cam surface of CFM-1, (a) for two different cusps
height, and (b) for two different cams profile with the same desired constant force but different spring stiffness
larger for the cusps located near to the top of the cam due to the
higher spring force. Figure 19(b) shows curves for two cam pro-
files with the same desired constant force but for two different
spring stiffness constant. These curves show that the effect of the
cusps decreases for small slope cam profiles (i.e., small spring
stiffness). This is attributed to the fact that the increase in the
spring force due to the cusps is smaller in soft spring than in stiffer
ones.
Finally, another manufacturing or assembly error has been
simulated. Figure 20 shows the force hysteresis loops for different
deviations of the spring rest length (from 1 to 1 mm) from its
theoretical value. These simulations may reproduce the effect of a
manufacturing or assembly error that modifies the distance
between the rollers, or an error in the spring rest length estimation
for preloaded extension springs. For a deviation of 1 mm, results
show a variation of 3 N (10%) in the force at the beginning of the
displacement, while this difference is reduced to 1 N at the end.
Then, a precise assembly without gaps and an accurate value of
the spring rest length is required for a good response of the
mechanism.
7 Performance Comparison
Based on the results of Secs. 5 and 6, a performance compari-
son between the three constant force mechanisms is discussed.
Fig. 20 Force hysteresis loops for variations in the spring rest
length (CFM-1)
082302-12 / Vol. 140, AUGUST 2018
Downloaded From: http://mechanicaldesign.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/27/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
Latter, a comparison with existing designs is summarized at the
second part of this section.
7.1 Comparison of the Three Constant-Force Mechanisms.
In spite of the similarity of the three CFMs proposed, where all of
them are based on the use of a cam profile, springs, and rollers,
Table 2 resumes the main differences between them. None of the
three design solutions presents special mechanical complexity,
where CFM-2 stands out for its simplicity and reduced number of
components. As pointed in Sec. 2, simple modification of the
mechanisms can be done to allow CFM-1 and CFM-2 to work
with constant compression forces. On the contrary, there is no
direct modification of the CFM-3 that allows it to work in this
way.
For all of the designs proposed, the stroke of the mechanism is
limited by the admissible spring elongation. Small differences
have been found between the three CFMs. CFM-1 and CFM-2
show almost the same maximum displacement for the same
spring, while CFM-3 reaches a slightly greater stroke.
An important aspect of the performance of the mechanisms is
the influence of the rolling friction and the force hysteresis loop.
As showed in Fig. 17, CFM-1 and CFM-2 hysteresis loops are
quite similar for a brace length lt of 250 mm. Short brace lengths
of CFM-2 should be avoided so as not to increase the friction
effects. Hysteresis loop increases with the rolling friction coeffi-
cient and the stroke of the mechanisms. Regarding CFM-3, the
friction forces and hysteresis loop will depend on the length of the
roller chain in contact with the cam.
Common characteristics of the three CFMs for a better design
are the use of soft springs together with small slope cam profiles
to reduce the friction force influence and the effects of occasional
defects, and the use of stiff and low rolling friction coefficient
materials, as hardened steel, for the rollers and cams.
7.2 Comparison With Existing Constant-Force Mecha-
nisms. The designs of the three CFMs proposed are based on the
use of linear springs and cams, so all of them must be included in
the same group of CFMs according to the existing classifications.
As described in the Introduction, the three design presented
belong to the group of those CFMs that comprises linear springs
that moves along a nonlinear geometry, see Bidgoly et al. [3]. A
more detailed classification and comparison between the different
types of CFMs was presented in the literature review of Wang and
Xu [2]. In that work, the CFMs are classified, as in Ref. [3], in
two main approaches: conventional rigid-link constant force
mechanisms and fully compliant constant force mechanisms. The
main advantage of the conventional rigid-link CFMs (the group
Transactions of the ASME
 Table 2 Comparative of the three CFMs

CFM-1 CFM-2 CFM-3

Mechanical complexity Simple Very simple Simple

Input force action Traction or compression Traction or compression Traction
Stroke Limited by the spring elongation Limited by the spring elongation Limited by the spring elongation.
Somewhat larger than CFM-1 and
CFM-2
Friction influence and Dependent on the cam slope and Increase for short brace length. Higher than CFM-1 and CFM-2.
hysteresis stroke. Slightly lower than CFM-2 Dependent on the cam slope and Conditioned by the roller chain
stroke friction. Dependent on the cam slope
and stroke

that our three designs belong to) is that can be designed for large
stroke, also, in general, the mathematical model and structure is
simpler than in compliant mechanisms. Compliant constant force
mechanisms are usually of compact size and do not have rolling
or sliding components, avoiding the problem of friction and
backlash.
Inside the group of conventional rigid-link CFMs, five kinds of
CFMs are differentiated [2]. In this case, our three CFMs must be
included in that kind of CFMs named as “Curved surface constant
force mechanism.” Next, a comparison between our CFMs pro-
posed and the existing ones of the same group is discussed, where
two devices, designed by Liu et al. [26,27], have been found in
the literature. In the same way to our three CFMs, they are actu-
ated with a linear force, and comprise rollers, springs, and a cam.
However, the design solutions lead to some performance differen-
ces. The main observed advantages of the CFMs proposed in this
paper are listed as follows: (i) simpler design, including a minor
number of components (specially in CFM-2); (ii) the cam profile
has been derived including the friction effects, which improve the
constant force condition; (iii) the use of traction springs, instead
of compression springs, avoid buckling problems and may
increase the allowable stroke; (iv) it is easy to add or remove
springs arranged in parallel to modify the force value, or to
increase the stroke using several soft springs with the same total
stiffness.
8 Conclusions
Three new constant-force mechanisms have been presented in
this paper. All CFMs are based on the use of springs, cams, and
roller, but each one with a different configuration, what leads to
certain performance differences. First, from a quasi-static force
analysis the mathematical conditions that must comply the cams
profiles have been obtained. Latter, the shape of the cams profiles
have been obtained by numerical integration, where the rolling
friction has been considered. It is shownd that different cam pro-
files are required depending on the direction of motion of the
mechanism to ensure a constant force. When the mechanism is
intended to work in both directions, an intermediate profile may
be recommended. The mathematical models of the CFMs have
been validated with the help of computational simulation in well-
known commercial software. A performance study of the mecha-
nisms shows that the rolling friction influence increases with the
slope of the cam profile, with the stroke and with the spring stiff-
ness. Then, for a required input force, it is preferable the use of
soft springs, that leads to small slope cam profiles. The use of soft
springs is also advantageous in the presence of occasional small
manufacturing errors as cusps or any other kind of irregularities in
the cam surface. A comparative study of the three proposed mech-
anisms has been included.
Acknowledgment
The authors would like to thank Celia Nun~ez Torres for her
collaboration in the 3D design of the mechanisms.
Funding Data
 This work has been partially funded by the Spanish
“Ministerio de Economıa y Competitividad” under the pro-
ject DEP2016-80296-R (AEI/FEDER, UE).
References
[1] Wall, A., 1963, Mechanical Springs, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York.
[2] Wang, P., and Xu, Q., 2018, “Design and Modeling of Constant-Force Mecha-
nisms: A Survey,” Mech. Mach. Theory, 119, pp. 1–21.
[3] Bidgoly, H., Ahmadabadi, M., and Zakerzadeh, M., 2016, “Design and
Modeling of a Compact Rotational Nonlinear Spring,” IEEE International Con-
ference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), Daejeon, South Korea, Oct.
9–14, pp. 4356–4361.
[4] Howell, L., and Midha, A., 1995, “Parametric Deflection Approximations for
End-Loaded, Large-Deflection Beams in Compliant Mechanisms,” ASME J.
Mech. Des., 117(1), pp. 156–165.
[5] Howell, L., 2001, Comliant Mechanisms, Wiley, New York.
[6] Gallego, J., and Herder, J., 2010, “Classification for Literature on Compliant
Mechanisms: A Design Methodology Based Approach,” ASME Paper No.
DETC2009-87334.
[7] Tolman, K., Merriam, E., and Howell, L., 2016, “Compliant Constant-Force
Linear-Motion Mechanism,” Mech. Mach. Theory, 106, pp. 68–79.
[8] Lamers, A., Gallego Snchez, J., and Herder, J., 2015, “Design of a Statically
Balanced Fully Compliant Grasper,” Mech. Mach. Theory, 92, pp. 230–239.
[9] Boyle, C., Howell, L., Magleby, S., and Evans, M., 2003, “Dynamic Modeling
of Compliant Constant-Force Compression Mechanisms,” Mech. Mach.
Theory, 38(12), pp. 1469–1487.
[10] Pham, H.-T., and Wang, D.-A., 2011, “A Constant-Force Bistable Mechanism
for Force Regulation and Overload Protection,” Mech. Mach. Theory, 46(7),
pp. 899–909.
[11] Meaders, J., and Mattson, C., 2010, “Optimization of Near-Constant Force
Springs Subject to Mating Uncertainty,” Struct. Multidiscip. Optim., 41(1), pp.
1–15.
[12] Prakashah, H., and Zhou, H., 2016, “Synthesis of Constant Torque Compliant
Mechanisms,” ASME J. Mech. Rob., 8(6), p. 064503.
[13] Pedersen, C., Fleck, N., and Ananthasuresh, G., 2006, “Design of a Compliant
Mechanism to Modify an Actuator Characteristic to Deliver a Constant Output
Force,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 128(5), pp. 1101–1112.
[14] Chen, Y.-H., and Lan, C.-C., 2012, “An Adjustable Constant-Force Mechanism
for Adaptive End-Effector Operations,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 134(3), p.
031005.
[15] Liu, Y., Zhang, Y., and Xu, Q., 2017, “Design and Control of a Novel Compli-
ant Constant-Force Gripper Based on Buckled Fixed-Guided Beams,” IEEE/
ASME Trans. Mechatronics, 22(1), pp. 476–486.
[16] Wang, P., and Xu, Q., 2017, “Design of a Flexure-Based Constant-Force Xy
Precision Positioning Stage,” Mech. Mach. Theory, 108, pp. 1–13.
[17] Xu, Q., 2017, “Design of a Large-Stroke Bistable Mechanism for the Application
in Constant-Force Micropositioning Stage,” ASME J. Mech. Rob., 9(1), p. 011006.
[18] Qiu, J., Lang, J., and Slocum, A., 2004, “A Curved-Beam Bistable Mecha-
nism,” J. Microelectromech. Syst., 13(2), pp. 137–146.
[19] Chen, G., Gou, Y., and Zhang, A., 2011, “Synthesis of Compliant Multistable
Mechanisms Through Use of a Single Bistable Mechanism,” ASME J. Mech.
Des., 133(8), p. 081007.
[20] Starostin, E., 1987, “Calculating a Cam Profile for a Constant-Force Mecha-
nism,” Sov. Mach. Sci., 4, pp. 69–76.
[21] Duval, E., 2010, “Dual Pulley Constant Force Mechanism,” U.S. Patent No.
7,677,540.
[22] Riley, R., and Carey, D., 1980, “Exercise Machine With Spring-Cam Arrange-
ment for Equalizing the Force Required Through the Exercise Stroke,” U.S.
Patent No. 4,231,568.
[23] Schepelmann, A., Geberth, K., and Geyer, H., 2014, “Compact Nonlinear
Springs With User Defined Torque-Deflection Profiles for Series Elastic
Actuators,” IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation
(ICRA), Hong Kong, China, May 31–June 7, pp. 3411–3416.

Journal of Mechanical Design AUGUST 2018, Vol. 140 / 082302-13

Downloaded From: http://mechanicaldesign.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/27/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 [24] Schmit, N., and Okada, M., 2011, “Synthesis of a Non-Circular Cable Spool to
Realize a Nonlinear Rotational Spring,” IEEE International Conference on
Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), San Francisco, CA, Sept. 25–30, pp.
762–767.
[25] Endo, G., Yamada, H., Yajima, A., Ogata, M., and Hirose, S., 2010, “A Passive
Weight Compensation Mechanism With a Non-Circular Pulley and a Spring,”
IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), Anchor-
age, AK, May 3–7, pp. 3843–3848.
[26] Liu, Y., Yu, D.-P., and Yao, J., 2016, “Design of an Adjustable Cam Based
Constant Force Mechanism,” Mech. Mach. Theory, 103, pp. 85–97.
[27] Liu, Y., Li, D.-J., Yu, D.-P., Miao, J.-G., and Yao, J., 2017, “Design of a
Curved Surface Constant Force Mechanism,” Mech. Based Des. Struct. Mach.,
45(2), pp. 160–172.
[28] Wang, S., and Zhao, R., 2015, “Constant-Force Cylinder Experiment With
Low-Gravity Simulation,” Aircr. Eng. Aerosp. Technol., 87(4), pp. 376–379.
[29] Berselli, G., Vertechy, R., Vassura, G., and Castelli, V., 2009, “Design of a
Single-Acting Constant-Force Actuator Based on Dielectric Elastomers,”
ASME J. Mech. Rob., 1(3), pp. 1–6.
[30] Nathan, R., 1985, “A Constant Force Generation Mechanism,” ASME J. Mech.
Des., 107(4), pp. 508–512.
[31] Howell, L., and Magleby, S., 2006, “Substantially Constant-Force Exercise
Machine,” Brigham Young University, Provo, UT, U.S. Patent No. 7,060,012.
[32] Smith, D., 2005, “Resistive Exercise Device,” National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA), Washington, DC, U.S. Patent No. 6,958,032.
082302-14 / Vol. 140, AUGUST 2018
Downloaded From: http://mechanicaldesign.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 07/27/2018 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
[33] Colosky, P., and Ruttley, T., 2004, “Gravity-Independent Constant Force Resis-
tive Exercise Unit,” U.S. Patent No. 6,685,602.
[34] Lan, C.-C., and Wang, J.-Y., 2011, “Design of Adjustable Constant-Force
Forceps for Robot-Assisted Surgical Manipulation,” IEEE International Confer-
ence on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), Shanghai, China, May 9–13, pp.
386–391.
[35] Wang, J.-Y., and Lan, C.-C., 2014, “A Constant-Force Compliant Gripper for
Handling Objects of Various Sizes,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 136(7), p. 071008.
[36] Wang, P., and Xu, Q., 2017, “Design and Testing of a Flexure-Based Constant-
Force Stage for Biological Cell Micromanipulation,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Sci.
Eng., in press.
[37] Chen, Y.-H., and Lan, C.-C., 2012, “Design of a Constant-Force Snap-Fit
Mechanism for Minimal Mating Uncertainty,” Mech. Mach. Theory, 55, pp.
34–50.
[38] Li-Jun, Z., Tao, L., and Bao-Yu, S., 2008, “Optimum Design of Automobile
Diaphragm Spring Clutch,” IEEE Vehicle Power and Propulsion Conference
(VPPC), Harbin, China, Sept. 3–5, pp. 1–4.
[39] Weight, B., Mattson, C., Magleby, S., and Howell, L., 2007, “Configuration
Selection, Modeling, and Preliminary Testing in Support of Constant Force
Electrical Connectors,” ASME J. Electron. Packag., 129(3), pp. 236–246.
[40] Committee, A. I. H., 1992, ASM Handbook, Vol. 18, ASM International, Mate-
rials Park, OH.
[41] Stoer, J., and Bulirsch, R., 2002, Introduction to Numerical Analysis, 3rd ed.,
Springer, New York.
Transactions of the ASME