Hardware/Brainware 2: Elastic Averaging Coupling

Background
Elastic averaging allows for the uncertainty in manufacturing error or dimensional tolerance to
average out. This is useful for rapid fabrication techniques such as additive manufacturing or
laser cutting because there is improved accuracy. Elastic averaging couplings may not have as
high accuracy or repeatability as their deterministic counterparts, but they have higher stiffness
and lower stress. However, the accuracy and repeatability can be improved by increasing the
number of contact points. In an elastic averaging coupling, the repeatability scales as1/√𝑁
where N is the number of contact points (Teo, Slocum “Principle of Elastic Averaging for Rapid
Precision Design”).
Design
Below is the FRDPARRC table for the design of the EAC.

The figure on the left shows the potential

Figure 1 Sketch of the EAC design. The materials / manufacturing
methods could change depending if the base is made out of
medium density fiberboard or aluminum
𝛿
√ 𝛿𝑀 = 4. Since the MDF/ dowel pin interaction is the same for both, it should have the same
𝐴
designs for the initial elastic averaging
coupling (EAC). The first option is a
design with an aluminum base and a laser
cut medium density fiberboard (MDF) and
the second is a MDF laser cut MDF base
and top, both with dowel pins. The
machining error, 𝛿𝑀 , is higher for laser
cutting than for machining (0.0045 v
0.0005 in). The desired accuracy is 𝛿𝐴 = 10
µm. For the laser cut elastic coupling, this
requires N contacts where 𝑁 = √𝑁𝑠 =

stiffness. It’s cheaper, easier, and more time efficient to manufacture two laser cut parts than to
machine one and laser cut the other. So, I went with the latter design. Figure 2 shows the
drawings for the top and base of the EAC. The dowel pins were press fit and glued into the holes.
Figure 3 shows the manufactured system.
Figure 2: Drawings for the EAC. All dimensions are in inches.

Figure 3: Assembled and manufactured EAC

Testing
The x,z repeatability of the EAC was tested (y was assumed to be the same as x) using a dial
indicator as shown in Figure 4.
The results for repeatability are
shown in Figure 6. The stiffness
in the x,y directions was
measured by pushing the center
of the EAC on one side (i.e. x)
and measuring the deflection
using a dial indicator. According
to the UK national archives, the
pushing strength of the index
Figure 4 Measuring the repeatability in the z (left) and x (right) directions. finger by a female aged 21-30 is
approximately 70 N
(http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/www.dti.gov.uk/files/file21830.pdf ).
Therefore, the force applied is approximately 70 N. The set-up is shown in Figure 5. The results
are shown in Figure 6.
 The angular repeatability
was measured by
attaching a laser beam to
the EAC and measuring
the displacement of the
laser pointer after
replacing the top of the
EAC and putting it back
on. The angular
repeatability is shown in
Figure 5 Applying a normal force in the y (left) and x (right) direction to measure the
Figure 6. The moment
stiffness in the x,y direction.
stiffness was measured by
applying a moment to the system. This was done by
applying a push force (70 N) 2.5 in from the center
of the EAC. The change in laser pointer position
from loaded and unloaded is shown in Figure 7. The
angle change was calculated from taking the mean x-
x−displacement
displacement and θ = atan (projection distance).
Using this and Γ = 𝐾𝜃 solve for the stiffness. The
results are shown in Figure 6.

Figure 6 Repeatability, angular repeatability, and

stiffness measurements.

Figure 7: (left) set-up for laser measurement (middle) applying the torque to measure the stiffness. (right) loaded and unloaded
laser spot measurements.
Comparison
The x,y, and moment stiffness was calculated using the information from “Principle of Elastic
Averaging for Rapid Precision Design” by Teo and Slocum. The stiffness was calculated using a
matlab code (provided in dropbox). The calculated stiffness is less than the measured stiffness.
This may be because of the friction in the system and the uncertainty of the applied force. The
stiffness results are shown in Figure 8.

Figure 8 Calculated v measured stiffness for the EAC

The repeatability of the EAC is lower than the repeatability of the KC. This can be improved by
adding more contact points (i.e. 8 instead of four).
𝜎𝑦𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑
In addition, assuming a deflection of 50 µm, the calculated stress ratio is 6.1 – therefore the
𝜎
MDF should not yield under these conditions.