PAPERS: Novel Applications of Design for AM

The MechProcessor: Helping Novices Design Printable Mechanisms Across Different Printers

[+] Author and Article Information
Mark Fuge

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
University of Maryland,
College Park, MD 20742
e-mail: fuge@umd.edu

Greg Carmean

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
University of Maryland,
College Park, MD 20742
e-mail: gcarmean@umd.edu

Jessica Cornelius

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
University of Maryland,
College Park, MD 20742
e-mail: jcornel1@umd.edu

Ryan Elder

Department of Computer Engineering,
University of Maryland,
College Park, MD 20742
e-mail: relder@umd.edu

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Design for Manufacturing Committee of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF MECHANICAL DESIGN. Manuscript received February 15, 2015; final manuscript received July 2, 2015; published online October 12, 2015. Assoc. Editor: Carolyn Seepersad.

J. Mech. Des 137(11), 111415 (Oct 12, 2015) (9 pages) Paper No: MD-15-1132; doi: 10.1115/1.4031089 History: Received February 15, 2015; Revised July 02, 2015

Additive manufacturing (AM), or 3D-printing, sits at the heart of the Maker Movement—the growing desire for wider-ranges of people to design physical objects. However, most users that wish to design functional moving devices face a prohibitive barrier-to-entry: they need fluency in a computer-aided design (CAD) package. This limits most people to being merely consumers, rather than designers or makers. To solve this problem, we combine advances in mechanism synthesis, computer languages, and design for AM to create a computational framework, the MechProcessor, which allows novices to produce 3D-printable, moving mechanisms of varying complexity using simple and extendable interfaces. The paper describes how we use hierarchical cascading configuration languages, breadth-first search, and mixed-integer linear programming (MILP) for mechanism synthesis, along with a nested, printable test-case to detect and resolve the AM constraints needed to ensure the devices can be 3D printed. We provide physical case studies and an open-source library of code and mechanisms that enable others to easily extend the MechProcessor framework. This encourages new research, commercial, and educational directions, including new types of customized printable robotics, business models for customer-driven design, and STEM education initiatives that involve nontechnical audiences in mechanical design. By promoting novice interaction in complex design and fabrication of movable components, we can move society closer to the true promise of the Maker Movement: turning consumers into designers.

Copyright © 2015 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.


Dougherty, D., 2012, “The Maker Movement,” Innovations: Technol., Governance, Globalization, 7(3), pp. 11–14. [CrossRef]
Tsai, L.-W., 2010, Mechanism Design: Enumeration of Kinematic Structures According to Function, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
McCarthy, J. M., 2000, Geometric Design of Linkages, Vol. 11, Springer Science and Business Media, New York.
Mruthyunjaya, T., 2003, “Kinematic Structure of Mechanisms Revisited,” Mech. Mach. Theory, 38(4), pp. 279–320. [CrossRef]
Moon, Y.-M., and Kota, S., 2002, “Automated Synthesis of Mechanisms Using Dual-Vector Algebra,” Mech. Mach. Theory, 37(2), pp. 143–166. [CrossRef]
Kota, S., and Chiou, S.-J., 1992, “Conceptual Design of Mechanisms Based on Computational Synthesis and Simulation of Kinematic Building Blocks,” Res. Eng. Des., 4(2), pp. 75–87. [CrossRef]
Chiou, S.-J., and Sridhar, K., 1999, “Automated Conceptual Design of Mechanisms,” Mech. Mach. Theory, 34(3), pp. 467–495. [CrossRef]
Sunkari, R. P., and Schmidt, L. C., 2006, “Structural Synthesis of Planar Kinematic Chains by Adapting a McKay-Type Algorithm,” Mech. Mach. Theory, 41(9), pp. 1021–1030. [CrossRef]
Hoeltzel, D. A., and Chieng, W.-H., 1990, “Knowledge-Based Approaches for the Creative Synthesis of Mechanisms,” Comput.-Aided Des., 22(1), pp. 57–67. [CrossRef]
Chakrabarti, A., and Bligh, T. P., 1994, “An Approach to Functional Synthesis of Solutions in Mechanical Conceptual Design. Part I: Introduction and Knowledge Representation,” Res. Eng. Des., 6(3), pp. 127–141. [CrossRef]
Chakrabarti, A., and Bligh, T. P., 1996, “An Approach to Functional Synthesis of Mechanical Design Concepts: Theory, Applications, and Emerging Research Issues,” Artif. Intell. Eng., Des., Anal. Manuf., 10(4), pp. 313–331. [CrossRef]
Li, C., Tan, S., and Chan, K., 1996, “A Qualitative and Heuristic Approach to the Conceptual Design of Mechanisms,” Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell., 9(1), pp. 17–32. [CrossRef]
Wang, Y.-X., and Yan, H.-S., 2002, “Computerized Rules-Based Regeneration Method for Conceptual Design of Mechanisms,” Mech. Mach. Theory, 37(9), pp. 833–849. [CrossRef]
Radhakrishnan, P., and Campbell, M. I., 2012, “An Automated Kinematic Analysis Tool for Computationally Synthesizing Planar Mechanisms,” ASME Paper No. DETC2012-70737.
Han, Y.-H., and Lee, K., 2006, “A Case-Based Framework for Reuse of Previous Design Concepts in Conceptual Synthesis of Mechanisms,” Comput. Ind., 57(4), pp. 305–318. [CrossRef]
Zhang, L., Wang, D., and Dai, J. S., 2008, “Biological Modeling and Evolution Based Synthesis of Metamorphic Mechanisms,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 130(7), p. 072303. [CrossRef]
Lipson, H., and Pollack, J. B., 2000, “Automatic Design and Manufacture of Robotic Lifeforms,” Nature, 406(6799), pp. 974–978. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Chakrabarti, A., Shea, K., Stone, R., Cagan, J., Campbell, M., Hernandez, N. V., and Wood, K. L., 2011, “Computer-Based Design Synthesis Research: An Overview,” ASME J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng., 11(2), p. 021003. [CrossRef]
Helms, B., Shea, K., and Hoisl, F., 2009, “A Framework for Computational Design Synthesis Based on Graph-Grammars and Function-Behavior-Structure,” ASME Paper No. DETC2009-86851.
Radhakrishnan, P., and Campbell, M. I., 2011, “A Graph Grammar Based Scheme for Generating and Evaluating Planar Mechanisms,” Design Computing and Cognition’10, Springer, Dordrecht, pp. 663–679.
Schmidt, L. C., Shetty, H., and Chase, S. C., 2000, “A Graph Grammar Approach for Structure Synthesis of Mechanisms,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 122(4), pp. 371–376. [CrossRef]
Münzer, C., Helms, B., and Shea, K., 2013, “Automatically Transforming Object-Oriented Graph-Based Representations Into Boolean Satisfiability Problems for Computational Design Synthesis,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 135(10), p. 101001. [CrossRef]
Mavroidis, C., DeLaurentis, K. J., Won, J., and Alam, M., 2001, “Fabrication of Non-Assembly Mechanisms and Robotic Systems Using Rapid Prototyping,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 123(4), pp. 516–524. [CrossRef]
Lipson, H., Moon, F. C., Hai, J., and Paventi, C., 2005, “3-D Printing the History of Mechanisms,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 127(5), pp. 1029–1033. [CrossRef]
Mehta, A. M., DelPreto, J., Shaya, B., and Rus, D., 2014, “Cogeneration of Mechanical, Electrical, and Software Designs for Printable Robots From Structural Specifications,” IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS 2014), Chicago, IL, Sept. 14–18, pp. 2892–2897.
Mehta, A., DelPreto, J., and Rus, D., 2015, “Integrated Codesign of Printable Robots,” ASME J. Mech. Rob., 7(2), p. 021015. [CrossRef]
Coros, S., Thomaszewski, B., Noris, G., Sueda, S., Forberg, M., Sumner, R. W., Matusik, W., and Bickel, B., 2013, “Computational Design of Mechanical Characters,” ACM Trans. Graphics (TOG), 32(4), p. 83. [CrossRef]
Thomaszewski, B., Coros, S., Gauge, D., Megaro, V., Grinspun, E., and Gross, M., 2014, “Computational Design of Linkage-Based Characters,” ACM Trans. Graphics (TOG), 33(4), p. 64. [CrossRef]
Mota, C., 2011, “The Rise of Personal Fabrication,” 8th ACM Conference on Creativity and Cognition (C&C '11), Atlanta, GA, Nov. 3–6.
Fuge, M., Yumer, M. E., Orbay, G., and Kara, L. B., 2012, “Conceptual Design and Modification of Freeform Surfaces Using Dual Shape Representations in Augmented Reality Environments,” Comput.-Aided Des., 44(10), pp. 1020–1032. [CrossRef]
Kara, L. B., D'Eramo, C. M., and Shimada, K., 2006, “Pen-Based Styling Design of 3D Geometry Using Concept Sketches and Template Models,” ACM Symposium on Solid and Physical Modeling (SPM’06), Wales, UK, June 6–8, ACM, New York, pp. 149–160.
Murugappan, S., Piya, C., Ramani, K., and Vinayak, 2012, “Handy-Potter: Rapid 3D Shape Exploration Through Natural Hand Motions,” ASME Paper No. DETC2012-71427.
Design Engineering Lab, “Design Repository,” Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, accessed Apr. 9, 2015, http://design.engr.oregonstate.edu/repo
de Weck, O. L., 2012, “Feasibility of a 5x Speedup in System Development Due to META Design,” ASME Paper No. DETC2012-70791.
Ceylan, D., Li, W., Mitra, N. J., Agrawala, M., and Pauly, M., 2013, “Designing and Fabricating Mechanical Automata From Mocap Sequences,” ACM Trans. Graphics (TOG), 32(6), p. 186. [CrossRef]
Megaro, V., Thomaszewski, B., Gauge, D., Grinspun, E., Coros, S., and Gross, M., 2014, “ChaCra: An Interactive Design System for Rapid Character Crafting,” ACM SIGGRAPH/Eurographics Symposium on Computer Animation (SCA), Copenhagen, July 21–23 http://www.disneyresearch.com/project/chacra/.
Schulz, A., Shamir, A., Levin, D. I., Sitthi-Amorn, P., and Matusik, W., 2014, “Design and Fabrication by Example,” ACM Trans. Graphics (TOG), 33(4), p. 62.
Lau, M., Ohgawara, A., Mitani, J., and Igarashi, T., 2011, “Converting 3D Furniture Models to Fabricatable Parts and Connectors,” ACM Trans. Graphics (TOG), 30(4), p. 85. [CrossRef]
Kalogerakis, E., Chaudhuri, S., Koller, D., and Koltun, V., 2012, “A Probabilistic Model for Component-Based Shape Synthesis,” ACM Trans. Graphics (TOG), 31(4), p. 55. [CrossRef]
Ma, R. R., Belter, J. T., and Dollar, A. M., 2015, “Hybrid Deposition Manufacturing: Design Strategies for Multimaterial Mechanisms Via Three-Dimensional Printing and Material Deposition,” ASME J. Mech. Rob., 7(2), p. 021002. [CrossRef]
Skouras, M., Thomaszewski, B., Coros, S., Bickel, B., and Gross, M., 2013, “Computational Design of Actuated Deformable Characters,” ACM Trans. Graphics (TOG), 32(4), p. 82. [CrossRef]
Calì, J., Calian, D. A., Amati, C., Kleinberger, R., Steed, A., Kautz, J., and Weyrich, T., 2012, “3D-Printing of Non-Assembly, Articulated Models,” ACM Trans. Graphics (TOG), 31(6), p. 130. [CrossRef]
Stava, O., Vanek, J., Benes, B., Carr, N., and Měch, R., 2012, “Stress Relief: Improving Structural Strength of 3D Printable Objects,” ACM Trans. Graphics (TOG), 31(4), p. 48. [CrossRef]
Bochmann, L., Bayley, C., Helu, M., Transchel, R., Wegener, K., and Dornfeld, D., 2015, “Understanding Error Generation in Fused Deposition Modeling,” Surf. Topogr.: Metrol. Prop., 3(1), p. 014002. [CrossRef]
Clemon, L., Sudradjat, A., Jaquez, M., Krishna, A., Rammah, M., and Dornfeld, D., 2013, “Precision and Energy Usage for Additive Manufacturing,” ASME Paper No. IMECE2013-65688.
Hildebrand, K., Bickel, B., and Alexa, M., 2013, “Orthogonal Slicing for Additive Manufacturing,” Comput. Graphics, 37(6), pp. 669–675. [CrossRef]
Nelaturi, S., Kim, W., and Kurtoglu, T., 2015, “Manufacturability Feedback and Model Correction for Additive Manufacturing,” ASME J. Manuf. Sci. Eng., 137(2), p. 021015. [CrossRef]
Rajagopalan, S., and Cutkosky, M., 2003, “Error Analysis for the In-Situ Fabrication of Mechanisms,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 125(4), pp. 809–822. [CrossRef]
Liang, V.-C., and Paredis, C. J., 2004, “A Port Ontology for Conceptual Design of Systems,” ASME J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Eng., 4(3), pp. 206–217. [CrossRef]
Ben-Kiki, O., Evans, C., and Ingerson, B., 2005, “YAML Ain't Markup Language (YAML) Version 1.1,” http://www.yaml.org/spec/1.2/spec.html
van der Meiden, H. A., and Bronsvoort, W. F., 2010, “A Non-Rigid Cluster Rewriting Approach to Solve Systems of 3D Geometric Constraints,” Comput.-Aided Des., 42(1), pp. 36–49. [CrossRef]
Milgram, R. J., and Trinkle, J. C., 2004, “The Geometry of Configuration Spaces for Closed Chains in Two and Three Dimensions,” Homol., Homotopy Appl., 6(1), pp. 237–267. [CrossRef]
Mitchell, S., OSullivan, M., and Dunning, I., 2011, “PuLP: A Linear Programming Toolkit for Python,” The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand, http://www.optimization-online.org/DB_FILE/2011/09/3178.pdf
Eicholtz, M., and Kara, L. B., 2015, “Intermodal Image-Based Recognition of Planar Kinematic Mechanisms,” J. Visual Lang. Comput., 27, pp. 38–48. [CrossRef]


Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

An overview of MechProcessor framework. The user provides a kinematic graph, along with a set of desired default lengths, radii, etc.; (a) a part library containing parametrized kinematic elements is (b) matched to the input graph and adjusted to account for user-specified geometric constraints and (c) machine capabilities, as captured by a calibration test-case. Our framework resolves these constraints and (d) generates a customized stereolithography file tuned to a particular AM machine's capabilities.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Examples of some parametrized parts included in the library, include: rod and bar linkages; cylindrical, revolute, and spherical joints; and involute gear pairs

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

An example of a user-input file for a crank-slider linkage (RRRP). The details inside the boxes indicate details that a user might provide to customize the generated mechanism. Removing these details would cause the algorithm to cascade back to default values. If user-provided values conflict with manufacturability limits from the test in Sec. 3.3., they would be overridden.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

How we progressively resolve ambiguities in the user input (1): (2) Create an undirected mechanism graph, (3) solve for the ideal 2D positions using a geometric constraint solver [51], (4) substitute in user-selected components from the library, if specified, or appropriate defaults given the AM test (Sec. 3.3), (5) create an interface graph from the selected components and optimize build volume using MILP [53], and (6) locally modify the geometry at the selected interfaces to ensure movement when printed

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

For underconstrained systems, we attempt to reduce the mechanism DOF by adding angle constraints starting breadth-first from a randomly selected ground node

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Top: Our manufacturing test-case accurately emulates the performance of joints across three printers: a consumer-grade FDM machine (Flashforge Creator Pro), and two professional-grade FDM machines (Stratasys uPrint SE and Dimension 1200es). Across all tests, the joint clearances decrease monotonically from 0.6 mm to 0.2 mm. Middle: Our algorithms modify the user-specified geometry to match those achievable clearances. The right-hand side shows the same mechanisms, but printed on different printers and then manually positioned so that each mechanism is in a different point in its motion path. Bottom: the yaml input file and printed mechanism for a four-bar linkage and Stephenson type-II linkage.



Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In