Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-ksp62 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-12T03:16:37.331Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Transfer of lightweight design principles from the musculoskeletal system to an engineering context

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 October 2019

Marcel Bartz*
Affiliation:
Institute Product and Service Engineering, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Ruhr-University Bochum, 44801 Bochum, Germany
Eike Uttich
Affiliation:
Institute Product and Service Engineering, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Ruhr-University Bochum, 44801 Bochum, Germany
Beate Bender
Affiliation:
Institute Product and Service Engineering, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Ruhr-University Bochum, 44801 Bochum, Germany
*
Email address for correspondence: marcel.bartz@rub.de
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An important source for technical lightweight design is the human musculoskeletal system. The musculoskeletal lightweight design mainly results from the coordinated interplay of different principles. Prevailing solutions that use musculoskeletal lightweight design principles neglect the coordinated interplay of these principles. Moreover, transfer is limited to isolated principles. Therefore, further potential for lightweight design can be expected. Due to the kinematic similarities of the human extremities to technical systems that can be described as open kinematic chains, in this paper the lightweight design potential is examined by applying the interaction of the aforementioned lightweight design principles to technical systems. A new bioinspired approach is developed, which implements the control and optimization running synchronously in nature in a sequential approach for technology. The bioinspired approach is implemented by coupling multibody simulation and topology optimization in an iterative process. The results of the bioinspired approach show that, compared to a classical approach, mass can be saved and deformations can be minimized. The synthesized geometry is mainly optimized for compressive stresses and therefore easier to manufacture than a bending stiff structure in the classical case. The examinations in this paper do not take application-specific requirements into account. Therefore the application to special technical systems, and furthermore advantages and disadvantages of the new approach are discussed.

Information

Type
Research Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
Distributed as Open Access under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2019
Figure 0

Figure 1. Comparison of the human extremities and an articulated arm robot to demonstrate the kinematic similarity. Difference in the principle of motion generation: Motion due to joint moments in the classic system (left); Drive by tension chords in the bioinspired system (right) (adjusted according to Bartz, Remus & Bender 2018b; Bartz 2019).

Figure 1

Figure 2. Functional adaption (left) and tension chording of a femur bone (right) (Gößling et al.2014; Bartz et al.2016).

Figure 2

Figure 3. The systems examined in this paper: classical system (top); bioinspired system (bottom) (adjusted according to Bartz 2019).

Figure 3

Figure 4. Extension of the classical to a bioinspired approach: The classical approach is supplemented by an iterative procedure by coupling topology optimization and multibody simulation (represented by the dashed arrows) (adjusted according to Bartz et al.2018b and Bartz 2019).

Figure 4

Figure 5. (a) Articulated beam with acceleration moment $M_{1}$;(b) beam with tensile forces induced by tension chords; (c) internal forces on the right section of beam (Bartz 2019).

Figure 5

Figure 6. Bending moments along the beam axis (left); comparison of the mass and strain energy (right) (adjusted according to Bartz 2019).

Figure 6

Figure 7. Normal load distribution along the beam axis (adjusted according to Bartz 2019).

Figure 7

Figure 8. Preliminary designs of the articulated arm robots before applying the classical and the bioinspired design approach (adjusted according to Bartz 2019).

Figure 8

Figure 9. Flow chart of the design calculation: Classical approach (left) with extensions of the bioinspired approach (right) (adjusted according to Bartz et al.2018a; Bartz et al.2018b and Bartz 2019).

Figure 9

Figure 10. Comparison of the movement paths of the classical (left) and the bioinspired system (right). The angular positions of the arm segments are shown in time steps of 0.1 seconds (adjusted according to Bartz 2019).

Figure 10

Figure 11. Assembly of synthesized articulated arm robots: classical system (left); bioinspired system (right) (Bartz 2019).