Bi-objective pareto optimization of centric crank-rocker mechanisms

Figures & data

Figure 1. Crank-rocker limit positions.

Figure 2. Positions of extreme transmission angles.

Figure 3. Link-length ratios vs Δѱ.

Figure 4. Pareto fronts for different angles Δѱ.

Figure 5. Normalized Pareto front for different angles Δѱ.

Figure 6. Normalized Pareto front for Δѱ = 30 deg.

Figure 7. Design alternatives and their output acceleration functions.

Table 1. Summary of the design results.

Pareto point (Figure 6)	Mechanism properties
	Length ratio a	Length ratio b	Length ratio c	Angle µmin
P1	0.2459	0.3973	0.9501	49.4
P2	0.2303	0.5107	0.8901	59.6
P3	0.2179	0.5821	0.8418	63.6
P4	0.1862	0.7193	0.7193	68.9

Table A1. Evaluation matrix.

Alternative	µmin/µlim	a/alim
P1	0.658	0.95
P2	0.794	0.89
P3	0.848	0.842
P4	0.919	0.719

Table A2. Normalized evaluation matrix.

Alternative	µmin/µlim	a/alim
P1	0.406	0.556
P2	0.49	0.521
P3	0.523	0.493
P4	0.567	0.421

Table A3. Weighted normalized matrix.

Alternative	µmin/µlim	a/alim
P1	0.203	0.278
P2	0.245	0.26
P3	0.262	0.246
P4	0.283	0.210

Table A4. Distances to PIS and NIS.

Alternative	Distance to PIS	Distance to NIS
P1	0.080	0.068
P2	0.042	0.065
P3	0.038	0.069
P4	0.068	0.080

Table A5. Closeness to ideal solution and ranking.

Alternative	Closeness Ci	Rank
P1	0.459	4
P2	0.607	2
P3	0.645	1
P4	0.541	3

Data availability statement

The authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article.