Proceedings of The National Conference

On Undergraduate Research (NCUR) 2011

Ithaca College, New York
March 31 - April 2, 2011
An Investigation into Straight-Line Mechanisms:
Optimizing the Peaucellier Mechanism

Jessica Buckley
Mechanical Engineering
University of San Diego
5998 Alcala Park
San Diego, CA 92110 USA

Faculty Advisor: Dr. Ming Huang

Abstract

Straight-line motion is one of the most integral components to engineering design, from running steam engines and
oil wells to manufacturing parts with straight edges and sides. The drive to maximize production creates a need for
continuously running assembly-line manufacturing comprised of precise, individually optimized components.
While there are several simple straight-line mechanisms, the Peaucellier mechanism uses an eight-link rhomboidal
system with length constraints to create a geometrically necessitated straight line. The purpose of this project is to
optimize the mechanism, identifying the correct ratio of linkage lengths to produce the longest relative line. By
trigonometrically deriving the vertical height and maximum stroke as a function of one angle, the maximum height
can be determined for each parameterization of linkage lengths. Geometric analysis and a series of variable
iterations in Excel will provide a study of the behavior of the mechanism and if it is possible to create an optimal
relative configuration which allows the creation of linkage length standards based on desired stroke length. In
addition to optimal design, another problem of interest is that of motion coordination, namely the velocity of the
mechanism components in relation to the output line speed. Kinematic analysis of the velocity profile on the
optimal mechanism will render the creation of input angular velocity standards based on desired stroke speed.

Keywords: Peaucellier, Straight-line mechanism, Optimization


1. Introduction:

Over the centuries, many different designs and uses of straight-line mechanisms have come into existence, including
the linkage systems of Watt, Chebyschev, and Hoeken. These simple 4-bar linkage systems have varying ranges of
accuracy, output strokes, and performance speeds and have been used successfully over the centuries in applications
such as steam engines, oil wells, and assembly line production. Especially in bulk manufacturing, there is a need for
continuously running machines with parts moving at constant speeds
1
. To maximize efficiency in such applications,
it is necessary to optimize the components, giving them not only the greatest accuracy but also the greatest range of
motion from the smallest possible size. In such a scenario, a mechanism capable of exact straight-line motion
becomes more essential. The Scott-Russell mechanism uses a crank-slider to produce exact linear motion, but it
requires an initial linear guide for the slider to output a straight line. This project analyzes the Peaucellier exact
straight-line mechanism which converts pure rotational motion into pure linear motion with certain geometric
constraints, a fascinatingly simple design created by French mathematician and engineer Charles Nicolas
Peaucellier in 1874
2
. This linkage, in its rhomboidal eight-bar configuration shown in Figure 1 below, produces a
straight line as the input link rotates back and forth, reaching constant velocity as the input link passes the horizontal
position. Although the mechanism dates back more than a century, the lacking dimensional synthesis is clearly
visible, leaving no resolved method of sizing the method to certain specifications
3
. Goals of this investigation
888

include optimizing the mechanism by both position and velocity analysis to create the longest stroke with a
relatively constant velocity to allow the creation of applicable industry standards based on certain desired features.



Figure 1. Peaucellier mechanism: loop closure-based constraints.



2. Methodology and Results:

2.1 Stroke Analysis:

2.1.1 method 1: loop closure-based algebraic method:

A geometric analysis of the mechanism produces the following equations:

x = a + a cos
2
+ c cos
6
+ c cos
7
y = a sin
2
+ c sin
6
+ c sin
7
= a + a cos
2
+ c cos
5
+ c cos
8
= a sin
2
+ c sin
5
+ c sin
8
= b cos
3
+ c cos
7
= b sin
3
+ c sin
7
= b cos
4
+ c cos
8
= b sin
4
+ c sin
8

Substitutions can be made to produce the following four equations:

a + a cos
2
+ c cos
6
= b cos
3
(1)

a + a cos
2
+ c cos
5
= b cos
4
(2)
a sin
2
+ c sin
6
= b sin
3
(3)
a sin
2
+ c sin
5
= b sin
4
(4)

After a series of substitutions and identities, the final equations can be solved in terms of
2
():



(5)


(6)
889


After verifying these equations with geometrically determined solutions for a variety of possible alignments, they
can be accepted as valid. In using these equations, x should always be constant, in accordance with the concept of
the straight-line mechanism. The vertical position, y, is determined as a result of
2
, a, b, and c, with
2
being varied
for each scenario and b and c being chosen in proportion to a. Since the purpose of this analysis is to optimize the
maximum line length (change in y) in relation to the linkages, a can held at 1 while varying the other two linkage
lengths.

2.1.2 method 2: geometrical method:

Background: Geometric Proof



Figure 2. Peaucellier mechanism: geometric constraints.

With the given length constraints, O
1
RQ is similar to O
1
RS, and RQP is similar to RSP, indicating that O
1
, R,
and P are collinear. Using the cosine rule and letting x = O
1
R or O
1
P in respective triangles:


O
1
RQ:
O
1
PQ:


Being as these equations are equal, the two roots of the quadratic are O
1
R and O
1
P, which multiply to give the
third term: , which is constant.


T is the perpendicular bisector of O
1
R, so . Therefore . Since
, the equation can be rearranged as .


The horizontal component becomes x = O
1
P cos () = , which is the constant described by:


(7)


The vertical component is also easily determined, knowing = 2, as:


(8)


890


2.1.3 stroke maximization:

Both of the above methods can successfully produce the same result, and therefore can be used as checks, although
the second is clearly more condensed. The maximum stroke in the Method 1 can be determined for a specified
scenario through Excel iterations: the formula will be impossible to compute if the input angle passes the extreme
configuration, so varying the angle in small increments from 0 to 180 will disclose the maximum y-value (half of
the stroke, assuming the mechanism can pass the horizontal configuration where the input angle is 0) at the largest
reachable angle.
Using Method 2, the maximum stroke can be most easily determined by assuming that the maximum stroke is
reached when the rhombus has collapsed; all b and c links lie on the same line. In this configuration, ,
so the stroke is


. (9)


2.1.4 hypothesis: optimization of b:

In order to optimize movement of the mechanism, the hypothesis adopted was that the entire rhomboidal area should
be used; therefore, it should be compressed in both the parallel and perpendicular directions to rotation. In addition,
the ability of the mechanism to pass the horizontal configuration (
2
= 0) as an axis of symmetry allows the
rotational area and therefore line length to be doubled. For this to work, b is necessarily of equal or greater value to
. If b were less than this value, the rhomboid would collapse perpendicular to rotation before the
horizontal position, thus ending the rotation. If b were greater than this value, the rhomboid would never compress
fully in the perpendicular direction, leaving the remaining area unutilized and excess material to be removed for
optimization. See below.





Figure 3. Hypothetical optimization of b.

2.1.5 optimization of c:

Using the above configuration of b, a series of iterations in Excel was used to analyze the pattern of motion, varying
c and a in separate iterations to attain a sense of the behavior, as
2
was varied from 0 to 180. Interestingly,
changing c with respect to a constant a and b maintaining the ratio did not change the vertical height at a specific
angle at all, Figure 3. It did, however, increase the stroke length by allowing the input link to rotate more fully. The
maximum stroke in the configuration is the limit as c/a approaches infinity, so the stroke would become 2(b+c) and
the input link would approach a rotation of 180 in each direction.

891

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0 50 100 150 200
Y
-
v
a
l
u
e
Input Angle: 2 ()
Range of Input Motion Increases as c/a Increases
a=1, c=1
a=1, c=2
a=1, c=5


Figure 4. Varying c with respect to a.

In holding c constant while varying a in separate iterations, it was clear that the motion did indeed change. Figure
5 clearly displays that vertical position changes for every input angle and a-value. Interestingly, the stroke lengths
are not exceedingly different as a changes, from the 50s for a=5 and a=10 and the 40s for a=2 and a=3. The
difference is the path to get there; especially for a=10, the path is steeper overall, indicating a higher velocity. The
smaller a-values maintain a constant velocity for a longer period of time, but the greater angles they reach
correspond to a much sharper acceleration towards the maximum stroke.


0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 50 100 150 200
Y
-
v
a
l
u
e
Input Angle:
2
()
Velocity Increases as a/c Increases
c=30, a=2
c=30, a=3
c=30, a=5
c=30, a=10


Figure 5. Varying a with respect to c.

Being as the value of a corresponds to the ground link, this is a more practical constraint to be the standard of
optimization, optimizing b and c in relation to a. However, the stroke cannot be truly maximized, preventing the
mechanism from unconstrained optimization.
After the above observations were obtained, the inferred optimization of b was run through iterations and
determined to be false. The stroke was consistently greater in the third case shown in Figure 2, where
. At this point, another method needed to be considered to verify the observations and gain more
insight into the mechanism.

2.1.6 secondary stroke analysis:

Using Method 2, a series of configurations varying both b and c was performed using the expression of stroke
derived previously in Equation 9, .
A general trend of the graph can be seen in Figure 6 below. The y-value corresponds to stroke, and the x-values
correspond to the c-value for a given series b-value. Although specifics are indiscernible, it is clear that there is a
892

definite beginning, end, and maximum to the relationship between b and c; the mechanism can be optimized with
proper constraints.


0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
0 10 20 30 40 50
M
a
x
i
m
u
m

S
t
r
o
k
e
c-value
Stroke as a function of b and c-values
B-VALUES
b=4
b=6
b=8
b=10
b=12
b=14
b=16
b=18
b=20
b=22
b=24
b=26
b=28
b=30
b=32
b=34
b=36
b=38
b=40
b=42
b=44
b=46
b=48
b=50
b=52
b=54
b=56
b=58


Figure 6. Stroke analysis.

The graph above can be simplified by just plotting the maximum stroke for a particular c-value, along with the
corresponding b-value. The b and c variables are essentially interchangeable, which will be addressed further later.

y = 3.9338x + 4.2088
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
0 20 40 60 80 100
M
a
x

S
t
r
o
k
e
c value
Stroke Profile, a=5
Max Stroke,
vary c
b-value at
max


Figure 7a. Stroke profile for a=5.

893

y = 3.8498x + 12.248
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
0 20 40 60 80 100
M
a
x

S
t
r
o
k
e
c-value
Stroke Profile, a=10
Max Stroke,
Vary c
b-value at
max


Figure 7b. Stroke profile for a=10.

y = 3.749x + 21.924
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
0 20 40 60 80 100
M
a
x

S
t
r
o
k
e
c-value
Stroke Profile, a=15
Max
Storke,
vary c
b-value at
max


Figure 7c. Stroke profile for a=15.

These data verify the first data collected in that the stroke will continue to increase as b and c increase, and more
constraints are necessary to determine a unique solution. Velocity analysis will now be employed to create
additional requirements for the optimal mechanism.

2.2 Velocity Analysis

In creating straight-line motion, velocity is also an important consideration, for example in moving a tool across a
work-piece. Therefore, a constant speed is highly desirable. Although the Peaucellier mechanism, along with most
other straight-line mechanisms, has an output stroke of continuously changing velocity, it is possible to create a
constant range of velocities
4
. The velocity at a specific location can be derived by differentiating the y-value
function using either method, with the alternate being used as verification.
Method 2 provides the most straightforward velocity equation:



(11)

The velocity is constant in the horizontal configuration ( = 0), with velocity:


894

(12)


This logically describes velocity as the product of lever arm (x-value) and angular velocity.
To constrain the velocity to a relatively constant range, it is necessary to specify an acceptable velocity variation.
Using equations for constant and varying velocity above, the % difference can be rearranged to give a function of
workable angle:


(13)


Using Equations 8 and 9 for y-value at a specific angle and total stroke respectively, the required maximum stroke
given working stroke and angle is:

(14)

Defining the ground link, a, as an additional constraint leads to the following.


(15)

With the three given constraints of working stroke, working angle, and ground link length, appropriate values of b
and c can be found. Although the original analysis proved that larger b and c values cause a proliferation of the
stroke length, this application is not practical with the correspondingly proliferating velocities. Therefore, relatively
small b and c links within a workable range will suit the scenario and cost less in the supply of materials.

2.3 Case Example:

The following case example provides a practical use of the above analysis. Given a maximum velocity variation of
5%, a working stroke of 1m, and a ground link of .15m, what link lengths should be chosen for b and c?
Using Equation 13,
work
can be calculated as .220 radians (12.6) in the clockwise or counter-clockwise direction
from the horizontal position. Equation 15 can then be used to calculate b
2
-c
2
as 1.358 m
2
. Figure 8 displays the plot
and data table of this equation. Any of these pairs will provide an acceptable construction, but there is no benefit to
choosing larger values, which will merely require more work area and material to be constructed. Without pushing
the limits of acceptability, a good choice would be 1.300m and 0.576m for b and c respectively.

0.000
0.500
1.000
1.500
2.000
2.500
0.000 0.500 1.000 1.500 2.000 2.500 3.000
c
-
v
a
l
u
e
b-value
b
2
-c
2
=1.358 m
2
b (m) c (m)
1.200 0.286
1.250 0.452
1.300 0.576
1.350 0.681
1.400 0.776
1.450 0.863
1.500 0.944


Figure 8. b and c values.
895


2.4 Alternate Configuration:

Another possibility in using the Peaucellier mechanism is the alternate configuration shown in Figure 8 below, in
which c is longer than b, so the mechanism is grounded inside the rhomboidal motion. Since much of the analysis
includes terms of (b-c)
2
, most of the analysis will not change if the lengths are simply interchanged. More analysis
is needed to determine the possible benefits of using the alternate configuration; more space is certainly required,
but the transmission angles may be more usable.




Figure 9. Alternate configuration.


3. Conclusion

This project has delved into an analysis of the motion and configuration of the Peaucellier mechanism as it travels
through its entire range of motion. Although the original goal was to create the maximum stroke possible, it has
resulted that this is not a practical application at all with the exponentially increasing velocities at the limits of
motion. Velocity analysis proved to be much more helpful in determining a useful optimization and description of
the mechanism that will hopefully contribute to industrial use of the mechanism. The next step is to further
investigate the motion of the alternate configuration to see if the behavior is indeed the same, or if there are
unforeseen benefits or drawbacks to using this configuration. Other possible goals of optimization and constraints
include lowest net weight (in terms of material cost), work area, or relationship between ground link and x-value.


4. Acknowledgements

The author wishes to express her gratitude to the ARCS Foundation, the USD Engineering Department, and the
USD Honors Program for help and support in the completion and presentation of research.


5. References

1. Robert L. Norton, Design of Machinery, 4
th
ed. (Boston: McGraw Hill, 2008), 140-145.
2. S. Strandh, A History of the Machine (New York: A&W Publishers, 1979), 67.
3. Evert A. Dijksman, A Four-Fold Generalization of Peaucelliers Inversion Cell, Meccanica31 (Netherlands,
Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1996), 407-420.
4. Robert L. Norton, In Search of the Perfect Straight Line and Constant Velocity Too, Proc. 6
th
Applied
Mechanisms and Robotics Conference, Cincinnati, OH (1999).