壳体零件加工工艺及夹具设计（全套含说明书和CAD图纸）
收藏
资源目录
压缩包内文档预览：
编号：210146413
类型：共享资源
大小：11.65MB
格式：ZIP
上传时间：2022-04-29
上传人：机****料
认证信息
个人认证
高**（实名认证）
河南
IP属地：河南
50
积分
- 关 键 词：
-
壳体
零件
加工
工艺
夹具
设计
全套
说明书
CAD
图纸
- 资源描述：
-
资源目录里展示的全都有，所见即所得。下载后全都有,请放心下载。原稿可自行编辑修改=【QQ：401339828 或11970985 有疑问可加】
- 内容简介：
-
ORIGINAL ARTICLEDeformation control through fixture layout designand clamping force optimizationWeifang Chen&Lijun Ni&Jianbin XueReceived: 2 February 2007 /Accepted: 4 July 2007#Springer-Verlag London Limited 2007Abstract Workpiece deformation must be controlled in thenumerical control machining process. Fixture layout andclamping force are two main aspects that influence thedegree and distribution of machining deformation. In thispaper, a multi-objective model was established to reducethe degree of deformation and to increase the distributinguniformity of deformation. The finite element method wasemployed to analyze the deformation. A genetic algorithmwas developed to solve the optimization model. Finally, anexample illustrated that a satisfactory result was obtained,which is far superior to the experiential one. The multi-objective model can reduce the machining deformationeffectively and improve the distribution condition.Keywords Fixturelayout.Clampingforce.Geneticalgorithm.Finiteelementmethod1 IntroductionFixture design is an important procedure in manufacturingengineering. It is critical to machining accuracy. Aworkpiece should be constrained in a fixture duringmachining with fixture elements such as locators, clamps,and supports. The positions of locators, clamps andsupports should be strategically designed and appropriateclamping forces should be applied. The fixture elementscan be placed anywhere within the candidate regions on theworkpiece surfaces. Clamping force must be large enoughto hold the workpiece during machining. Typically, it reliesheavily on the designers experience to choose the positionsof the fixture elements and to determine the clampingforces. Thus there is no assurance that the resultant solutionis optimal or near optimal for a given workpiece.Consequently, the fixture layout and the clamping forceoptimization become two main aspects in fixture design.The positions of locators and clamps, and the values ofclamping force should be properly selected and calculatedso that the workpiece deformation due to clamping andcutting force is minimized and uniformed.The objective of fixture design is to find an optimallayout or positions of the fixture elements around theworkpiece and optimal clamping force. In this paper, amulti-objective optimization method is presented for thefixture layout design and clamping force optimization.The objective is two folded. One is to minimize themaximum elastic deformation of the machined surfaces,and another is to maximize the uniformity of deforma-tion. The ANSYS software package is used to calculatethe deformation of the workpiece under given clampingforce and cutting force. A genetic algorithm is devel-oped, and the direct search toolbox of MATLAB isemployed to solve the optimization problem. Finally, acase study is given to illustrate the application of theproposed approach.2 Literature reviewWith the wide applications of optimization methods inindustry, fixture design optimization has gained moreinterests in recent years. Fixture design optimizationincludes fixture layout optimization and clamping forceoptimization. King and Hutter presented a method forInt J Adv Manuf TechnolDOI 10.1007/s00170-007-1153-2W. Chen:L. Ni:J. Xue (*)College of Mechanical and Electronical Engineering,Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics,No. 29, Yudao Street,Nanjing 210016, Chinae-mail: optimal fixture layout design using a rigid body model of thefixture-workpiece system 1. DeMeter also used a rigidbody model for the analysis and synthesis of optimalfixture layouts and minimum clamping force 2. Hepresented a finite element method (FEM) based supportlayout optimization procedure with computationally attrac-tive qualities 3. Li and Melkote used a nonlinearprogramming method and a contact elasticity model tosolve the layout optimization problem 4. Two years later,they presented a method for determining the optimalclamping force for a multiple clamp fixture subjected toquasi-static machining force 5. They also presented anoptimal synthesis approach of fixture layout and clampingforce that considers workpiece dynamics during machining6. A combined fixture layout and clamping forceoptimization procedure was presented. Other researchers7, 8 used the FEM for fixture design and analysis. Cai etal. 9 extended the work of Menassa and DeVries 8 toinclude synthesis of fixture layout for sheet metal assembly.Qin et al. 10 established an elastic contact model betweenclamp and workpiece to optimize the clamping force withan objective to minimize the position error of theworkpiece. Deng and Melkote 11 presented a model-based framework for determining the minimum requiredclamping force, which ensures the dynamic stability of afixtured workpiece during machining.Most of the above studies used nonlinear programmingmethods, which seldom gave global or near-global opti-mum solutions. All of the fixture layout optimizationprocedures must start with an initial feasible layout. Inaddition, solutions obtained from these models are verysensitive to the initial feasible fixture layout. The problemof fixture design optimization is nonlinear because there isno direct analytical relationship between the objectivefunction and design variables, i.e. between the machinedsurface error and the fixture parameters (positions of locatorand clamp, and clamping forces).Previous researchers had shown that genetic algorithm(GA) was a useful technique in solving such optimiza-tion problems. Wu and Chan 12 used the GA todetermine the most statically stable fixture layout. Ishikawaand Aoyama 13 applied GA to determine the optimalclamping condition for an elastic workpiece. Vallapuzha etal. 14 used spatial coordinates to encode in the GA basedoptimization of fixture layout. They also presented themethodology and results of an extensive investigation intothe relative effectiveness of the main competing fixtureoptimization methods, which showed that continuous GAyielded the best quality solutions 15. Krishnakumar andMelkote 16 developed a fixture layout optimizationtechnique that used GA to find the fixture layout thatminimized the deformation of the machined surface due toclamping and cutting force over the entire tool path.Locator and clamp positions were specified with nodenumbers. Krishnakumar et al. 17 presented an iterativealgorithm that minimized the workpiece elastic deformationfor the entire cutting process by alternatively varying thefixture layout and clamping force. Lai et al. 18 set up ananalysis model that treated locator and clamps as the samefixture layout elements for the flexible part deformation.Hamedi 19 discussed a hybrid learning system that usednonlinear FEA with a supportive combination of artificialneural network (ANN) and GA. The ANN was used tocalculate workpiece maximum elastic deformation, the GAwas used to determine the optimum clamping forces.Kumar 20 proposed to combine the GA and ANN todevelop a fixture design system. Kaya 21 used the GAand FEM to find the optimal locators and clampingpositions in 2D workpiece and took chip removal effectsinto account. Zhou et al. 22 presented a GA based methodthat optimized fixture layout and clamping force simulta-neously. Some of the studies did not consider theoptimization of the layout for entire tool path. Some ofthe studies used node numbers as design parameters.Some of the studies addressed fixture layout or clampingforce optimization methods but not both simultaneously.And there were few studies taking friction and chipremoval into account. The effects of chip removal andfrictional contact cannot be neglected for achieving amore realistic and accurate workpiece-fixture layoutverification analysis 23, so it is essential to take chipremoval effects and friction effect into account to achieve abetter machining accuracy.In this paper, the friction and chip removal are takeninto account to achieve the minimum degree of themaximum deformation of the machined surfaces underclamping and cutting force and to uniform the deforma-tion. A multi-objective optimization model is established.An optimization process based on GA and FEM ispresented to find the optimal fixture layout and clampingforce. Finally, the result of the multi-objective optimiza-tion model is compared with the single objectiveoptimization method and the experience method for a lowrigidity workpiece.3 A multi-objective optimization model for fixturedesignA feasible fixture layout has to satisfy three constraints.First, the locators and clamps cannot apply tensile forces onthe workpiece. Second, the Coulomb friction constraintmust be satisfied at all fixture-workpiece contact points.The positions of fixture element-workpiece contact pointsmust be in the candidate regions. For a problem involving pfixture element-workpiece contacts and n machining loadInt J Adv Manuf Technolsteps, the optimization problem can be mathematicallymodeled as followsmin max1jj; 2jj;:; j?;:; njj? s?;j 1;2;:;n1Subject tom Fnijj ?ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiF2ti F2hiq2Fni? 03pos i 2 V i ;i 1;2;:;p4where jrefers to the maximum elastic deformation at amachining region in the j-th step of the machiningoperation,ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiXnj1j ? ?2?nvuutis the average of jFniis the normal force at the i-th contact pointis the static coefficient of frictionFti;Fhiare the tangential forces at the i-th contact pointpos(i)is the i-th contact pointV(i)is the candidate region of the i-th contact point.The overall process is illustrated in Fig. 1 to design afeasible fixture layout and to optimize the clamping force.The maximal cutting force is calculated in cutting modeland the force is sent to finite element analysis (FEA) model.Optimization procedure creates some fixture layout andclamping force which are sent to the FEA model too. InFEA block, machining deformation under the cutting forceand the clamping force is calculated using finite elementmethod under a certain fixture layout, and the deformationis then sent to optimization procedure to search for anoptimal fixture scheme.4 Fixture layout design and clamping force optimization4.1 A genetic algorithmGenetic algorithms (GA) are robust, stochastic and heuristicoptimization methods based on biological reproductionprocesses. The basic idea behind GA is to simulate “survivalof the fittest” phenomena. Each individual candidate in thepopulation is assigned a fitness value through a fitnessfunction tailored to the specific problem. The GA thenconducts reproduction, crossover and mutation processesto eliminate unfit individuals and the population evolvesto the next generation. Sufficient number of evolutions ofthe population based on these operators lead to anincrease in the global fitness of the population and thefittest individual represents the best solution.The GA procedure to optimize fixture design takesfixture layout and clamping force as design variables togenerate strings which represent different layouts. Thestrings are compared to the chromosomes of naturalevolution, and the string, which GA find optimal, ismapped to the optimal fixture design scheme. In this study,the genetic algorithm and direct search toolbox of MATLABare employed.The convergence of GA is controlled by the populationsize (Ps), the probability of crossover (Pc) and theprobability of mutations (Pm). Only when no change inthe best value of fitness function in a population, Nchg,reaches a pre-defined value NCmax, or the number ofgenerations, N, reaches the specified maximum number ofevolutions, Nmax., did the GA stop.There are five main factors in GA, encoding, fitnessfunction, genetic operators, control parameters and con-straints. In this paper, these factors are selected as what islisted in Table 1.Since GA is likely to generate fixture design strings thatdo not completely restrain the fixture when subjected tomachining loads. These solutions are considered infeasibleand the penalty method is used to drive the GA to a feasiblesolution. A fixture design scheme is considered infeasible orunconstrained if the reactions at the locators are negative, inother words, it does not satisfy the constraints in equations(2) and (3). The penalty method essentially involvesMachiningProcess ModelFEAOptimizationprocedurecutting forcesfitnessOptimization resultFixture layout and clamping force Fig. 1 Fixture layout and clamp-ing force optimization processTable 1 Selection of GAs parametersFactorsDescriptionEncodingRealScalingRankSelectionRemainderCrossoverIntermediateMutationUniformControl parameterSelf-adaptingInt J Adv Manuf Technolassigning a high objective function value to the scheme thatis infeasible, thus driving it to the feasible region insuccessive iterations of GA. For constraint (4), when newindividuals are generated by genetic operators or the initialgeneration is generated, it is necessary to check up whetherthey satisfy the conditions. The genuine candidate regionsare those excluding invalid regions. In order to simplify thechecking, polygons are used to represent the candidateregions and invalid regions. The vertex of the polygons areused for the checking. The “inpolygon” function inMATLAB could be used to help the checking.4.2 Finite element analysisThe software package of ANSYS is used for FEAcalculations in this study. The finite element model is asemi-elastic contact model considering friction effect,where the materials are assumed linearly elastic. As shownin Fig. 2, each locator or support is represented by threeorthogonal springs that provide restrains in the X, Y and Zdirections and each clamp is similar to locator but clampingforce in normal direction. The spring in normal direction iscalled normal spring and the other two springs are calledtangential springs.The contact spring stiffness can be calculated accordingto the Herz contact theory 8 as followskiz16R?iE?2i9?13fiz13kiz kiy6E?i2?vfiGfi2?vwiGwi?1? kiz8:5wherekiz, kix, kiyare the tangential and normal contactstiffness,1R?i1Rwi1Rfiis the nominal contact radius,1E?i1?V2wiEwi1?V2fiEfiis the nominal contact elastic modulus,Rwi, Rfiare radius of the i-th workpiece andfixture element,Ewi, Efiare Youngs moduli for the i-thworkpiece and fixture materials,wi, fiare Poisson ratios for the i-th workpieceand fixture materials,Gwi, Gfiare shear moduli for the i-th workpieceand fixture materials and fizis thereaction force at the i-th contact point inthe Z direction.Contact stiffness varies with the change of clampingforce and fixture layout. A reasonable linear approximationof the contact stiffness can be obtained from a least-squaresfit to the above equation.The continuous interpolation, which is used to applyboundary conditions to the workpiece FEA model, isFig. 2 Semi-elastic contact model taking friction into accountSpring positionFixture element position12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243444546474849Fig. 3 Continuous interpolationFig. 4 A hollow workpieceTable 2 Machining parameters and conditionsParameterDescriptionType of operationEnd millingCutter diameter25.4 mmNumber of flutes4Cutter RPM500Feed0.1016 mm/toothRadial depth of cut2.54 mmAxial depth of cut25.4 mmRadial rake angle10Helix angle30Projection length92.07 mmInt J Adv Manuf Technolillustrated in Fig. 3. Three fixture element locations areshown as black circles. Each element location is surroundedby its four or six nearest neighboring nodes. These sets ofnodes, which are illustrated by black squares, are 37, 38,31 and 30, 9, 10, 11, 18, 17 and 16 and 26, 27, 34, 41,40 and 33. A set of spring elements are attached to each ofthese nodes. For any set of nodes, the spring constant iskijdijPk2hidikki6wherekijis the spring stiffness at the j-th node surrounding thei-th fixture element,dijis the distance between the i-th fixture element and thej-th node surrounding it,kiis the spring stiffness at the i-th fixture elementlocation.iis the number of nodes surrounding the i-th fixtureelement location.For each machining load step, appropriate boundaryconditions have to be applied to the finite element model ofthe workpiece. In this work, the normal springs areconstrained in the three directions (X, Y, Z) and thetangential springs are constrained in the tangential direc-tions (X, Y). Clamping forces are applied in the normaldirection (Z) at the clamp nodes. The entire tool path issimulated for each fixture design scheme generated by theGA by applying the peak X, Y, Z cutting forces sequentiallyto the element surfaces over which the cutter passes 23.In this work, chip removal from the tool path is takeninto account. The removal of the material during machiningalters the geometry, so does the structural stiffness of theworkpiece. Thus, it is necessary to consider chip removalaffects. The FEA model is analyzed with respect to toolmovement and chip removal using the element deathtechnique. In order to calculate the fitness value for a givenfixture design scheme, displacements are stored for eachload step. Then the maximum displacement is selected asfitness value for this fixture design scheme.The interaction between GA procedure and ANSYS isimplemented as follows. Both the positions of locators andclamps, and the clamping force are extracted from realstrings. These parameters are written to a text file. Theinput batch file of ANSYS could read these parameters andcalculate the deformation of machined surfaces. Thus thefitness values in GA procedure can also be written to a textfile for current fixture design scheme.It is costly to compute the fitness value when there are alargenumber of nodes in an FEM model.Thus itis necessaryto speed up the computation for GA procedure. As thegeneration goes by, chromosomes in the population aregetting similar. In this work, calculated fitness values arestored in a SQL Server database with the chromosomes andfitness values. GA procedure first checks if currentchromosomes fitness value has been calculated before, ifnot, fixture design scheme are sent to ANSYS, otherwisefitness values are directly taken from the database.The meshing of workpiece FEA model keeps same inevery calculating time. The difference among everycalculating model is the boundary conditions. Thus, themeshed workpiece FEA model could be used repeatedly bythe “resume” command in ANSYS.5 Case studyAn example of milling fixture design optimization problemfor a low rigidity workpiece displayed in previous researchpapers 16, 18, 22 is presented in the following sections.Fig. 5 Candidate regions for thelocators and clampsTable 3 Bound of design variablesMinimumMaximumX /mmZ /mmX /mmZ /mmL10076.238.1L276.20152.438.1L3038.176.276.2L476.238.1152.476.2C10076.276.2C276.20152.476.2F1/N06673.2F2/N06673.2Int J Adv Manuf Technol5.1 Workpiece geometry and propertiesThe geometry and features of the workpiece are shown inFig. 4. The material of the hollow workpiece is aluminum390 with a Poisson ration of 0.3 and Youngs modulus of71 Gpa. The outline dimensions are 152.4 mm127 mm76.2 mm. The one third top inner wall of the workpiece isundergoing an end-milling process and its cutter path is alsoshown in Fig. 4. The material of the employed fixtureelements is alloy steel with a Poisson ration of 0.3 andYoungs modulus of 220 Gpa.5.2 Simulating and machining operationA peripheral end milling operation is carried out on theexample workpiece. The machining parameters of theoperation are given in Table 2. Based on these parameters,the maximum values of cutting forces that are calculatedand applied as element surface loads on the inner wall ofthe workpiece at the cutter position are 330.94 N(tangential), 398.11 N (radial) and 22.84 N (axial). Theentire tool path is discretized into 26 load steps and cuttingforce directions are determined by the cutter position.5.3 Fixture design planThe fixture plan for holding the workpiece in the machiningoperation is shown in Fig. 5. Generally, the 321 locatorprincipleisusedinfixturedesign.Thebasecontrols3degrees.One side controls two degrees, and another orthogonal sidecontrolsonedegree.Here,itusesfourlocators(L1,L2,L3andL4) on the Y=0 mm face to locate the workpiece controllingtwo degrees, and two clamps (C1, C2) on the opposite facewhere Y=127 mm, to hold it. On the orthogonal side, onelocator is needed to control the remaining degree, which isneglectedinthe optimalmodel.The coordinateboundsfor thelocating/clamping regions are given in Table 3.Since there is no simple rule-of-thumb procedure fordetermining the clamping force, a large value of theclamping force of 6673.2 N was initially assumed to actat each clamp, and the normal and tangential contactstiffness obtained from a least-squares fit to Eq. (5) are4.43107N/m and 5.47107N/m separately.5.4 Genetic control parameters and penalty functionThe control parameters of the GA are determined empiri-cally. For this example, the following parameter values areFig. 6 Convergence of GA for fixture layout and clamping forceoptimization procedureFig. 7 Convergence of the first function valuesFig. 8 Convergence of the second function valuesTable 4 Result of the multi-objective optimization modelMulti-objective optimizationX /mmZ /mmL117.10230.641L2108.16925.855L321.31556.948L4127.84660.202C122.98962.659C2117.61525.360F1/N167.614F2/N382.435f1/mm0.006568/mm0.002683Int J Adv Manuf Technolused: Ps=30, Pc=0.85, Pm=0.01, Nmax=100 and Ncmax=20. The penalty function for f1and is fv fv 50Here fvcan be represented by f1or . When Nchgreaches 6the probability of crossover and mutation will be changeinto 0.6 and 0.1 separately.5.5 Optimization resultThe convergence behavior for the successive optimizationsteps is shown in Fig. 6, and the convergence behaviors ofcorresponding functions (1) and (2) are shown in Fig. 7 andFig. 8. The optimal design scheme is given in Table 4.5.6 Comparison of the resultsThe design variables and objective function values offixture plans obtained from single objective optimizationand from that designed by experience are shown in Table 5.The single objective optimization result in the paper 22 isquoted for comparison. The single objective optimizationmethod has its preponderance comparing with that designedby experience in this example case. The maximumdeformation has reduced by 57.5%, the uniformity of thedeformation has enhanced by 60.4% and the maximumclamping force value has degraded by 49.4%. What couldbe drawn from the comparison between the multi-objectiveoptimization method and the single objective optimizationmethod is that the maximum deformation has reduced by50.2%, the uniformity of the deformation has enhanced by52.9% and the maximum clamping force value hasdegraded by 69.6%.The deformation distribution of themachined surfaces along cutter path is shown in Fig. 9.Obviously, the deformation from that of multi-objectiveoptimization method distributes most uniformly in thedeformations among three methods.With the result of comparison, we are sure to apply theoptimal locators distribution and the optimal clamping forceto reduce the deformation of workpiece. Figure 10 showsthe configuration of a real-case fixture.6 ConclusionsThis paper presented a fixture layout design and clampingforce optimization procedure based on the GA and FEM.The optimization procedure is multi-objective: minimizingthe maximum deformation of the machined surfaces andmaximizing the uniformity of the deformation. The ANSYSsoftware package has been used for FEM calculation offitness values. The combination of GA and FEM is proven tobe a powerful approach for fixture design optimizationproblems.In this study, both friction effects and chip removaleffects are considered. In order to reduce the computationtime, a database is established for the chromosomes andfitness values, and the meshed workpiece FEA model isrepeatedly used in the optimization process.Table 5 Comparison of the results of various fixture design schemesExperimental optimizationSingle objective optimizationX/mmZ/mmX/mmZ/mmL112.70012.70016.72034.070L2139.712.700145.36017.070L312.70063.50018.40057.120L4139.70063.500146.26058.590C112.70038.1005.83056.010C2139.70038.100104.40022.740F1/N2482444.88F2/N24821256.13f1/mm0.0310120.013178/mm0.0143770.005696Fig. 9 Distribution of the deformation along cutter pathFig. 10 A real case fixture configurationInt J Adv Manuf TechnolThe traditionalfixturedesignmethodsaresingleobjectiveoptimization method or by experience. The results of thisstudy show that the multi-objective optimization method ismore effective in minimizing the deformation and uniform-ing the deformation than other two methods. It is meaningfulfor machining deformation control in NC machining.References1. King LS, Hutter I (1993) Theoretical approach for generatingoptimal fixturing locations for prismatic workparts in automatedassembly. J Manuf Syst 12(5):4094162. De Meter EC (1995) Min-Max load model for optimizing machinefixture performance. ASME J Eng Ind 117(2):1831863. De Meter EC (1998) Fast support layout optimization. Int J MachTools Manuf 38(1011):122112394. Li B, Melkote SN (1999) Improved workpiece location accuracythrough fixture layout optimization. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 39(6):8718835. Li B, Melkote SN (2001) Fixture clamping force optimization andits impact on workpiece location accuracy. Int J Adv ManufTechnol 17(2):1041136. Li B, Melkote SN (2001) Optimal fixture design accounting forthe effect of workpiece dynamics. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 18(10):7017077. Lee JD, Haynes LS (1987) Finite element analysis of flexiblefixturing system. ASME J Eng Ind 109(2):1341398. Menassa RJ, DeVries WR (1991
- 温馨提示:
1: 本站所有资源如无特殊说明，都需要本地电脑安装OFFICE2007和PDF阅读器。图纸软件为CAD,CAXA,PROE,UG,SolidWorks等.压缩文件请下载最新的WinRAR软件解压。
2: 本站的文档不包含任何第三方提供的附件图纸等，如果需要附件，请联系上传者。文件的所有权益归上传用户所有。
3.本站RAR压缩包中若带图纸，网页内容里面会有图纸预览，若没有图纸预览就没有图纸。
4. 未经权益所有人同意不得将文件中的内容挪作商业或盈利用途。
5. 人人文库网仅提供信息存储空间，仅对用户上传内容的表现方式做保护处理，对用户上传分享的文档内容本身不做任何修改或编辑，并不能对任何下载内容负责。
6. 下载文件中如有侵权或不适当内容，请与我们联系，我们立即纠正。
7. 本站不保证下载资源的准确性、安全性和完整性, 同时也不承担用户因使用这些下载资源对自己和他人造成任何形式的伤害或损失。
人人文库网所有资源均是用户自行上传分享，仅供网友学习交流，未经上传用户书面授权，请勿作他用。
川公网安备: 51019002004831号