International Journal of Production Research

International Journal of Production Research
ISSN: 0020-7543 (Print) 1366-588X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tprs20
Geometric error control of workpiece during

drilling through optimisation of fixture parameter
using a genetic algorithm
K. Siva Kumar & G. Paulraj
To cite this article: K. Siva Kumar & G. Paulraj (2012) Geometric error control of
workpiece during drilling through optimisation of fixture parameter using a genetic
algorithm, International Journal of Production Research, 50:12, 3450-3469, DOI:
10.1080/00207543.2011.588616
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2011.588616
Published online: 08 Aug 2011.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 173
View related articles
Citing articles: 3 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tprs20
Download by: [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] Date: 15 February 2016, At: 20:58
International Journal of Production Research
Vol. 50, No. 12, 15 June 2012, 3450–3469
Geometric error control of workpiece during drilling through optimisation of

fixture parameter using a genetic algorithm
K. Siva Kumara and G. Paulrajb*
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Bannari Amman Institute of Technology, Sathyamangalam, India;
b
Department of Production Engineering, J.J. College of Engineering and Technology, Tiruchirappalli, India
(Received 26 July 2010; final version received 13 April 2011)
Fixtures are an essential component of manufacturing and production. They are used to accurately position a
component or workpiece within a machine-tool coordinate system. During material removal, the function of
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 20:58 15 February 2016
the fixture is to ensure the stability of the workpiece which is constrained to meet the design requirements. The
fixture performs this function by providing accurate and repeatable location of the component with respect to
the machine tool, and by resisting motions, deflections, and distortions of the workpiece under the influence
of the cutting forces. Therefore, the focus of this paper is to develop a methodology that analyses and
optimises the fixture parameter configurations using a genetic algorithm (GA) with an ANSYS parametric
design language (APDL) of a finite element analysis that minimises the geometric dimensional tolerance errors
of the final component dimensions. Here, the workpiece is located and constrained in a fixture, as it undergoes
material removal owing to the insertion of a drill bit. The deformations and distortions of the workpiece are
modelled at discrete intervals throughout the drilling process. Three case studies were used to illustrate the
application of the proposed approach. The first explains the methodology used in this research. The second
and third explain the control of deformation and geometric error of the hole in sequential and simultaneous
drilling operations by optimising the fixture parameters using GA. This work minimises the deformation of
the workpiece using a GA–ANSYS integrated tool. Then, the same layouts given by the integrated tool are
used in the experimental setup, and it is found that the errors found in the perpendicularity and circularity of
the drilled holes are minimal when the above geometric dimensional tolerances were checked using a
coordinate measuring machine.
Keywords: deformation; finite element analysis; geometric error
1. Introduction
This paper presents the fixture layout design for machining applications for drilling operations. During the
machining of a workpiece, it should be appropriately located and constrained. Machining fixtures are designed to
constrain a deformable workpiece that is uncovered using the significant machining loads. The fixture ensures that
the dimensions and shape of the machined component are within the required tolerances. Nixon (1971) reported that
approximately 40% of component rejects are due to dimensioning errors that are attributed to poor fixturing design.
Supports and locators are used to reduce the error caused by elastic deformation of the workpiece. The optimisation
of support, locator, and clamp locations is a critical problem in minimising the geometric error in workpiece
Õ
machining. A GA-based approach is developed to optimise fixture layout by integrating ANSYS running in APDL
code to compute the objective function values for each generation.
2. Literature review
Fixture design algorithms that use rigid-body models for the workpiece have been reported (Shirinzadeh 1971, Liu
and Strong 1993, Brost and Goldberg 1994, Varma and Tasch 1995). Here, rigid-body kinematics under various
geometrical constraints is used for designing fixtures that prevent workpiece motions. However, this approach fails
to account for the elastic deformations of the workpiece, as it is exposed to significant machining loads. In addition
to the rigid-body kinematics approach, more recent studies (Liu and Strong 1993, Brost and Goldberg 1994,
Hershkovitz et al. 1996) have addressed fixture optimisation via the minimisation of an objective function mainly
*Corresponding author. Email: pro_pauls@rediffmail.com
ISSN 0020–7543 print/ISSN 1366–588X online

ß 2012 Taylor & Francis
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2011.588616
http://www.tandfonline.com
International Journal of Production Research 3451
based on the reaction forces at the locators and supports. The objective of these studies was to select the clamping
locations associated with statically admissible minimal reaction forces. In those studies, it was hypothesised that
minimising the maximum normal reaction force led to fixturing designs which also minimise the workpiece
deformations in the neighbourhood of regions undergoing machining. Brost and Goldberg (1994) formulated
optimal fixturing designs that minimise the reaction forces at the locators. In this formulation, the workpiece is
modelled as a rigid body, and the deformations induced by the clamping and machining forces are not considered.
Zhang et al. (1995) compared the optimal fixturing designs obtained through rigid-body analysis to fixtures
calculated by elastically deformable workpiece models. Their findings demonstrate that the two formulations result
in substantially different optimal fixturing layouts. Lee and Haynes (1987) and Menassa and DeVries (1991)
employed FE models to, respectively, obtain fixtures that minimise the work done by the clamping and machining
forces, and minimise the displacements of selected nodes of the FE mesh. Pong (1994) introduced frictional contact
elements to the FE models and incorporated formulations that minimise the displacements of selected FE nodes as
well. De Meter (1998) applied optimisation techniques to fixturing design based on contact region loading, where
the workpiece is treated as a rigid body. Here, the selected objective function is the summation of the magnitudes of
the loads in the contact regions. Krishnakumar and Melkote (2000), on the other hand, used genetic optimisation
algorithms to determine the layout of fixtures in which the deformation of the machined surface owing to clamping
and machining forces is minimised over the entire tool path. Liao et al. (1998) optimised fixture layouts by
minimising workpiece deflections owing to clamping forces; nevertheless, the effects of machining forces are not
accounted for. In this model, the deformations of the workpiece and locators are accounted for, and the interface
between the locator and the workpiece is modelled as a surface contact pair. 3-2-l fixturing scenarios are considered,
and FEA is used to solve the deformation field. The deformations of selected nodes constitute the objective function.
In addressing fixturing problems of deformable sheet metal that is neither prismatic nor solid, an N-2-l fixture
design has been proposed by Cai et al. (1996). They report algorithms for finding the best N locating points such
that total deformation of a sheet metal is minimised. These algorithms are based on the N-2-l fixturing scenarios.
Here, FEA models and nonlinear programming are utilised to obtain the optimal fixture layout. Sayeed and De
Meter (1999a) introduced a Mixed Integer Programming (MIP) model for determining the optimal locations of
locator buttons and their opposing clamps for minimising the effect of static workpiece deformations on machined
feature geometric error. This model utilizes a finite element analysis of the workpiece, yet its solution is size-sensitive
to the square of the number of machining response points considered. A technique that makes the MIP model size
strictly proportional to the number of machining response points and alleviates this severe limitation is reported in
Sayeed and De Meter (1999b). Another fixture optimisation algorithm was suggested by De Meter (1998), who
presented fast support layout optimisation (FSLO) models. FSLO determines support locations that minimise the
maximum displacement-to-tolerance ratio of a set of workpiece features subject to machining loads. The
applications of FEM and optimisation techniques have been reported by researchers who minimised workpiece
deformations. Lee and Haynes (1987) first employed the FEM technique to compute the objective function which
was defined as the maximum work done by the clamping and machining forces. Here, the deformation index was the
maximum stress applied on the workpiece. Such studies emphasize the consequence and importance of part
deformation and stress with respect to the necessary number of fixturing elements; however, the methodologies
utilised do not contain a systematic method to optimise the fixture configuration. In the optimum design of fixture
layout outlined by Menassa and DeVries (1991), the optimisation scheme was subdivided into two modules: FEM
and optimisation. In these studies, the objective function was selected as the displacement of surface nodes of the
unmachined workpiece. Pong (1994) utilised the ANSYS software coupled with optimisation algorithms to further
enhance the methodology initiated by Menassa and DeVries (1991) by taking into account the elastic behaviour of
the fixturing components. The objective function used by Pong (1994) also consisted of the displacements of selected
surface nodes. In reality, workpieces are deformable, and therefore the magnitude and directions of the
deformations are a result of the fixture configuration and the action of the cutting and clamping forces. These
deformations clearly affect the dimensions of the machined workpiece and result in part dimensions that deviate
from their nominal values and possibly exceed the allowable tolerances. Moreover, as precision requirements for
parts produced are increased, the effects of workpiece deformations on the machined dimensions are no longer
negligible. Fixtures designed in traditional ways may no longer have the capability of producing high-precision
parts. The considerations of workpiece deformations and the development of mathematical models that predict the
dimensions of the machined surfaces become necessary for fixture layout design for precision machining. The most
realistic and logical approach to minimise the effects of workpiece deformations on workpiece dimensions is to
develop mathematical models which have the capability of predicting the geometry of the machined surfaces upon
3452 K. Siva Kumar and G. Paulraj
completion of the machining process. Wardak et al. (2001a) focused in their paper scientific methods on capturing
the shape and geometry of machined surfaces generated through drilling operations and design of fixtures that
maintain dimensional errors within allowable tolerances. Wardak, et al. (2001b) studied five fixture layouts obtained
under different drilling conditions. The drilling studies include single, sequential, and simultaneous (gang) drilling.
These studies demonstrate the known fact that more frequent setups and longer machining time periods result in
higher workpiece accuracies. The simulations also suggest that the proposed optimal fixturing model developed in
this study can be used to command greater control over the drilling process, resulting in elevated drilling quality.
Kim et al. (2001, 2005) and Kim and Ramulu (2004) reported in their work that the cylindricity (or roundness) of
the drilled holes worsened as the cutting speed and feed rate increased. In this paper, geometric errors of the drilled
hole generated in single and multispindle operations have been studied, and the geometric errors have been reduced
by optimising the fixture parameter using the optimisation techniques of the genetic algorithm (GA).
3. Problem description
There is no direct analytical relationship between the machining error and the fixture layout. The finite element
method can be used to compute the machining error owing to workpiece elastic deformation, and the GA can be
applied to reduce the error by optimising fixture parameters. Since the GA deals with only the design variables and
objective function value for a particular fixture layout, no gradient or auxiliary information is needed (Nixon 1971).
Locators and clamping positions are more influenced in the workpiece deformation/deflection (Siva Kumar et al.
2010). In this paper, GA is applied for optimisation of locator and clamping positions in 3D deformable plate
fixture layout problems. The workpiece side surfaces are used for locating and clamping. Six locators and two
clamps are to be used here. Three locators are positioned on the primary surface; two locators are positioned in one
of the perpendicular surfaces, and one locator is positioned in the tertiary surface of the fixture system. Two clamps
are used to hold the workpiece against the locators. This paper develops the methodology that analyses and
optimises the fixture configurations using GA with APDL for a finite element analysis that minimise the errors of
the final component dimensions. Finally, comparisons between the geometric tolerances of the holes drilled by
sequential and simultaneous drilling operations are obtained using CMM.
4. Procedure for GA
Figure 1 shows the structure of a GA. In GA a set of initial population is generated randomly. The basic steps
involved in the GA are shown below:
(1) initial population: generate random population of chromosomes;
(2) fitness: evaluate the fitness of each chromosome in the population;
(3) test: if the end condition is satisfied, stop, and return the best solution in current population;
Figure 1. Structure of the genetic algorithm.

Figure 2. Illustration of the crossover operator.
(4) new population: create a new population by repeating the previous steps until the new population is
complete.
Establishing the GA parameters is crucial in an optimisation problem because there are no guidelines (Rajendran
and Vijayarangan 2001). The GA contains several operators, e.g. reproduction, crossover, mutation, etc.
4.1 Reproduction
The reproduction operator allows individual strings to be copied for possible inclusion in the next generation. After
assessing the fitness value for each string in the initial population, only a few strings with a high fitness value are
considered in the reproduction. There are many different types of reproduction operators, which are proportional
selection, tournament selection, ranking selection, etc. In this study, tournament selection is chosen, since it has a
better convergence and computational time than any other reproduction operator (Deb 1999). In tournament
selection, two individuals are chosen from the population at random. Then, the string which has the best fitness
value is selected. This procedure is continued until the size of the reproduction population is equal to the size of the
population.
4.2 Crossover
Crossover is the next operation in the GA. This operation partially exchanges information between any two selected
individuals. Crossover selects genes from a parent and creates new offspring (children). Like the reproduction
operator, there exist a number of crossover operators in GA. In a single-point crossover operator which is used in
this paper, both strings are cut at an arbitrary place, and the right-side portions of both strings are swapped among
themselves to create two new strings, as illustrated in Figure 2.
In order to carry out the crossover operation, two individuals are selected from the population at random. Then,
a random number in the range of {0, 1} is generated. If this random number is less than the probability of crossover,
these individuals are subjected to crossover, otherwise they are copied to a new population as they are. Also, the
crossover point is selected at random. The probability of crossover (Pc) is selected generally between 0.6 and 0.9.
4.3 Mutation
This is the process of randomly modifying the string with small probability. The mutation operator changes 1–0 and
vice versa with a small probability of mutation (Pm). The need for mutation is to keep diversity in the population
(Deb 1999). This is to prevent convergence of all solutions in population into a local optimum of solved problem.
Figure 3 illustrates the mutation operation at the seventh bit position. In order to determine whether a chromosome
is to be subjected to mutation, a random number in the range of {0, 1} is generated. If this random number is less
than the probability of mutation, the selected chromosome will be mutated. The probability of mutation should be
selected as very low, as a high mutation will destroy fit chromosomes and degenerate the GA into a random walk.
Pm should be selected between 0.02 and 0.06 (Deb 1998).
(5) replace: use new generated population for a further run of the algorithm;
(6) loop: go to step 2.
GENERATE INITIAL
POPULATION
FITNESS VALUES
EVAULATE THE
FITNESS OF EACH
INDIVIDUAL
LOCATORS AND
CLAMP ING POSITION
YES ARE
BEST
INDIVIDUAL OPTIMIZATION
CRITERIA MET? APDL
CONTROL FILE
NO
ANSYS
SELECTION
RECOMBINATION/ DISPLACEMENT
CROSSOVER
MUTATION FITNESS
Figure 3. Fixture design analysis methodology.
5. Methodology
The flow chart in Figure 3 is a summary of the fixture design analysis methodology developed and used in this work.
In summary, a workpiece geometry is created by ANSYS or by any other solid modelling software which is exported
to ANSYS. The workpiece model is meshed and initial boundary conditions are applied. Then the model is loaded
according to the machining conditions and it is solved to optimise the fixture parameter (position of locators and
clamps, and clamping forces) for minimising workpiece deformation. These activities are done in the control file.
Then fitness value is sent to the optimisation tool and optimised values obtained. The optimised layout given by the
integrated tool (GA-FEA) is used in the experimental set-up.
5.1 Workpiece solid model

The workpiece model is the preliminary point of the analysis. This research currently limits the workpiece geometry to
solids with planar locating surfaces. The workpiece model is created in ANSYS or in any other solid modelling
software which is imported to ANSYS. Figure 4 shows a deformable plate workpiece solid model created in ANSYS.
5.2 Meshed workpiece model

The hexahedral element, with 3dof at each node and linear displacement behaviour, is selected to mesh the
workpiece. SOLID 45 is used for the 3D modelling of solid structures. The element is defined by eight nodes with
3dof at each node and translations in the nodal X, Y, and Z directions. The SOLID 45 element degenerates to a
four-node tetrahedral configuration with 3dof per node. The tetrahedral configuration is more suitable for meshing
non-prismatic geometry, but is less accurate than the Hex configuration. ANSYS recommends that no more than
10% of the mesh should comprise SOLID 45 elements in the tetrahedral configuration. This paper provides a
methodology for describing the shape and dimensions of machined surfaces following machining and incorporates
the effects of removed material on the workpiece deformation state and the dimensions of machined regions. The
essence of the methodology is to predict the location of the series of points that come into contact with the drill bit
outer surface as the drill penetrates through the deformed workpiece. These points are in a deformed state and have
travelled during machining from their original location. The identification of the original location of these points
Figure 4. Solid model of the thin workpiece.

Figure 5. Eight-noded hexahedral element.
will provide the shape and the dimensions of the hole subsequent to machining. In the deformed state, these points
form a perfect cylinder while coming into contact with the drill bit as the drill bit penetrates the workpiece. It is
assumed that the drill bit is rigid. Assuming that the nodes are displaced from their original locations after the
element deforms from coordinates xi, yi to x0i , y0i , there exists a line containing points p0 and q0 on the drill-bit outer
surface, and these points are displaced from positions p and q. Assuming that the curve containing p and q becomes
a straight line containing p0 and q0 , one needs to determine p and q from the knowledge of the coordinates of p0 and
q0 . The coordinates of p0 and q0 are known quantities with respect to a global reference frame. Figure 5 shows an
eight-noded hexahedral element.
5.3 Material properties

The material of the finite element model was specified as Al 6061 with the material properties given in Table 1. Thus,
the above material properties were given as input variables to ANSYS via the ‘Material Property’ menu option.
Table 1. Material properties (Haiyan Deng 2006).
Sample no. Description Properties
1 Workpiece Al 6061
2 Young’s modulus, E 70000 N/mm2
3 Poison ratio, 0.33
4 Yield strength 270 N/mm2
5 Density 2700 kg/m3
6 Static coefficient of friction 0.375
Figure 6. Contact analysis of the work piece, locators, and clamps.
5.4 Contact elasticity model description

Consider a case in which a drilling operation is performed on the workpiece. The workpiece is mounted on the
locators, and an external force is applied on the workpiece through the clamps. As long as there is no other external
force is applied, the contact force generated at the clamp interface with the workpiece will be the same as the applied
clamping force. The sum of all contact forces will then be equal to the applied clamping force. When an external
load such as the cutting force is applied to drill the workpiece surface, the original clamping force will now become
the initial external applied force. This initial force is obtained from the control handle of the clamp.
During the machining process, the contact between the workpiece and the fixture elements results in interactive
forces and pressure distribution at the workpiece–fixture interface. In this work, fixture–workpiece surface-to-
surface contact pairs are modelled using the ANSYS TARGE 170 and CONTA 174 quadratic surface-to-surface
contact elements. Figure 6 shows the contact status of workpiece, locators, and clamping elements.
5.5 Boundary conditions

Locators and clamps define the boundary conditions of the workpiece model. The locators are modelled as area
contact, and clamps are modelled as area pressures.
5.5.1 Locators
To model a rigid locator with the contact area, multiple nodes are fixed within the contact area. A local
coordinate system (LCS) is created on the workpiece surface at the centre of the locator contact area. All three
FtiY Fti
Cutting tool perimeter
Node i
FtiX
Y q
r
Figure 7. Drilling load model.
translational dof of each of the nodes are constrained. This model assumes rigid constraints, but in reality locators
are elastic.
5.5.2 Clamps
The clamps are used to fully constrain the workpiece once it is located. It is common to use multiple clamps and
clamping forces that are generally constant for each clamp. The clamping force (Fcl) is applied through a clamping
mechanism, which moves the plunger that comes into contact with workpiece. Friction is an important factor in
clamping and in locating. In order to model friction, a comprehensive 3D model of the entire workpiece–fixture
system is required, with contact and target surfaces defined at the fixture–workpiece contact areas. The clamping
forces are modelled in ANSYS as surface pressures on contact areas selected within a circular area on the workpiece
surface for a hydraulic clamp. Both clamps are modelled within a circular contact area.
5.6 Loading
The purpose of this research is not to accurately model the machining process, but to apply the torque and forces
that are transferred through the workpiece in machining and to determine the reactions at the boundary conditions
of the workpiece. The forces in a drilling operation include a torque (T) to generate tool rotation, shear force (V)
created by tool rotation at the cutting edge contact for chip removal, and an axial load (P) owing to feeding. The
forces in drilling are time- and position-dependent and oscillatory owing to cutter rotation, since the cutting edge of
the tool is not in constant contact with the workpiece at a particular location. The cutting force increases
monotonically during tool entry and then approaches a steady state. Fluctuations in the cutting force are due to
cutting-tool tooth contact area distribution during rotation. In this study, the torque and thrust forces in feeding are
applied at steady-state loads, since the initial tool entry is not considered. In previous FEA fixture design research,
loads were applied in a steady state. An initial attempt to model the distributed loading using a number of point
loads applied at key points was unsuccessful, owing to limitations in ANSYS. The model involved placing key
points on a local coordinate system created on the machining surface of the workpiece. The key points were located
at exact R, , and Z positions on the cutting-tool perimeter. At each key point, forces were applied to model a
drilling operation. The torque was modelled with tangential forces placed at the outer radius of the cutting-tool
contact area. The tangential couple forces were decomposed into global X and Y components. The axial load was
modelled by applying forces at each key point in the global Z direction. The reason for the failure of this model is
that the key points created on the workpiece surface are geometric entities and are not part of the finite element
mesh, i.e. key points are not nodes. Owing to this limitation in ANSYS, the point load model was modified to apply
loads at existing nodes on the workpiece surface. Figure 7 shows the modified load model for drilling. Notice that
node i is slightly offset from the cutting tool perimeter. Because a node may not exist in the exact location specified
by R, , and Z, the node closest to that location in the local coordinate system is selected, and forces are applied as
point loads with global X, Y, Z components. The user may minimise the distance between a specified coordinate
location and an existing node by increasing the mesh density. The nodes are selected at equivalent intervals on or
near the cutting tool perimeter. At each selected node, global X and Y components of the tangential couple force
(Fti) and axial load component (Fci) are applied. The applied torque is equal to the sum of the tangential forces
multiplied by the cutting tool radius(r). FtiX and FtiY are the global X and Y components of the tangential
force (Fti). Fci is equal to the total axial load (Fc), divided by the number of nodes over which it is applied. A
simplified model entails the use of a single point force normal to the surface of the workpiece to model the cutting
tool axial load and a couple to model the applied torque. A study was conducted to determine whether multiple
point forces applied along the cutting tool perimeter are actually necessary to model the axial load and assess the
validity of the simplified model.
In this work, the GA implemented with a FEM tool, following the static equilibrium condition for each time step
ti, is written in Equation (1):

½K uðti Þ ¼ rðti Þ , for i ¼ 1, 2, . . . , T, ð1Þ
where: K is the structural stiffness matrix; u(ti) is the structural displacement vector; r(ti) is the instantaneous force
vector; and i is the ith time step.
The instantaneous force and displacement vectors may be written as
2 3
r1 ðt1 Þ r1 ðt2 Þ . . . r1 ðtT Þ
6 r ðt Þ r ðt Þ . . . r ðt Þ 7
6 2 1 2 2 2 T 7
½R ¼ 6 6 . . . . .. 7 7 ð2Þ
4 . .. .. . 5
rn ðt1 Þ rn ðt2 Þ . . . rn ðtT Þ
2 3
u1 ðt1 Þ u1 ðt2 Þ . . . u1 ðtT Þ
6 u ðt Þ u2 ðt2 Þ . . . u2 ðtT Þ 7
6 2 1 7
½U ¼ 6
6 .. .. .. .. 7 7, ð3Þ
4 . . . . 5
un ðt1 Þ un ðt2 Þ . . . un ðtT Þ
where n is the total acquisition point quantity.
Rewriting Equation (1):
½K ½U ¼ ½R: ð4Þ
The dof that match the acquisition points present known displacements [U ]a, where: ½Ub
fuðt1 Þgb fuðt2 Þgb . . . fuðtT Þgb , and T is the total
quantity of time steps. The unknown displacements are represented
by [U]b, where½Ua fuðt1 Þga fuðt2 Þga . . . fuðtT Þga . The equilibrium equations can be divided as follows:

½K aa ½K ab ½Ua ½Ra
¼ : ð5Þ
½K ba ½K bb ½Ub ½Rb
Considering that all external forces [R]a are null:

½K aa ½K ab ½Ua ½0a
¼ : ð6Þ
½K ba ½K bb ½Ub ½Rb
Taking the first equation set:
½K aa ½Ua ¼ ½K ab ½Ub ¼ ½0: ð7Þ
So:

½K aa ½Ua ¼ ½K ab ½Ub ¼ R a : ð8Þ
The displacement matrix [U]a is calculated by an algorithm for static solution case based on Saturnino (2004).
6. Geometric error minimisation

To illustrate the optimal design methodology for fixture design analysis, two examples using the developed software
on ANSYS are considered. The first example is a fairly simple example of a thin part considered for multispindle
drilling operation where four holes have to be drilled simultaneously. This example demonstrates how excessive
Locators
Screw
clamp
Base plate
Figure 8. Experimental fixture setup with a sample workpiece.
Table 2. Examples of tolerance definition.
Tolerance Symbol Definitions
Straightness A Condition where an element of a surface or an axis is a straight line.

Flatness A two dimensional tolerance zone defined by two parallel planes within which
the entire surface must lie.
Parallelism The Condition of a surface or axis which is equidistant to all points from a
datum of reference.
Angularity The distance between two parallel planes, inclined at a specified basic angel in
which the surface, axis or center plane of the feature must lie.
True position A zone within which the center, axis or center plane of a feature of size is
permitted to vary from its true (theoretically exact) position.
Roundness A circularity tolerance specifies a tolerance zone bounded by two concentric
circles within which each circular element of the surface must lie, and
applies independently at any plane.
deflection can be reduced by optimisation by using one of the intelligent optimisation techniques (GA). This is
mainly useful when thin castings have to be machined. The second example is a comprehensive one, in which a single
spindle drill is used to drill four holes in sequence. Figure 8 shows the experimental fixture setup with a sample
workpiece.
6.1 Mathematical expression for locating error analysis

The repeatedly used geometric tolerances include flatness, surface profile, angularity, perpendicularity, parallelism,
and position as shown in Table 2. In this research, the position and perpendicularity of the hole on the workpiece in
the fixture system have been considered. In Figure 9(a), the CSp is the theoretical exact fixturing coordinate system,
which is composed of theoretical exact locators and theoretical exact locating features.
6.1.1 Position of a hole

The deviation calculation for position type is little different from that of the other types. The sample
points are derived from the cylinder axis instead of from the surface contour. Referring to Figure 8(b),
(a) (b) (c) P-P’ O
B C P
0.5
ns
C « 0.1 A
P P
P-P O P- P’ O PO
P’ O P’ O
B PO P’ O
A CS P CS P
CS P na na
CS P
Figure 9. Position and perpendicularity of a hole. na
Figure 10. Perpendicularity of a plane.
it has two data and one target of the hole. Figure 8(a) shows the true position and perpendicularity of the hole
(Rong et al. 2001).

tpos
i ¼ P~i Po
~ n~a ð9Þ
TPOS
maxtpos
i
, ð10Þ
2
~ ¼ theoretical exact location point on the axis; P~i ¼ any arbitrary point
where: n~a ¼ unit vector of the datum plane; Po
pos
on the substitute axis; ti ¼ position value of the point P~i ; and TPOS ¼ required position tolerance of the hole
(actually the axis).
6.1.2 Perpendicularity of a hole

The perpendicularity of the hole can be determined using the following analytical solution. Referring to Figure 9(c),
it has one datum and one target of the hole.

tperp
i ¼ P~i P~0 o n~a ð11Þ
Tperp
maxtperp
i
, ð12Þ
2
where: P~0 o ¼ location point on the substitute axis; tperp
i ¼ perpendicularity value of point P~i ; Tperp ¼ required
perpendicularity tolerance of the hole.
6.1.3 Perpendicularity of a plane

The perpendicularity of the plane can be determined using the following analytical solution. Referring to Figure 10,
it has one datum and one target of a plane.
n~s n~a ¼ 0 ð13Þ

tperp
i ¼ n~s P~i P~0 o ð14Þ
Tperp
maxtperp
i
, ð15Þ
2
where: n~a ¼ unit vector in the normal direction of the primary datum plane; n~s ¼ unit vector in the normal direction
of the theoretical exact plane; P~i ¼ any arbitrary point on the substitute plane; P~0 o ¼ centre point of the substitute
axis; tperp
i ¼ perpendicularity value of point P~i ; Tperp ¼ required perpendicularity tolerance of the plane.
Figure 11. Circularity.

Figure 12. Experimental measurement using CMM.
6.1.4 Roundness (circularity)

The roundness or circularity tolerance defines a tolerance zone bounded by two concentric circles so that all the
surface elements lie within this zone. It is generally used to define cylindrical surfaces. For instance, the roundness of
a cylinder is illustrated in Figure 11(a). The tolerance zone is depicted as in Figure 11(b). The roundness for a
cylindrical surface is calculated with the following procedure:
(1) To calculate the best fit cylinder for a given set of points on a cylinder (xi, yi, zi), i ¼ 1, . . . , n, and obtain the
parameters of the axis (a, b, c), the locating point (x0, y0, z0), and the diameter R using the linear least-squares
estimation method (LLSE) (Rice 1988).
(2) To calculate the maximum and minimum distances of all surface points to the fitted cylinder axis. The
roundness circularity tolerance is estimated based on the difference between the maximum and minimum
distances. Figure 12 shows the experimental measurement using CMM.
7. Geometric manufacturing errors

The purpose of optimal fixture configuration design is to provide an alternative expression to evaluate the geometric
errors based on the pointwise deviation presented above. Select a number of points on the machined features of the
workpiece as the critical points of concern. These points may belong to a single feature, for example, as the vertex
points of a flat surface. They belong to multiple features, for example, as the centre points of multiple drilled
m1 Table 3. Machining details.
Sample
s1 no. Description Details
s2
1 Diameter of drill 19.05 mm
2 Material of the drill HSS
3 Material of the workpiece Al-7075
4 Cutting speed (V) 1.16 to 1.67 m/s
m2 5 Spindle speed (S) 1500 rpm
6 Feed 0.2 mm/tooth
Figure 13. Perpendicularity error of the hole axis. 7 Horse power 1
holes (Wang 2002). For a set of m critical points, a direct evaluation of these variations is to use the sum of their
squared magnitudes, such that:
" ¼ yT My ð16Þ
M ¼ G1 AðG1 ÞT , ð17Þ

where
X
m
"¼ sj 2 and ð18Þ
j¼1
" #
X
m I Rj
A¼ : ð19Þ
j¼1
Rj R2j
The positional error of a hole can be described as a directional pointwise error. If the plane perpendicular to the axis
of the hole is represented with two orthogonal unit vectors m1 and m2 at the hole centre sj, then the positional error
of the hole can be described as:

2
2
d2j ¼ ðm1 ÞTj sj þ ðm2 ÞTj sj : ð20Þ
IfPmultiple holes are to be machined in a single fixture setup, it is reasonable to use the sum of the positional errors
ð j d2j Þ of all the holes for a representation of their overall error.
Another example is about the perpendicularity of a hole to a surface shown in Figure 13. According to the
standards, the perpendicularity form error is being evaluated based on the following calculation of the hole centre
point deviations at its end positions s1 and s2:

t ¼ mT1 s1 mT2 s2 : ð21Þ
8. Case study 1
A 3D case study of a component used in this research has been taken from Wardak (1999) for describing the
methodology. A rectangular plate with lx ¼ 38.1 mm (1.5 in), Lx ¼ 76.2 mm (3 in), ly ¼ 50.8 mm (2 in),
Ly ¼ 101.6 mm (4 in), and h ¼ 6.35 mm (0.25 in) is drilled using a drill bit of 19.05 mm (0.75 in) diameter. The
machining detail of case study 1 simulation is given in Table 3. This problem under consideration is solved using
the ANSYS software. The magnitude of the maximum deformation 0.1493 was significant as per Wardak (1999).
The optimum positions of the locators and clamps are given in Table 4. Table 5 shows the simulation GA
parameters for case study 1. Figures 14 and 15 show the convergence of GA for fixture layout and the relationship
Table 4. Optimal position of fixture Table 5. Simulation GA parameters for
element layout (case study 1). case study 1.
Fixture Co-ordinates Variable Value

element (x, y) mm
Probability of 0.05
L1 36.08,3.61 mutation (Pm)
L2 21.70,3.98 Probability of 0.8
L3 73.04,3.48 crossover (Pc)
L4 26.69,63.52 Population size (Ps) 20
L5 48.50,64.57 String length 180
L6 34.16,37.60 Maximum number 50
C1 39.26,3.15 of iterations
C2 58.93,1.51 Machining force, 1000
F1 1000 N Fy (N)
F2 1000 N Clamping force (N) 770
Optimization of GA for fixture layout Von_ stress vs number of generation

0.02 250
Min. objective values
0.018 GA Von_stress
0.016 200
0.014
0.012
Von_stress
0.01 150
0.008
0.006
100
0.004
0.002
0 50
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Number of generation
0
Figure 14. Convergence of GA for the fixture layout of case 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
study 1. Number of generation
Figure 15. Von Mises stress vs generation nos.
between the von Mises stress and number of generations of this case-study problem. Figures 16 and 17 show the
workpiece deformation and von Mises stress in optimal fixture configuration.
9. Case study 2
This example is a practical simple problem where a fixture is designed to drill four holes simultaneously in a thin
square aluminium workpiece (i.e. 100 mm 100 mm 6.35 mm). Figure 18 shows the simultaneous drilling
experimental fixture setup. The fixture design process is to determine the positions of the fixture elements (locators
and clamps) and the reference data to machine and the workpiece. The machining detail of this simulation is given in
Table 6. The positions of these fixture elements along with machining loads created by boundary conditions to
the finite element model are optimised to minimise workpiece deflection based on the FEM simulation. The
constraints on this FEM model are the six fixed displacement constraints on the locators’ location, the two
clamping-point locations, and the four load cases. The optimum positions of the locators and clamps are shown in
Table 7. Table 8 shows the simulation GA parameters for case study 2 and 3. Figures 19 and 20 show the workpiece
deformation and von Mises stress in optimal fixture configuration. Figures 21 and 22 show the convergence of GA
for fixture layout and the relationship between the von Mises stress and number of generations in this case-study
problem.
Figure 17. Von Mises stress of the optimum fixture

Figure 16. Deformation of optimum fixture configuration (case configuration (case study 1).
study 1).
Table 6. Machining details.
Sample
no. Description Details
1 Diameter of drill 7.143 mm

2 Material of HSS
the drill
3 Material of the Al6061
workpiece
4 Cutting 80–100 m/min
speed (V)
5 Spindle 4550 rpm
speed (S)
6 Feed 0.4 mm/tooth
7 Horse power 1
Figure 18. Simultaneous drilling experimental fixture setup.
Table 7. Optimal position of fixture Table 8. Simulation GA parameters

element layout (case study 2). for case studies 2 and 3.
Fixture Co-ordinates Variable Value

element (x,y) mm
Probability of 0.05
L1 57.70, 3.01 mutation (Pm)
L2 22.72, 3.18 Probability of 0.80
L3 66.87, 3.14 crossover (Pc)
L4 15.97, 64.43 Population size (Ps) 10
L5 85.74, 71.81 String length 180
L6 53.98, 26.22 Maximum number 50
C1 60.19, 3.02 of iterations
C2 71.33, 3.08 Machining force, 500
F1 500 N Fy (N)
F2 500 N Clamping force (N) 770
Figure 19. Deformation of optimum fixture configuration

(Case study 2). Figure 20. Von Mises stress of optimum fixture configuration
(Case study 2).
Convergence of GA for fixture layout Von_stress vs generation

0.032 300
Von_stress
GA
250
0.031
200
Objective function
0.03
Von_stress
150
0.029 100
0.028 50
0
0.027 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Generation
0.026
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Figure 22. Von Mises stress vs generation of case
Generation nos study 2.
Figure 21. Convergence of GA for the fixture layout of case study 1.
10. Case study 3

This example is concerned with drilling four holes sequentially in the workpiece. Figure 23 shows the sequential
drilling experimental fixture setup. Here the reference data and fixture element positions are determined by the
initial fixture design, the constraints for solving the FEM model and optimisation for deflection. It will be shown
that an optimal configuration can be achieved by further minimisation of the objective function. Since the loads are
assumed to be the result of drilling holes through the aluminium, the supports should not be directly under them.
For this reason, the global constraint region (GCR) is defined as a square area where the locators are located. The
selection of these constraints depends on practical considerations—for example, how close the size of a support will
limit the supports to each other. In order to demonstrate the robustness of this optimisation scheme, the example of
drilling four holes on the workpiece simultaneously is considered. The objective is to minimise deflection in the
workpiece by finding an optimal location for the fixture elements for all machining load considered simultaneously.
The optimum positions of the locators and clamps are shown in Table 9. Figures 24 and 25 show the workpiece
deformation and von Mises stress in optimal fixture configuration. Figures 26 and 27 show the convergence of GA
for fixture layout and the relationship between the von Mises stress and number of generations in this case-study
problem.
Table 9. Optimal position of fixture element
layout (case study 3).
Fixture Co-ordinates
element (x,y) mm
L1 62.05, 3.11
L2 35.30, 3.13
L3 72.52, 3.01
L4 27.28, 80.88
L5 65.46, 74.91
L6 50.51, 27.05
C1 42.25, 3.04
C2 30.18,3.00
F1 500 N
F2 500 N
Figure 23. Single spindle (sequential) drilling experimental fixture setup.
Figure 24. Deformation of the optimum fixture configuration (case study 3).
Figure 25. Von Mises stress of the optimum fixture configuration (case study 3).
Convergence of GA for fixture layout
0.034
GA
0.033
Objective function
0.032
0.031
0.03
0.029
0.028
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
Generation
Figure 26. Convergence of GA for the fixture layout of case study 3.

Von_stress vs generation
300
250
200
Von_stress
150
100
Von_stress
50
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Generation
Figure 27. Von Mises stress vs generation of case study 2.
11. Results and discussion

The objective of optimisation is to maximise machining accuracy by minimising workpiece deformation. The
locators and clamps satisfy three functional requirements: (1) to locate and stabilize the workpiece; (2) to serve as
supports to minimise workpiece deflections; and (3) to resist the movement of the workpiece against external forces.
The optimisation analysis attempts to satisfy the above functional requirements with the design parameter, the
position of the locators and clamps on the workpiece. The support locations are optimised where workpiece
deflections are minimised, and the locating accuracy is highest with the help of optimised clamping forces. The
model is capable of predicting the error between nominal dimensions and the actual dimensions of the machined
regions by taking into account the elastic behaviour of the workpiece as affected by the fixture component locations
and the given machining loadings. It becomes clear that for optimisation, the capability of the above models of
integrating GA with ANSYS becomes instrumental in developing objective functions, which minimises the error
between the actual machined and nominal dimensions. ANSYS parametric design language batch code is used to
minimise the maximum resultant displacement in the workpiece, by optimising support locations, clamp locations,
and clamping force magnitudes. Table 10 shows the deformation values of the initial and optimum fixture layout of
case studies 1, 2, and 3. Tables 11 and 12 show the CMM measurement for a multispindle and single-spindle drilling
workpiece. When the above two methods of drilling process are compared, it is found that the geometric error is
minimised only in the simultaneous drilling process. It is evident that the geometric dimensional tolerance error of
perpendicularity and circularity error in simultaneous drilling process found to be 88:83:91 and 0.1725 is close when
compared with 88:48:47 and 0.1275 in the sequential drilling process, as shown in Table 13. The von Mises stress at
Table 10. Deformation values of initial and optimum fixture layout of case studies 1, 2, and 3.
Case study 2 Case study 3

Case study 1 (simultaneous drilling) (sequential drilling)
Deformation Deformation Deformation Deformation value Deformation Deformation

value for initial value for value for initial for optimum value for initial value for
fixture optimum fixture fixture fixture optimum
layout (mm) fixture layout (mm) layout (mm) layout (mm) fixture
layout (mm) layout (mm)
0.017575 0.008087 0.029575 0.026693 0.033022 0.028257
Table 11. CMM measurement for a multispindle drilled hole Table 12. CMM measurement for a single-spindle drilled
work piece. hole work piece.
Perpendicular Perpendicular
Hole No Cylindricity Diameter angle Hole no Cylindricity Diameter angle
1 0.056 7.066 89:04:20 1 0.151 7.352 87:25:38

2 0.079 7.127 88:45:16 2 0.050 7.094 89:42:00
3 0.293 7.036 89:45:21 3 0.074 7.115 89:02:12
4 0.262 7.318 88:41:10 4 0.235 7.146 88:24:40
Average 0.1725 7.13675 88:83:91 Average 0.1275 7.17675 88:48:47
Table 13. Comparison of single-spindle drilled hole and multispindle

drilled hole.
Single-spindle
Geometrical Multispindle drilled drilled
analysis work piece work piece
Diameter 7.13675 7.17675

Cylindricity 0.1725 0.1275
Perpendicularity 88:83:91 88:48:47
each support location is compared with the yield stress of the workpiece material, to ensure that the material does
not exhibit plastic deformation during machining. The von Mises stress is treated as a state variable and is not
allowed to exceed the workpiece material yield strength.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Dr Kalyanmoy Deb, KanGal, IIT, Kanpur, for the GA code used in this study.
References
Brost, R. and Goldberg, K., 1994. A complete algorithm for synthesizing modular fixtures for polygonal parts. In: Proceedings of
IEEE Robotics and Automation, San Diego, CA, pp.535–542.
Cai, W., Hu, S.J., and Yuan, J., 1996. Deformable sheet metal fixturing: principles, algorithms, and simulation. ASM Journal of
Manufacturing Science and Engineering, 118 (3), 318–324.
De Meter, E.C., 1998. Fast support layout optimization. International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture, 38 (10–11),
1221–1239.
Deb, K., 1998. Genetic algorithm in search and optimization: the technique and applications. In: Proceedings of International
Workshop on Soft Computing and Intelligent Systems, Calcutta, India, 58–87.
Deb, K., 1999. An introduction to genetic algorithms. Sadhana Journal, 24 (4–5), 293–315.
Deng, H., 2006, Analysis and synthesis of fixturing dynamic stability in machining accounting for material removal effect. Thesis
(PhD), Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta.
Hershkovitz, M., Tasch, U., and Teboulle, M., 1996. Towards a mathematical model of the human grasping quality sense.
Journal of Robotic Systems, 13 (13), 25–34.
Kim, D. and Ramulu, M., 2004. Drilling process optimization for graphite/bismaleimide-titanium alloys stacks. Composite
Structures, 63 (1), 101–114.
Kim, D., Ramulu, M., and Garbini, J., 2001. Hole quality in drilling of graphite/bismalemidetitanium stacks. In: International
SAMPE Technical Conference, 33, 1315–1326.
Kim, D., Ramulu, M., and Pedersen, W., 2005. Machinability of titanium/graphite hybrid composites in drilling. Transactions of
NAMRI/SME, 33 (1), 445–452.
Krishnakumar, K. and Melkote, S.N., 2000. Machining fixture layout optimization. International Journal of Machine Tools and
Manufacture, 40 (4), 579–598.

Lee, J.D. and Haynes, L.S., 1987. Finite element analysis of flexible fixturing system. Transactions of the ASME, Journal of
Engineering for Industry, 109 (2), 134139.
Liao, Y.J., Hu, S.J., and Stephenson, D.A., 1998. Fixture layout optimization considering workpiece-fixture contact interaction:
simulation results. Transactions of NAMRI/SME, 26 (2), 341–346.
Liu, J. and Strong, D., 1993. Survey of fixture design automation. Transactions of the CSME, 17 (4A), 585–611.
Menassa, R.J. and DeVries, W.R., 1991. Optimization methods applied to selecting support positions in fixture design.
Transactions of the ASME, Journal of Engineering for Industry, 113 (4), 412–418.
Nixon, F., 1971. Managing to achieve quality and reliability. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill.
Pong, C.-G., 1994. Optimum fixture layout design. Thesis (PhD), The Pennsylvania State University.
Rajendran, I. and Vijayarangan, S., 2001. Optimal design of composite leaf spring using genetic algorithms. Computers and
Structures, 79 (11), 1121–1129.
Rice, J.A., 1988. Mathematical statistics and data analysis. Pacific Grove, CA: Wadsworth & Brooks/Cole Advanced Books &
Software.
Rong, Y, et al., 2001. Locating error analysis and tolerance assignment for computer-aided fixture design. International Journal
of Production Research, 39 (15), 3529–3545.
Sayeed, Q.A. and De Meter, E.C., 1999a. Mixed integer program model fixture layout optimization. ASME Journal of
Manufacturing Science and Engineering, 121 (4), 701–708.
Sayeed, Q.A. and De Meter, E.C., 1999b. Compliance based MIP model and heuristic for support layout optimization.
International Journal of Production Research, 37 (6), 1283–1307.
Saturnino, L.J.M., 2004. Desenvolvimento de Ferramentas para Definição, Análise e Avaliação de Desempenho de Veı´culos
Automotivos. Thesis (MSc), PUC Minas, Belo Horizonte (in Portuguese).
Shirinzadeh, B., 1993. Issues in the design of the reconfigurable fixture modules for robotic assembly. Journal of Manufacturing
Systems, 12, No.1.
Siva Kumar, K. and Paulraj, G., 2010. Genetic algorithm based deformation control and clamping force optimisation of
workpiece fixture system. International Journal of Production Research, DOI: 10.1080/00207540903499438.
Varma, V. and Tasch, U., 1995. A new representation for robot grasping quality measures. Robotica, 13 (3), 287–295.
Wang, M.Y., 2002. Tolerance analysis for fixture layout design. Assembly Automation, 2 (2), 153–162.
Wardak, K.R., 1999. Optimal fixture design for drilling through elastically deforming plates. Thesis (PhD), University of
Maryland Baltimore County.
Wardak, K.R., Tasch, U., and Charalambides, P.G., 2001a. Optimal fixture design for drilling through deformable plate
workpieces part I: model formulation. Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 20 (1), 23–32.
Wardak, K.R., Tasch, U., and Charalambides, P.G., 2001b. Optimal fixture design for drilling through deformable plate
workpieces part II: Results. Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 20 (1), 33–43.
Zhang, W., Salunk, B., Charalambides, P.G., and Tasch, U., 1995. Optimal fixturing of rigid and deformable bodies. In:
Proceedings of 3rd IEEE Mediterranean Symposium of New Directions in Control and Automation, 1, 208–219.

International Journal of Production Research

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Production Research

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Production Research

ISSN: 0020-7543 (Print) 1366-588X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tprs20

Geometric error control of workpiece during

K. Siva Kumar & G. Paulraj

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2011.588616

Published online: 08 Aug 2011.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 173

View related articles

Citing articles: 3 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Geometric error control of workpiece during drilling through optimisation of

*Corresponding author. Email: pro_pauls@rediffmail.com

ISSN 0020–7543 print/ISSN 1366–588X online

Figure 1. Structure of the genetic algorithm.

Figure 2. Illustration of the crossover operator.

Figure 3. Fixture design analysis methodology.

5.1 Workpiece solid model

5.2 Meshed workpiece model

Figure 4. Solid model of the thin workpiece.

Figure 5. Eight-noded hexahedral element.

5.3 Material properties

Sample no. Description Properties

Figure 6. Contact analysis of the work piece, locators, and clamps.

5.4 Contact elasticity model description

5.5 Boundary conditions

Figure 7. Drilling load model.

6. Geometric error minimisation

Figure 8. Experimental fixture setup with a sample workpiece.

Table 2. Examples of tolerance definition.

Tolerance Symbol Definitions

Straightness A Condition where an element of a surface or an axis is a straight line.

6.1 Mathematical expression for locating error analysis

6.1.1 Position of a hole

Figure 10. Perpendicularity of a plane.

6.1.2 Perpendicularity of a hole

6.1.3 Perpendicularity of a plane

Figure 11. Circularity.

Figure 12. Experimental measurement using CMM.

6.1.4 Roundness (circularity)

7. Geometric manufacturing errors

" ¼ yT My ð16Þ

M ¼ G1 AðG1 ÞT , ð17Þ

Fixture Co-ordinates Variable Value

Optimization of GA for fixture layout Von_ stress vs number of generation

Figure 15. Von Mises stress vs generation nos.

Figure 17. Von Mises stress of the optimum fixture

Table 6. Machining details.

1 Diameter of drill 7.143 mm

Figure 18. Simultaneous drilling experimental fixture setup.

Table 7. Optimal position of fixture Table 8. Simulation GA parameters

Fixture Co-ordinates Variable Value

Figure 19. Deformation of optimum fixture configuration

Convergence of GA for fixture layout Von_stress vs generation

Figure 21. Convergence of GA for the fixture layout of case study 1.

10. Case study 3

Figure 23. Single spindle (sequential) drilling experimental fixture setup.

Figure 26. Convergence of GA for the fixture layout of case study 3.

Figure 27. Von Mises stress vs generation of case study 2.

11. Results and discussion

Case study 2 Case study 3

Deformation Deformation Deformation Deformation value Deformation Deformation

1 0.056 7.066 89:04:20 1 0.151 7.352 87:25:38

Table 13. Comparison of single-spindle drilled hole and multispindle