A Fast Analytical Method to Compute Optimum Stiffness of Fixturing Locators

S. Jayaram, 6. S.El-Khasawneh, D. E. Beutel

Center for Manufacturing Excellence, Caterpillar Inc., Technical Center - Bldg. K., Mossville, USA
Submitted by M. E. Merchant ( I ) , Center for Manufacturing Excellence,
Caterpillar Inc., Technical Center - Bldg. K., Mossville, USA
Received on January 6,2000

Abstract
Machining fixtures are used to rigidly hold and support workpieces during machining. The quality of the
machined part directly depends on the combined stiffness of the workpiece and the fixture. Low fixture
stiffness causes poor quality parts, while large fixture stiffness causes the fixtures to be expensive and
cumbersome. Finite element models can be used to optimize the fixture stiffness; however these
techniques are computationally expensive for complex workpiece geometries. This paper develops a fast
analytical method for optimizing fixture locator stiffnesses for workpieces that are more rigid than the
fixture elements. The developed methodology is validated through finite element simulations and
experiments.

Keywords: Fixture, Design, Optimization

1 INTRODUCTION
Fixtures are used to accurately and rigidly hold
workpieces during machining. The quality of the
machined part directly depends on the stiffness of the
fixturing elements. Low fixture stiffness contributes to low
stiffness of the part at the machined surface and thus
poor part quality. Large fixture stiffness causes the fixture
to be bulky and increases the cost to build the fixture and
hence increases the manufacturing cost of the part.
Currently, industrial fixtures are mostly designed using
ad-hoc methods by an experienced fixture designer. The
problem with this approach is that the fixtures are
typically over-designedand not optimal.
The current trend in industry is towards making fixtures
that are optimal for a given application. The research
done in the recent past in developing new techniques
and analytical methods should help in the automated
design and development of good quality flexible fixtures.
Chou et al. [1] proposed a mathematical approach based
on screw theory for the automatic configuration of
fixtures for prismatic parts. Menassa et al. [2] proposed
rules for the selection of locating points based on
machining practice and accessibility conditions. Asada et
al. [3] developed an automated system for determining
the optimal layout for reconfigurable fixture elements
using robotic manipulators. Shawki et al. [4] determined
the effect of fixture rigidity on workpiece dimensional
accuracy. Nguyen [5] developed models for stiffness of a
grasped object based on virtual springs at the contact
points. DeMeter [6] presented an algorithm for optimal
layout of locators and clamps and clamp intensities.
However, none of these papers discuss the design of
fixture stiffnesses based on part quality requirements.
The objective of this paper is to develop specifications for
the fixture stiffness based on the required part quality. A
number of error sources can affect the part quality. For
example, the errors on the part can be due to fixturing
stiffness, thermal variations, deformations due to
machining forces, machine tool errors and the stiffness of
the workpiece. The simulation of all these error sources
is not only time consuming but also difficult and requires
a number of simulation inputs. One way to solve this
problem is to use error budgeting and allocate a certain
percentage of the tolerance to the fixture stiffness. The
effective stiffness required at the machined surface can
be translated to the stiffness required for the fixture
elements. The fixture element stiffnesses are passed on
to the fixture builder so that ‘optimum’ dimensions for the
fixture elements can be selected.
By designing the fixtures using the proposed
methodology, the fixtures will not be bulkier than
necessary and hence will contribute to reduced costs. In
addition, a proven fixture design eliminates the need for
trial and error methods to solve fixture stiffness problems
on the shop floor thus resulting in reduced ramp-up and
reduced lead times during manufacturing.
2 MODEL FORMULATION
This paper develops a fast and efficient analytical
method to determine locator stiff nesses based on the
stiffness required at the machined surface locations. In
order to develop this analytical model, the following
assumptions are required:
The workpiece is at least 10 times more rigid than
the fixture elements.
There are exactly six locators (such as a 3-2-1
location scheme) that ensure kinematic part
restraint.
The contact between the locators and the part is
frictionless.
Clamps are modeled as force boundary conditions
and do not affect the part stiffness.
Only the static stiffness is considered (no dynamic
effects).
Deformations are small and hence linearized
modeling applies.

Annals of the ClRP Vol. 49/1/2000 317


Machined Surface
I7
Figure 1: Schematic of the Workpiece Fixture System.
Figure 1 shows a graphical schematic representation of
the workpiece and fixturing locators. The positions and
the surface normals of the locators and machining
surfaces are denoted by pj, nj, Qi and 0, respectively,
where j=lto number of locators (6) and i=l to number of
points on the machined surface (m). The stiffness of the
jth locator along y is denoted by k?. The effective
stiffness normal to the workpiece surface is given by:
k j = k T / ( v j . nJ2
.
'
The objective of this paper is to optimize the stiffnesses
of locators such that the stiffness of the workpiece at the
machined surface is at least kmjn. For example, if the
maximum machining force acting on the workpiece is
fmax, the tolerance requirement on the machined surface
is to/ and 25% of the tolerance is assigned to fixture
deformations, then kmin = fmaJ(0.25foI).
2.1 Forward Problem
The forward problem of determining the stiffness at the
machined surface locations based on known stiffnesses
of the fixturing locators will now be formulated.
The instantaneous kinematic relationship between the
locator deviations, A/ , and the resulting part twist, A x ,
for a rigid part is given by:
AI=JAx, (1)
where, A1 = [611,A ,6/6p and 6/j is the deviation of the jth
locator, & = [6x,6y,6z,~,.sy,apand &, Sy, 62, M , .sy,
and EZ are the rigid body translations and rotations of the
part in the x, and z directions, and
J=[ n1 n6 ]is the Jacobian matrix.
Plxnl hP6Xn6
The force acting on the locators is denoted by
fL = [f,,A ,f61T , where fj is the normal force acting on
the jth locator. The combined force and moment acting
on the part is called a wrench and is denoted by
f, = [ f x , f y , f z . ~ x . m y , m,zwhere
lT fx, fy, fz, m,, my, and
mz, are the forces and moments acting on the part in the
x, y and z directions. Using the principle of virtual work,
f[Al = fJAx , the following equation is obtained:
f, = J ~ K J A X , (2)
where, fL = KAI = KJAx and K = diag(k1,* , k 6 ) .
318
The stiffness of the workpiece at the machined surface
location, q,, can be determined by applying a unit force at
this location and determining the deflection, Adi, normal
to the machined surface. The unit force is used to
compute the wrench, fG, and Equation 2 is then used to
compute Ax. The dot product of the twist Ax and the
vector [oi qi x oilT is used to compute the deflection, Ad;,
and is given by the following equation:
where, ai = J-'Lqi:Oi] = [ali,A ,aGi]T .
Equation 3 can be simplified to the following equation:
Adi = a ; / k l i h i a , $ / k 6 . (4)
Hence, if the stiffnesses of the locators, and the positions
and normals of the machined surface are known, then
the stiffness at the machined surface, IIAd,, can be
computed.
2.2 Inverse Problem (Optimization)
The inverse problem of computing the optimum
stiffnesses of the locators will be solved in this section.
This is based on the minimum stiffness required at the
machined surface, kmjn (or the maximum compliance of
Cmax = 1 lkmin).
For each point, i=l to m, on the machined surface, the
following constraint should be satisfied:
2
Adi = a$Cl iA ia& 5 C,,, , (5)
where, c j = I l k j , is the compliance of the jth locator.
This equation has an infinite number of solutions. The
objective of this problem is to obtain a solution that
provides the smallest values of stiffness for each of the
locators. Hence, the optimization problem can be posed
as the maximization of the product of the compliances
subject to the inequality constraint shown in Equation 5.
This problem can be formulated as the following
unconstrained optimization problem using the Lagrange
multiplier, h:
j=l j=1
The solution of Equation 6 is obtained by using
agi / acj = 0 for j = ?,A ,6 and agi / ah = 0 . This leads
to the following solution:
cj s 9
4aji
j ky 2 Siaji(vj
2 .nj)2k,in, (7)
where, Ti is the number of non-zero terms in ai . If one
of the a j i ' s is equal to zero, then the corresponding
value of cj does not affect the optimization problem and
can be selected based on other constraints.
Equation 7 is used to compute the minimum stiffness for
each locator at different points along the machined
surface. The maximum of these minimums is the
optimum stiffness of that locator.
3 MODEL VALIDATIONS 3.2 Finite Element Simulations
The models developed in the previous sections are A finite element model of the ANClO1 workpiece was
validated in this section using finite element simulations developed using 6836 solid tetrahedral elements. The
and experiments. boundary conditions for locators were modeled by
attaching a spring normal to the surface of contact. As a
3.1 Experimental Setup
frictionless contact is assumed, there are no constraints
The experimental setup used for validations is shown in in the plane of the surface at the locators. The clamps
Figure 2. The workpiece used in the validation was were modeled as force boundary conditions. The
aluminum ANCIOI block. The minimum stiffness of the stiffness at the machined surface was determined by
workpiece, excluding the fixture, was computed using applying a unit load at each of the machined points (MI-
finite element analysis (FEA) to be 100 N/pm. The M4) and then computing the inverse of the deformation
analytical model was developed for the case in which the at those points.
fixture is weaker than the workpiece. Hence, in this The initial measured stiffness of the locators are
experimental setup, the fixture elements were designed k l = 0.98 N/pm, k2 = 1.08 N/pm, k3 = 0.95 N/pm,
to be weaker than 10 N/pm. To validate the model with k4 = 10 N/pm, k5 = 10 N/pm, and k6 = 8 N/pm. The
different values of fixture stiffnesses, the fixture elements
analytical model, finite elements and experiments were
were designed with an ability to control the stiffness of used to estimate the stiffness at each of the four
individual locators. The bottom three locators were machined surface points (MI-M4). These are shown in
designed using a cantilever arm with steel pads placed
Table 2.
underneath. By changing the location of the pads, the
stiffnesses of the individual locators can be controlled. To
ensure kinematic restraint, a 3-2-1 location scheme was
used to locate the workpiece. Three locators were placed
on the bottom surface, two locators on the secondary
side surface and one locator on the tertiary side surface.
There were two clamps on the top surface and one
clamp on the side surface. The positions and normals of
each of these fixture elements are shown in Table 1. To
ensure that each of the fixture elements had a frictionless
point contact with the workpiece, a 5 mm steel ball was
attached to each fixture element between the fixture
element and the workpiece. In order to ensure that the
clamp stiffnesses do not affect the results, a rubber pad
was placed between the clamp and the steel ball.
The machining surface of interest is the top surface of
the ANC101 block. Four representative points on the
machined surface (MI -M4) were selected for analysis as Figure 3: Finite Element Model of ANC101 Block.
shown in Figure 3. The positions and normals of these
points are also shown in Table 1. Based on the part
quality requirements of 250 microns and the maximum
machining force of 90 N that acts on the top surface, the
top surface had a stiffness requirement of 1.5 N/pm in
the Z direction.
Experimental impact hammer tests using a soft tip
hammer and a capacitance gage were used to estimate
the transfer function of the structure at each of the fixture
elements and the machined surface points. The low
frequency portion of the transfer function was used to
compute the value of the static stiffness.

10 MI 90 49 -45 (0,0,1)
11 M2 85 125 -45 (0,0,1)
12 M3 145 50 -45 (0,0,1)
13 M4 145 125 -45 (0,0,1)

Stiffness Goal = 1.5 N/pn

-24.7
3 M3 1.5 1.4 1.4 -9.3 -7.8
4 M4 1.5 1.6 1.9 9.3 20.9
Figure 2: Experimental Setup for ANC101 Block.

319
From Table 2, it can be seen that the correlation between
the values predicted by the analytical model and the
finite element simulations are within 15% and between
the analytical model and the experiments are within 30%.
Since some of the machined surface points did not meet
the design goal of 1.5 N/pm, a redesign of the fixture was
needed. Equation 7 is now used to solve the inverse
problem of optimizing the fixture stiffnesses based on the
design requirement of a minimum stiffness of 1.5 N/pm at
the machined surface. Since all the machined surface
points are on a single surface normal to the z-axis, the
analytical solution indicates that only the stiffnesses of
the three bottom locators contribute to the machined
surface stiffness requirement. The solution of the inverse
problem is k l = 2.6 N/pm, k2 = 1.8 N/pm, and
k3 = 1.4 N/pm. If all the values of the stiffnesses are
greater than these values, then the minimum stiffness
requirement can be achieved.
In order to validate the results of the inverse solution, the
positions of the steel pads on the three bottom locators
were adjusted to modify the stiffness to k l = 2.6 N/pm,
k2 = 2.1 N/pm, k3 = 1.4 N/pm. The results of the
stiffnesses at the four measurement points for the
modified setup are shown in Table 3. From this table, it
can be seen that the stiffnesses at all the measurement
points are greater than 1.5 N/pm. Hence, the inverse
solution procedure was successful in achieving the
design goal of a minimum stiffness of 1.5 N/pm.
I I I I I I
Table 3: Stiffness Measurements - Modified Setup.
The discrepancy between the finite element analysis and
the analytical model is attributed to the error in mapping
the positions of the fixture elements to the closest grid
point on the finite element model. For the experimental
data, it can be seen from Figure 2 that the size of the
capacitance gage limited the distance between the
impact point and the measurement point to about 10 mm.
Hence, some of the differences between the analytical
model and the experimental data are attributed to the
non-collocatednature of experimental data collection and
the model assumption of no friction.
4 DISCUSSION
It should be pointed out that the solution of the inverse
problem is not unique. The inverse problem recommends
a solution that provides the smallest product of the
stiffness values at each of the locators. If the stiffness
values of all the locators are greater than the
recommended values then the design goal is satisfied.
However, if one of the locators has a larger stiffness than
specified by the inverse problem, then it is not necessary
for the other locators to achieve the values indicated by
the inverse problem as long as Equation 5 is satisfied.
Hence, it is possible to trade-off the stiffness of one
fixture element with respect to another.
320
In the above analysis, only the locator stiffnesses were
optimized. By including the stiffnesses of the clamps and
using a pseudo inverse of the Jacobian in Equation 3, it
is also possible to optimize the clamping stiffnesses.
The computation time required for each of the three
methods to optimize the fixture stiffnesses for the
ANC101 block is shown in Table 4. The solution time for
the analytical model only depends on the number of
fixture elements, is independent of the model size and
solves both the forward and the inverse problems. The
solution time for the finite element analysis depends on
the complexity of the finite element model and could
require a large time to obtain a solution. In addition, a
number of iterations are required to solve the inverse
problem. The trial and error experimental method of
determining the fixture stiffnesses can be expensive as it
requires machine down time for setup and testing and
does not guarantee an optimal solution.
I # I Method I Time (sec) I
1 I Analytical 0.1
3 1Experiment - trial & error I 14400.0
Table 4: Comparison of Computation/Solution Times.
5 SUMMARY
This paper develops an analytical solution for
determining the stiffnesses of the fixture locators for a
given stiffness requirement of the workpiece at the
machining surfaces. This methodology can be used to
optimize the fixture stiffnesses for workpieces that are
more rigid compared to the fixture elements. The
analytical method is very fast compared to performing
finite element simulations or performing testing on the
shop floor. The developed analytical model was validated
using finite element analysis and experiments.
6 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We extend our sincere thanks to Dr. Eugene Merchant
for reviewing and sponsoring this paper.
REFERENCES
Chou, Y.-C., Chandru, V., Barash, M. M., 1989, A
Mathematical Approach to Automatic Configuration
of Machining Fixtures: Analysis and Synthesis,
Journal of Engineering for Industry, Transactions of
the ASME, 111/299-306.
Menassa, R. J., DeVries, W. R., 1989, Locating
Point Synthesis in Fixture Design, Annals of the
CIRP, 38/1:165-169.
Asada, H., By, A. B., 1985, Kinematic Analysis of
Workpart Fixturing for Flexible Assembly with
Automatically Reconfigurable Fixtures, IEEE
Journal of Robotics and Automation, RA-1/2:86-94.
Shawki, G. S. A., Abdel-Aal, M. M., 1965, Effect of
Fixture Rigidity and Wear on Dimensional
Accuracy, Int. J. Mach. Tool Des. Res., 5/183-202.
Nguyen, V.-D., 1989, Constructing Stable Grasps,
The International Journal of Robotics Research,
8/1:26-37.
DeMeter, E. C., 1995, Min-Max Load Model for
Optimizing Machining Fixture Performance,
Transactions of the ASME, 117/186-193.