THE EFFECT OF THE INTERACTION OF PART GEOMETRY AND

VIBRATORY FEEDING PARAMETERS ON THE FEED RATE OF PARTS IN A

VIBRATORY BOWL FEEDER

DISSERTATION

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

The Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate

School of The Ohio State University

By

Reza J. Khakbaz-Nejad, M.S.

****

The Ohio State University

2003

Dissertation Committee:
Approved By
Professor Gary Maul, Advisor

Professor Jerald Brevick _______________________

Advisor
Professor Dave Farson Industrial, Welding, and Systems Engineering
Graduate Program
 ABSTRACT

Vibratory bowl feeders (VBFs) are the most versatile devices used in the feeding of small

engineered parts during the part assembly process. VBF technology is mature; industry

has been using VBFs to great effect for over 30 years. Research has not been lacking;

however, the VBF knowledge base lacks a fundamental understanding of the interactions

between the physical characteristics of a part and the various design parameters of a VBF

in relation to optimal performance; where optimum performance is defined as part motion

with the least amount of instability and a maximized effective travel distance. The

objective of this research was to explore these interactions and develop a fundamental

understanding of the principals involved. An experimental apparatus that allowed for the

rapid modification of various VBF parameters was designed, built and used in three

empirical studies. The results of these studies were verified in a traditional commercial

VBF. Classical impact mechanics and high speed digital recordings of part micro-

motions were used to develop a narrative of the pertinent factors involved and their

relationship to the observed phenomenon.

ii
 DEDICATION

This dissertation is lovingly dedicated to my mother; Louise her support,

encouragement, and constant love have sustained me throughout my life.

And to:

Tracey, whose love, support and tolerance lightened my burden and brought true
happiness.

iii
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish to express my deepest gratitude to my advisor, Professor Gary Maul, for

his intellectual support and encouragement which made this work possible, and

for his patience in correcting both my stylistic and technical errors. I am greatly

thankful to Professors Jerald Brevick and Dave Farson for their insightful

comments, practical suggestions and helpful advice.

Special thanks go to my officemates without whose help and tolerance, the

difficulty of this effort would have been greatly increased.

Finally, I want to express my thanks to John, Eric, Bob and Mary, who taught me

the riddle of steel.

iv
 VITA

November 27, 1973 Born – Minneapolis/St-Paul,

U.S.A.

1996 B.S.E. Aerospace Engineering,

University of Michigan, Michigan,
U.S.A.

1999 M.S., Industrial Engineering

The Ohio State University
Columbus, Ohio, U.S.A.

1999 – present Laboratory Instructor and Graduate

Teaching Associate.
The Ohio State University
Columbus, Ohio, U.S.A.

FIELDS OF STUDY

Major Field: Industrial, Welding and Systems Engineering

v
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Abstract………………………………………………………………………………. ii

Dedication…………………………………………………………………………..... iii

Acknowledgments…..……………………………………………………………....... iv

Vita…………………………………………………………………………………… v

List of Tables………………………………………………………………………… xiii

List of Figures.……………………………………………………………………….. ix

List of Symbols………………………………………………………………………. xi

Chapters:

1. Introduction and literature review

1.1 Introduction…………………………………………..………………………. 1
1.2 Overview of Vibratory Bowl Feeders and Related General Literature……… 4
1.3 Part Kinetics and System Modeling……………………………………….…. 12
1.4 Natural Resting Aspects of Parts…………………………………………….. 19
1.5 Orienting Devices and Tooling………………………………………………. 24
1.6 Programmable VBF Research- Flexible Parts Feeding……………………… 35
1.7 Waveform Research………………………………………………………….. 48
1.8 Research Objectives and Organization………………………………………. 54

2. Experimental Organization
2.1 The Experimental Apparatus………………………………………………… 55
2.2 The Experimental System……………………………………………………. 59
2.3 Experimental Parts…………………………………………………………… 61
2.4 Experimental Methodology………………………………………………….. 62

3. The pilot study

3.1 The pilot study……………………………………………………………….. 65

3.2 The effect of track angle……………………………………………………... 68
3.3 The effect of vibration frequency……………………………………………. 70
3.4 The effect of vibration angle………………………………...……………….. 72

vi
 3.5 Statistical Analysis…………………………………………………………… 73

4. Study I

4.1 Study I………………………………………………………………………... 74

4.2 Statistical Analysis…………………………………………………………… 77

5. Study II

5.1 Study II……………………………………………………………………….. 78

5.2 Statistical analysis……………………………………………………………. 81

6. Verification Study………………………………………………………………. 82
7. Analysis…………………………………………………………………………. 85
7.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………... 85
7.2 Trajectory Analysis…………………………………………………………... 85
7.3 Impact Analysis……………………………………………………………… 89

8. Summary, Conclusions, and Future Research

8.1 Summary……………………………………………………………………... 103
8.2 Research Contributions and Conclusions…………………………………… 104
8.3 Future Research……………………………………………………………… 104

APPENDICES
APPENDIX A……………………………………………………………………. 105
APPENDIX B……………………………………………………………………. 107
APPENDIX C……………………………………………………………………. 109
APPENDIX D……………………………………………………………………. 115
APPENDIX E……………………………………………………………………. 119
APPENDIX F…………………………………………………………………….. 121
APPENDIX G……………………………………………………………………. 123
APPENDIX H……………………………………………………………………. 125
APPENDIX I…………………………………………………………………….. 127
APPENDIX J…………………………………………………………………….. 131
APPENDIX K…………………………………………………………………… 138
APPENDIX L……………………………………………………………………. 140
APPENDIX M…………………………………………………………………… 143

Bibliography…………………………………………………………………………..146

vii
 LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

2.1 Summary of experimental apparatus response properties……………….. 58

2.2 Summary of experimental Parts…………………………………………. 64
3.1 Part #1: base-line feed rates for fixed 3û track angle…………………….. 66
3.2 Pilot study: experimental factors and levels……………………………... 66
3.3 Averaged feed rates (in./s.) for 20û vibration angle……………………… 67
3.4 Averaged feed rates (in/s) for 30û vibration angle……………………….. 67
3.5 Averaged feed rates (in/s) for 40û vibration angle……………………….. 67
4.1 Study I: Experimental parts….………………………………………….. 75
4.2 Study I: Averaged Data………..………………………………………… 75
5.1 Study II: Experimental Parts………………………………………….…. 79
5.2 Study II: Averaged Data………………………………………………..... 79
6 Verification Study: Averaged Feed Rate Data…………………………... 83
7.1 Modes of collision………………………………………………………...93
7.2 Part #5: Velocities and Positions at point of impact……………………... 96
7.3 Part #5: Property Constants and Routh’s Quantities……………………...96
7.4 Part #5: Impact Results (l=.833”)………………………………………... 97
7.5 Summary of First Impact Results for Parts of
Varying Length at An=2.49…………………...…………………………. 97
7.6 Simulation Results Summary, Normal Acceleration 1.99 g……………... 99
7.7 Simulation Results Summary, Normal Acceleration 2.49 g……………... 99
B Pre-Built Equipment List ………………………………………………... 108
D.1 Pilot Study Data - 20û Vibration Angle………………………………….. 116
D.2 Pilot Study Data - 30û Vibration Angle………………………………….. 117
D.3 Pilot Study Data - 40û Vibration Angle………………………………….. 118
G Study I Data……………………………………………………………… 124
I.1 Study II Data: 3.45 g……………………………………………………...128
I.2 Study II Data: 3.11 g……………………………………………………...128
I.3 Study II Data: 2.95 g……………………………………………………...129
I.4 Study II Data: 2.64 g……………………………………………………...129
I.5 Study II Data: 2.40 g……………………………………………………...130
K Verification Data: Trials in Seconds, Feed Rate in in./s………………….139

viii
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1.1 The Vibratory Bowl Feeder……………………………………………… 5

1.2 Effect of Vibration Angle, Normal Track Acceleration
and Frequency on Conveying Velocity………………………………….. 8
2.1 Experimental Apparatus, as Modeled….......................................….……. 56
2.2 Experimental Apparatus, as Built..…………………………………….… 57
2.3 (a) System Impulse Response with Plastic Track
(b) FFT of Impulse Waveform (43hz max)…...………………….……… 58
2.4 (a) System Impulse Response with Aluminum Track
(b) FFT of Impulse Waveform (36hz max)………...……………………. 58
2.5 Block Diagram Overview of Experimental System………………………60
2.6 Experimental System………………………………………….…………. 61
3.1 Normal Acceleration (Averaged) vs. Vibration Angle…...……………… 68
3.2 Feed rate vs. Track Angle…………….………………………………….. 69
3.3 Percentage Difference in Feed Rate vs. Track Angle……...…….………. 70
3.4 Feed Rate vs. Vibration Frequency………..……………..……………….71
3.5 Percentage Difference of Feed Rate vs. Frequency……………………… 71
3.6 FV vs. Vibration Frequency……...………………………….……………72
3.7 Percentage Difference of Feed Rate vs. Vibration Angle………………...73
4.1 Study I: Feed Rate vs. Length…..………………………………………...76
4.2 Study I: Feed Rate vs. Width……….…………………………………… 76
4.3 Study I: Feed Rate vs. Height….………………………………………... 77
5.1 Study II: Feed Rate vs. Normal Acceleration …………………………… 80
5.2 Study II: Feed Rate vs. Length…………………………………………... 80
6.1 Verification Study: Feed Rate vs. Length………………………………...83
6.2 Verification Study: Feed Rate vs. Normal Acceleration………………… 84
7.1 Sequence of Motions for 1.75” Part at 1.68 g Normal Acceleration…….. 86
7.2 Sequence of Motions for .833” Part at 1.68 g Normal Acceleration…….. 87
7.3 Motion of Part and Track Normal Acceleration of 1.99 g………………..89
7.4 Instabilities of the Shorter Part: 1.68 g…………………………………... 100
7.5 Impact Simulation, Part #3, 2.49 g Normal Acceleration………………...101
7.6 Feed Rate vs. Moment of Inertia: Study II……………………………… 101
7.7 Feed Rate vs. Moment of Inertia: Verification Data……………………...102

ix
A Infrared Transmitter and Receiver Circuits……………………………… 107
C.1 Angle Measurement VI…………………………………………………...111
C.2 Electromagnet Control VI…………………………...…………………....112
C.3 Infrared Gate Feed Rate Measurement VI……………………………….. 113
C.4 ADXL250 Calibration VI………………………………………………... 114
C.5 Acceleration and Frequency Verification VI….………………….………115
E FV vs. Vibration Frequency, Pilot Study…………………………………121
F Response Surface Regression, Pilot Study………………………………. 123
H Study I Regression Analysis…………………………………………….. 127
J.1 Study II: Regression Analysis 2.4 g Normal Acceleration………...…….. 133
J.2 Study II: Regression Analysis 2.64 g Normal Acceleration………...…… 134
J.3 Study II: Regression Analysis 2.95 g Normal Acceleration………….….. 135
J.4 Study II: Regression Analysis 3.11 g Normal 136
Acceleration………..……..
J.5 Study II: Regression Analysis 3.45 g Normal Acceleration…….....…….. 137
J.6 Study II: Response Surface Regression………………………………….. 138
M Parallelepiped……………………………………………………………..144

x
 LIST OF SYMBOLS

Symbol Meaning

ao Amplitude of the track vibration

An Normal track acceleration
B1,B2,B3 Constants dependent on the geometry and mass properties of the colliding systems
Co initial relative normal compression velocity
C Normal component of the final relative velocity of the part
gn Normal component of gravity
I Moment of inertial
m Part mass
Px Tangential impulse
Py Normal impulse
So Initial relative tangential sliding velocity
S Tangential component of the final relative velocity of the part
s Sign of the initial sliding velocity So
vm Part Mean conveying velocity
x x component of the center of mass of the part relative to the point of contact
y y component of the center of mass of the part relative to the point of contact
θ Track inclination angle
⋅ Initial angular velocity of the part at contact
θo.
ψ Vibration angle
µs Coefficient of static friction
µd Coefficient of dynamic friction
ƒ Vibration frequency
ks Leaf string stiffness
⋅ x component of the initial linear velocity of part at contact
xo
⋅ y component of the initial linear velocity of part at contact
yo
⋅ x component of the initial linear velocity of track at contact
x ot
⋅ y component of the initial linear velocity of track at contact
y ot
ω Angular frequency of vibration

xi
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION AND LITURATURE REVIEW

1.1 Introduction

The advent of assembly line technology irrevocably changed the world. Previously, the

complete assembly of a product was carried out by a single operator. For most skilled

trades such as clock making or gunsmithing, this operator also manufactured the

individual component parts of the assembly. This meant that each operator had to master

many independent skills; resulting in long apprenticeships, and low overall production

volumes. The ‘free market’ ideal pioneered by Adam Smith could not be implemented

until a means of satisfying demand could be met. Adam Smith would not live to see the

world stand in awe of Eli Whitney’s interchangeable musket locks, or Oliver Evan’s

conception of conveying materials from one place to another without manual effort, but

his ideals inspired them, and the dozens of pioneers that followed. The introduction of

machines removed human skill from the manufacturing equation; a great number of high

quality nearly identical parts could be made quickly and inexpensively. No longer would

the market be strictly ruled by supply. Eventually, with the brilliant efforts of men like

Elihu Root, Fredrick Winslow Taylor and Henry Ford, the assembly process would be

polished. The ideal of “divided work multiplies the output” took hold; assembly work

1
was reduced to very basic operations that required minimal training to produce high

efficiency output.

Indeed, it might be argued that these advances were too successful. Large assembly

operations, like the manufacturing of automobiles, became mind-bogglingly complex.

Workers were expected to keep up with increasingly faster machines, industrial accidents

were common place with no recourse for those injured or killed, OSHA did not exist. As

the Victorian era came to a close, special machines for assembly were beginning to make

an appearance. The parts to be assembled were presented to the assembly machines,

which early on, were most likely to be humans, by parts feeders. The advent of, even

primitive, automation: improved part quality; increased productivity through faster cycle

times; increased yield (less rework and scrap); reduced labor costs, and improved worker

safety [1]. Some four decades later, industrial manipulators and automated work cells

were developed in order to increase the flexibility of automated assembly. With the

advent of the computer revolution, improved robotic control and integrated automated

works-cells were assembled into factory-wide assembly networks.

With these modern assembly methods came the means to analyze their effectiveness.

Various statistical methods for quality control were quickly developed. These methods

continuously enhanced the manufacturing process, fine tuning and optimizing every

aspect of production. If the processes could be tightly controlled, higher quality, lower

cost, and more uniform products could be produced to satiate the world’s ever growing

hunger for manufactured goods.

2
Specialized assembly machines are generally not cost effective for small-to-medium

production operations. Instead, flexible automatic assembly systems are used. These

systems have the advantage of re-programmability, when one product has completed its

production cycle, the machine can be set-up to run the next. An automated flexible

assembly system usually consists of a manipulator, a feeding system, including one or

more part feeding devices, and a part transfer system. Reprogramming the system usually

means altering the configuration of the manipulator and the parts feeders within the

feeding system. Since the next production run usually consists of a similar product;

generally, only the feeder system is retooled. Re-tooling for alternate production can

consume considerable financial and temporal resources; hence, great intellectual effort

has been expended on the development of parts feeders.

A parts feeder can be defined as any device that receives a number of randomly oriented

parts at its input and delivers parts in a unique orientation at its output [2]. In general,

parts feeders can be divided into two categories based on the underlying motive force:

either vibratory or non-vibratory. Non-vibratory parts feeders are generally proprietary in

nature and are employed in long production run scenarios. Vibratory feeders tend to be

generic in nature and are further broken down into linear and bowl configurations (VBF).

Examples of non-vibratory feeders include: center board, rotary hook, stationary hook,

slotted wheel, and external gate hopper feeders. Both types play a key role in many

industrial automated assembly systems. The VBF is currently considered the most

versatile hopper feeding device for feeding small parts in assembly manufacturing. Due

to high tooling costs and long down times needed for retooling, traditionally equipped

3
VBFs are implemented in medium to high production operations. New designs are

constantly being proposed to reduce or eliminate the high costs of retooling and increase

the overall flexibility of the system. One third of the cost of an assembly system can be

attributed to these feeders and associated transfer conveyers [3].

1.2 Overview of Vibratory Bowl Feeders and Related General Literature

A typical VBF, depicted in figure 1.1, consists of a bowl with helical track running along

the inside wall. The angle of incline of the track generally does not exceed 4°. The bowl

is attached to a heavy base by either three or four inclined leaf springs. An electromagnet,

sometimes two, placed vertically beneath the bowl and secured to the base periodically

pulls the bowl vertically downwards. The heavy base rests on support feet, usually made

of rubber and designed to isolate the vibrations of the VBF from the rest of the

equipment. The electromagnet does not act directly on the bowl, but rather on an iron

attachment mounted horizontally under the bowl. In the case of duel electromagnets, the

electromagnets act on opposite sides of the bowl on attachments mounted vertically.

There is no limit as to the material the bowl may be constructed of; typical examples

include aluminum, food grade stainless steel and polymer composite. Due to the

constraint of the inclined leaf springs, the bowl vibration has two components, a linear

vertical component accompanied by a twisting torsional motion. The bowl vibration

causes the parts on the track to experience a vibrational force at an angle greater than that

of the track. The effect of the vibratory motion causes the parts to climb up the track to

the outlet at the top of the bowl. The movements of the track are small compared with the

4
length of the suspension springs and the diameter of the bowl; thus, on a local scale, the

movement of any point on the track may be assumed linear. Traditional VBFs are

typically equipped with passive orienting devices arranged in sequence along the track of

the bowl. All parts leaving the bowl will be oriented in a geometrically similar manner;

any part not oriented in the required manor is rejected. Any part which falls off the track

or is rejected by an orienting device returns to the bottom of the bowl, and would

eventually be fed up the track again.

Figure 1.1: The Vibratory Bowl Feeder

5
Traditionally, VBFs derive power from SCR (silicon controlled rectifier) controlled AC

sources. The SCR acts like a diode, in that it allows current to flow in only one direction,

but differs from the diode in that it will only permit the current to flow after it has been

switched on. Once it has been gated on, and the current is flowing, the only way it can be

turned off is to expose the SCR to negative current. Typically, this occurs at the crossover

point (180°) between the positive and negative segments of the AC waveform. This

cancels the original gating command. SCR control may be either half or full-wave

rectified, resulting in effective operating frequencies of 60 or 120 hertz respectively.

Varying the point in each cycle at which the SCR is fired controls the power level for the

electromagnet. The later in the cycle the gating occurs, the lower the energy to the

electromagnet; resulting in a smaller deflection of the bowl springs with a subsequent

decrease in the kinetic energy transferred to the part. Recent innovations in VBF drives

include the use of switching mode power supplies. This method generates many small

square waves, which approximate a sine wave. This method does not depend on the line

frequency and so it can produce an independent variable frequency output [4].

Parts in a VBF travel by either sliding or hopping motions. When sliding, as the bowl

rises and twists forward the friction between the bowl and the part is such that both move

together. In the second half of the feeding cycle, when the bowl descends and rotates

away from the outlet, the friction between the part and the bowl becomes sufficiently low

that the part slides over the track, advancing the part. In hopping, the electromagnetic

force is so high that the normal reaction between the part and the track becomes zero; the

6
bowl’s downward acceleration exceeds that of gravity and the part experiences free-fall,

while the bowl rotates back underneath it.

Vibratory motion gives the impression that parts are conveyed forward with an almost

constant conveying velocity; however, this is not true. This motion is, in actuality, a

combination of several motions. This combination of motions is cyclic and usually

repeats with the frequency of the drive. The detailed types of motion have been described

and analyzed in the literature [3,5,6]. In short, the part starts to slide forward at some

instant when the track nears the upper limit of motion. If there is no hopping mode,

forward sliding continues until the lower limit of motion is reached; at which point the

part may either remain stationary relative to the track, or slide backward until the cycle is

complete. In some instances, the stationary period is followed by an episode of backward

sliding, or backward sliding followed immediately by another stationary period.

In order to maximize the feed rate of a traditional VBF, a number of parameters are

considered during the design phase. The conveying velocity of a part moving along the

track of a VBF depends on the: amplitude of the track vibration ao; track inclination angle

θ; vibration angle ψ; effective coefficient of friction between the part and the track (both

static µs, and dynamic µd); total mass of the parts in the bowl; vibration frequency of the

bowl ƒ; stiffness of the leaf springs ks; physical characteristics of the part; position of the

part within the track, and number, sequence and type of orienting devices. A brief

discussion of some of these parameters is to follow, however, in [3, 5, 6], these factors

are discussed in detail.

7
Boothroyd [3] predicted that for given conditions and for constant track acceleration, the

mean conveying velocity vm is inversely proportional to the vibration frequency, ƒ. The

result of this is the simple equation:

ƒ vm = constant (1.2.1)

One consequence of this result is that for high conveying velocities and hence high feed
rates, it is desirable to use as low a frequency as practicable. However, since the track
acceleration must be kept constant, this result means a corresponding increase in track
amplitude. The mechanical problems of connecting the feeder to a stationary machine
imposes a lower limit on the frequency [5,7].

Empirical confirmation of these predictions appears in the same works. Figure 1.2 is a

graph of the effect of vibration angle, normal track acceleration and frequency on

conveying velocity. A brief mathematical explanation of this can be found in section 4.1.

Figure 1.2: Effect of Vibration Angle, Normal Track Acceleration and Frequency on
Conveying Velocity. (After Boothroyd [5])

8
Generally, an increase in track acceleration produces an increase in conveying velocity.

However, at some point, continuing to increase acceleration fails to produce significant

increases in speed, and may in some circumstances decrease it. As acceleration is

increased, part transportation occurs by means of hopping. If the acceleration is increased

to some critical value, different for each part, the hopping takes on an unstable erratic

bouncing mode. This instability has a deleterious effect on feed rate.

It has been shown that the conveying velocity is sensitive to changes in vibration angle

[5,7]. For any given part there exists an optimum value of vibration angle, dependant

primarily on the coefficient of friction of the part and the angle of inclination of the track.

General trends indicate that faster feed rates are obtained with smaller vibration angles.

Smaller track angles produce greater feed rates; a zero degree track angle produces the

greatest feed rates. However, the mechanical design of a bowl feeder necessitates a

positive track angle of three or four degrees in order to raise the parts to the bowl outlet.

Track angles greater than five or six degrees generally produce unsatisfactory results.

In vibratory feeding, the practical range of coefficient of friction of both the parts and the

feeder is between .2 to 1. A coefficient of .2 represents a steel part conveyed on a steel

track. In general, for practical values of track acceleration, an increase in friction leads to

an increase in feed rate. A common practice in industry is to line the track with rubber,

thereby increasing the coefficient of friction to approximately .8 [5].

VBFs are well described in the literature. An early work by Povidaylo [8] steps through

the design calculations necessary for the construction of a VBF. This topic is revisited;

9
using similar analytical constructs and employing modern devices equipped with

computerized sensors and advanced part motion diagnostics in [9]. As an introduction to

those investigating their use, Smith [10] examines the basic factors to consider in the

selection of a VBF for a particular application. Similar works considering all forms of

vibratory feeders can be found in [8,11,12]. In [13], Redford examines in detail the

traditional VBF, the factors effecting performance, and inherent systemic weaknesses. As

a solution to these weaknesses, an out-of-phase vibratory feeder is proposed that

sinusoidally excites the normal and parallel components of motion independently.

Many papers have been presented outlining the possible applications of vibratory feeding

in industry. Typical examples include [14,15], where examples of VBF usage range from

pickle slicing machines to bottle cap presenters. In [16], the authors report on a

modification to the traditional VBF that tosses and twists parts to separate them. This

allows parts like springs and hooks, which easily congregate into bunches and become

intertwined, to be automatically assembled, a task previously thought unsuitable for

VBFs. Schroer [17] examines the results of a series of experiments using custom tooled

VBFs for presenting non-standard electronic parts to a robot for insertion on printed

circuit boards. The parts proved difficult, but not impossible, to feed at adequate feed

rates. Four classes of part jamming phenomenon were described with their rates of

occurrence. It was determined that not all parts could be adequately processed using a

VBF, especially those parts with delicate components. A methodology was developed to

aid in the selection of candidate parts for vibratory applications.

10
Improving feeding efficiency has been the objective of many research efforts. By 1960,

Pavidaylo [8] had identified the optimum VBF operating conditions, and had assembled

these into a set of design equations: to ensure maximum productivity; efficiency; part

movement stability, and the lowest sensitivity of these characteristics to the magnitude of

the friction coefficient. It was determined that the most effective working conditions are

those in which the parts move in a series of minute jumps, coming in contact with the

track only to receive an impulse for the following jump. This effort laid the groundwork

for further studies. Akhmechet et al. [18] revisited this issue with a VBF of improved

design. A variable-angle driver for use with a traditional VBF is examined in [19]. This

system is based on an elliptical throw; the bowl does not return on the same path as it

moved forward on, but returns on a lower level. The bowl moves away from the part as it

returns, rather than throwing the part away from the track. The result is extremely high

feeding efficiencies. The parts are in contact with the bowl only during the forward

motion. This method also tends to transport parts individually, leading to part

segregation. This work led to the developments in [7], described later. Rulh [20]

examines various methods of tweaking an installed VBF with simple, inexpensive, and

efficient adjustments to get and maintain improved productivity. In [21], frequency

control is used to optimally feed glass fibers to a resin-compounding unit.

The literature provides a host of new designs based on the traditional VBF. In [22], a

simple VBF is developed to feed and orient cylindrical parts with a length-to-diameter

ratio close to one. This system consists of a sensor-less VBF with a flat bottom and no

helical track. The tooling is composed of a”discharge hole” through which parts, only in

11
the proper orientation, may fall. This hole is connected to the rest of the assembly system

via a delivery chute. Any part that fails to travel down the “discharge hole” simply

recycles back into the system and attempts the passage at a later time. The bowl, due to

simplicity, can be machined out of a single piece of stock. This versatility eliminates the

need for liners and allows for the bowl to be crafted out of virtually any material. In [23],

a bowl feeder is presented that replaces the single (or double) electromagnetic actuator

with a piezoelectric actuator located on each leaf spring. Three (or four) independent

actuators allow for the potential of increased driving signal flexibility. A VBF with micro

perforations arranged uniformly over the area of the helical track to reduce the

‘stickiness’ of parts is presented in [24]. Another system applied an active vibration

attenuation system to a traditional VBF to reduce excess mechanical vibration and noise

[25].

1.3 Part Kinetics and System Modeling

The motion of a part in a VBF, with its accompanying dynamics, is adequately described

in the traditional literature [5,6,26,27,28] etc. Many research efforts have attempted to

broaden this base of knowledge; in some cases simplifying the analysis for quick

resolution, in others complicating it, to allow for a complete analysis. The advantages of

modeling an entire system have been long known. The ability to simulate a process

before a prototype is built has obvious economic and intellectual advantages. Prior to the

wide availability of computing resources most of this type of work relied heavily on

experimental results and the graphical manipulation of simplified mathematical models.

12
Much of the earlier work was also strictly limited to sinusoidal acceleration cycles. Early

researchers of note include: Berry [27,28], who examined the effect of stick-slip motion

with a modified coefficient of friction; Booth [29], who pioneered the use of digital

computers to iteratively solve mathematical models of vibratory feeders, and Sakaguchi

[30], who examined the conveying velocity of a part and the characteristics of the modes

of motion and energy which are needed to convey the parts.

A pivotal early work was that of de Cock [31]. The basic theory of VBF operation was

examined, modeled and verified experimentally. It was discovered that the vibrations of a

VBF are almost purely harmonic, despite the electromagnet drive. Investigations into

spring design were performed, resulting in model design equations. The importance of

material transfer rate was recognized; efforts were undertaken to identify the dependent

variables and how they should be chosen to obtain the optimum result. A nomogram

composed of: coefficient of friction, track angle, and frequency verses feed rate was

assembled to aid developers with design parameter calculations. It was determined that

for any part, optimum operation occurs when the part just touches the track once in every

period, and then only when the track just reaches its maximum velocity in the upward

direction.

Winkler presented a pair of papers examining the various aspects of vibratory conveying

[32,33]. The first examines several possible conveyor designs: the “sealskin” conveyor;

the “jerk” conveyor; an inclined track conveyor, and a conveyor with out-of-phase

motion. The inclined vibratory track conveyor, where the part is limited to sliding

motions, was chosen as the most promising and a detailed analysis is developed. Due to

13
the difficulty of analytically predicting the performance of the track with a sinusoidal

velocity profile, a triangular velocity profile was introduced. The results of this

simplification were compared with simulated results for a sinusoidal profile run on an

analog computer. The second paper repeats the original research on inclined vibratory

tracks, but extends the scope of the research to include hopping motions. A similar

analysis can be found in [34], however, no simplification of the velocity profile is used.

An extension of this work provides practical solutions to the equations of motion, as well

as a look into single particle theory applied to beds of granular material [35]. Square

waves were used to approximate the driving function in a model of an

electromagnetically actuated inclined vibratory track (approximating a VBF) in [36]. A

later work using a similar simulation methodology, and the square wave approximation,

uniquely incorporated the side wall friction of the VBF [37].

Mansour and Gladwell presented a comprehensive simulation of an inclined vibratory

track, using analog, digital and hybrid computer analyses [38,39]. His work considered

both traditionally generated sinusoidal motion, as well as non-sinusoidal motion,

mechanically generated by four bar linkages. The aim of this research was the

development of a design tool to enable an engineer to quickly explore the interaction

between different parameters of a feeding system. Detailed flow charts are given which

describe the stable states and transitions of the system. An analog circuit is constructed to

simulate the system, and compared to a similar digital simulation. The analog computer

was found to be faster and more versatile when applied to the sinusoidal case, but nearly

impossible to use for the non-sinusoidal case.

14
In any vibratory feeder system there are two types of objects in motion, the feeder and the

part. Okabe et al. examine the motion of a part on a vibratory conveyor with a simplified

dynamic model [40]. For simplicity, the part is modeled as a particle which does not lose

contact with the vibrating surface at any time. The theoretical model includes:

acceleration of the vibrating surface; friction angle between the vibrating surface and the

particle; inclination angle of the surface, and the direction of linear vibration. The types

of motion are classified into seven primary modes: (i) no primary slip between the

particle and the vibrating surface; (ii) the particle slides forward intermittently; (iii) the

particle slide backward intermittently, and (iv-vii) the particle slides forwards and

backwards in the same cycle, varying proportions of forward to backward sliding

determines into which exact class this type of motion falls. Later experimental

investigation with an inclined vibrating plate and a rectangular prismatic part confirmed

the theoretical results.

A general computer model for predicting the performance of vibrating conveyors was

developed [41]. The computer model enabled vibrating conveyors with reciprocating,

circular or elliptical vibrations to be simulated. The basis of the model is a single particle

mass analysis using bulk material properties as the input parameters. The performance of

the vibrating conveyor can be predicted by measuring the coefficients of static and

dynamic friction of the bulk material on the conveyer. Four modes of motion are

considered: stick, slide, hop, and the transitions from one mode to another. An

experimental vibrating conveyor with a 45° reciprocating vibrating excitation and

variable amplitude and frequency was constructed and tested. For the examined materials

15
the model proved valid. The results of the experimentation were compiled into contour

graphs as an aid to designers.

Morrey and Mottershead developed an eight-degree-of-freedom model to determine eight

natural frequencies of a VBF [42]. A lumped parameter approach was used, whereby a

rigid bowl and rigid base are separated by three banks of flexible leaf springs. The bowl

is considered to have four degrees of freedom: vertical and rotational translation about Z;

rotational translation about X, and rotational translation about Y. The degrees-of-freedom

for the base are identically defined. Bending of the leaf springs was modeled using the

Euler-Bernoulli beam theory. The masses of the bowl and the base are assumed to be

distributed symmetrically about the polar Z axis. The stiffness of the three leaf springs

are assumed identical. The system is assumed to be perfectly isolated from the outside

world. To verify the results from the numerical model, an experimental analysis of a

‘real-world’ VBF was undertaken. In order that it may be excited as a free structure, the

VBF was suspended from a rigid framework by low stiffness springs. A nontraditional

vibrator using a thin wire to transfer vibrations was used to eliminate any bending

constraints between the vibrator and the structure. Piezoelectric sensors were used for

force and velocity measurements. It was found that at higher frequencies of excitation the

lumped representation is not valid. The model was found to be over constrained; the

assumption that the base and the bowl are rigid does not result in a completely viable

model.

Maul and Thomas developed a mathematical model of a VBF by using state-space

methods to evaluate system parameters [43,44]. Six degrees of freedom were considered:

16
vertical deflection of the base; twisting of the base; deflection of the leaf springs, and

their derivatives. The bowl and base are assumed to be perfectly rigid bodies with their

motions constrained to vertical displacements and twisting about the vertical axis. The

leaf springs are assumed to be without mass; their actual mass being distributed between

the base and the bowl. In addition, the deflection of the leaf springs is assumed to consist

solely of bending; tension and compression are ignored. Euler’s method was used to

determine the steady state motion of the bowl. Part motion was calculated using Taylor

series expansions. A force input function was approximated empirically by

experimentation with the driving electromagnet. The model was validated experimentally

and shown to have a maximum deviation in velocity predictions of 11%.

Lim developed a computer program to simulate the dynamic behavior of a linear

vibratory feeder [45]. Incorporated into the dynamic simulation are various system and

physical parameters, including: amplitude of vibration; angle of vibration; operational

frequency, and coefficient of friction. It is assumed that the part never leaves the track at

any time. The program is capable of generating graphically the position and velocity

values of the moving parts at small time increments, and to arrive at the average feed rate.

Theoretical test values compared with empirical results were found to be in general

agreement. The prime contribution of this work is a program flow chart which could be

applied to a large array of vibratory feeders in any programming language.

The dynamic analysis and model development of an inclined linear vibratory feeder was

presented in [46]. In considering the various operating parameters that could affect the

conveying velocity of a part, five were chosen: angle and amplitude of vibration;

17
coefficient of friction; track angle, and operating frequency. The track was assumed to

vibrate with simple harmonic motion. The states of motion cover both contact (sliding)

and non-contact (hopping); each state of motion is considered separately when

determining the equations of motion. Three modes of non-contact motion were

considered: non-sliding, slow-sliding, and fast-sliding. The dynamic model was first

simulated on a personal computer, and then experiments were conducted to verify the

validity of the system model. Empirical data indicated that the model adequately

predicted the mean conveying velocity of the feeder. Variations in the coefficient of

friction and the inclination angle of the track were found to have profound influence on

the conveying velocity.

In VBFs, the deformation of the spring is a complicated sequence of events. The exact

calculation of spring constant is difficult. Okabe and Yokoyama present a simple method

to calculate the natural frequency of a VBF for both fixed and floating mountings [47].

To make this possible, limiting assumptions about the deformation of the leaf springs are

made. The deformation is limited to the thickness, width, and torsion directions. These

deformations are independent of one another, lacking any geometrical constraint, so that

the total deformation can be calculated by means of the vector addition of each

deformation. This greatly eases the calculation of the spring constant. For the natural

frequency of the fixed system, an equation with a single degree of freedom is developed;

the floating system required an equation with two-degrees-of-freedom. Experimental

investigation concluded that the theoretical values are good when the width of the spring

is relatively small. If the width becomes large, the experimental values are smaller than

18
the theoretical values. This is attributed to micro-slip and insufficient rigidity of the

clamping parts.

In [48], a complete mechanical model of the transportation process for a VBF is

developed that encompasses the geometry of the parts, track and orienting device, as well

as the main physical effects, including: multiple impacts with friction, and the interaction

with a vibrating track. The model is based on a structure variant multi-body system with

unilateral constraints and Coulomb friction. The result is a set of differential equations

with inequality constraints. Parts are assumed to be rigid bodies with two-dimensional

contact surfaces. This allows for any geometric object to be modeled, as the outline of the

contact surface is a flat plane. A simulation tool is developed that allows for the

examination of various design parameters, including: transportation rate; performance of

the orienting devices; influence of different base devices; stability, and the influence of

different parameters on each other, as well as on the overall process. Three simulation

exercises are illustrated to prove the effectiveness of the tool; no empirical verification is

provided.

1.4 Natural Resting Aspects of Parts

Automatic assembly machines require parts to be correctly oriented before the assembly

process can be undertaken. This usually necessitates the employment of suitable orienting

devices in the feeder that supplies parts to the automatic work head. Two classes of

orienting devices exist, passive and active. Passive devices reject parts which are

19
incorrectly oriented; while, active devices physically reorient the parts in the desired

manner.

Knowledge of the ways in which a part will naturally feed (a component of the natural

resting aspect) when placed at random in the feeder bowl is essential to the efficient

design of orienting devices. If, for example, a particular part has two possible natural

resting aspects, one feeds the part correctly while the other causes assembly failure, either

a passive system could be used to reject the improper orientation back into the bowl, or

an active system could be used to reorient the part into the desired resting aspect. The

natural respecting aspects of a part must therefore form the basis of any research dealing

with the feeding and orienting of parts, and is essential in any analysis of the performance

of vibratory-bowl feeder orienting systems.

Boothroyd [49] studied the statistical distributions of the natural resting aspects for

various classes of parts. Basic part shapes consisting of regular prismatic and cylindrical

geometries were selected. The probability that these parts will come to rest in their

various natural resting aspects when placed in the bowl of a vibratory feeder was

analyzed and verified experimentally. Two conditions are examined the static solution

and the dynamic solution. The static solution consists of the probability of the part

tending to fall into a particular natural resting aspect immediately on impact with the

surface. The dynamic solution takes into account the bouncing and rolling of the part

after the initial impact. It was found necessary to assign cylindrical parts an empirical

factor to complete the analysis successfully. The authors believe that in real world

situations, parts will exhibit a combination of these solutions.

20
Further investigation by Boothroyd [50], revealed that it is possible to predict the

behavior of both regular prismatic parts and cylinders without requiring an empirical

factor. The additional factor of surface type was included in the analysis: soft rubber like

surfaces, where, on impact, a corner of the part depresses the surface, adding a horizontal

component to the motion and hard resilient surfaces where deformation does not occur,

making the horizontal component negligible in effect. The probability that a part will

attain a particular natural resting aspect was determined to be a function of two factors:

the energy barrier tending to prevent a change and the amount of energy possessed by the

part when it begins to fall into that particular configuration.

Ngoi [51,52] presented an alternative for analyzing the probabilities of the natural resting

aspects of a part. This method utilized the concept of the energy envelop in conjunction

with the previously described energy barrier. The energy barrier method requires tedious

plotting of the changes of location of the centroid. The energy envelops are constructed

in a CAD program solid modeler, from which changes in centroid location are easily

determined. The resulting probability values for both regular prismatic parts and

cylinders agreed with the previous experimental data of Boothroyd and collaborators. The

analyses, however, were completed in a fraction of the time.

Investigators still sought a simpler method to analyze the natural resting aspects of a part.

A hypothesis that the probability of a part coming to rest on a particular aspect is directly

proportional to the magnitude of its centroid solid angle [53] and inversely proportional

to the height of its centroid from the aspect in question was examined [54]. The centroid

solid angle was determined for any given geometry by using a CAD solid modeler. The

21
hypothesized method was applied to rectangular prismatic parts and cylinders. The results

were found to agree well with earlier published data using the energy barrier and energy

envelop methods. These results were also verified [55] for square and rectangular prisms

on a hard surface. In both cases, the Experimental data agreed well with previous centroid

solid angle work and earlier energy envelop methods.

Utilizing the same method, Ngoi et al. [56] examined the natural resting aspects of

complex parts. Previously, complex geometries were decomposed into simpler regular

prismatic and cylindrical shapes and then analyzed. These analyses provided only

approximations, which under working conditions could prove detrimental to the proper

design of orienting systems. Empirical examinations of non-symmetrical (oblong) and

symmetrical (T-shaped) complex parts verified the validity of the hypothesis. A similar

work [57] used the centroid solid angle method to analyze the natural resting aspects of

parts with displaced centers of gravity. Previously, only parts whose center of gravity

resided at their geometric centers had been examined in detail. The difficulties lie in the

fact that empirical ‘compensating’ factors have to be generated for each part, a tedious

and time consuming exercise. The experimental results confirmed the validity of the

analysis to within a maximum deviation of 4%.

Validation of the existing hypotheses on predicting the natural resting aspects of parts has

been conducted by application of the “drop test”. The “drop test” consists of repeatedly

dropping parts from a certain height onto a surface in order to analyze the natural resting

behavior of the parts. Work has been conducted by Ngoi et al. [58] to determine the

accuracy of the “drop test” in determining the validity of these hypotheses when applied

22
to a VBF. Accurate experiments were conducted in a laboratory to examine the

probabilities of the feed orientation of square and rectangular components of different

aspect ratios by varying the vibration amplitude levels and surface textures of the

vibratory bowl. These results compared favorably to those of Boothroyd, Ngoi, and

collaborators [49,51,54]; authenticating the use of the “drop test” as a means of

hypotheses validation. In addition, it was discovered that vibration amplitude had little

effect on the orientation of parts.

This final conclusion is directly conflicting with Rosario [59], who conducted an

experimental study of the behavior of certain electrical connectors in a vibratory bowl

feeder. A series of experiments were conducted to generate a set of empirical data used to

investigate how complex parts behave in a vibratory bowl feeder, and to establish a

relationship between the orientation of the parts and the vibration amplitude of the bowl

feeder. Three amplitude levels and four electrical connecter types were used. The

empirical data suggested two primary conclusions: (1) the tendency for a part to rest in a

certain position is directly influenced by the vibration amplitude of the feeder, and (2)

when parts are allowed to recirculate in the feeder; the probability distribution could

greatly differ from the distribution of parts that exit the feeder with no recirculation.

Active orientation devices and vibration amplitude changing controls are suggested as

methods of efficient part feeding once the proper connector orientation is identified.

23
1.5 Orienting Devices and Tooling

In any automatic assembly machine, the parts must be fed to the workheads correctly

oriented and in discrete units. The nature of the VBF allows for both of these

requirements to be fulfilled. In standard operation, the VBF generally discretizes the parts

without intervention; while, the flexibility of the VBFs design allows for a wide array of

orienting devices. The devices employed to ensure that only correctly oriented parts are

fed to the workhead fall into two groups: those that are incorporated within the parts

feeder, which are usually referred to as in-bowl tooling, and those that are fitted to the

transfer system between the feeder and the work head. Passive tooling refers to orienting

devices that operate on the principle of rejection. Only those parts that are fed correctly

oriented pass through the device; the remainder fall back into the bowl. The rejected parts

are then re-fed and make further attempts to pass through the orienting devices. While

simple and generally inexpensive, this method of orienting parts has a detrimental effect

on the feed rate. For example, if six possible orientations need to be tooled for, the feed

rate of the tooled VBF will be, on average, one-sixth that of the untooled VBF. Active

tooling refers to orienting devices that actively reorient parts into the proper orientation,

generally without rejection. While costlier and technically more sophisticated this option

offers the advantage of increased feed rate, as few to none of the parts are recirculated.

Delicate parts that may not survive a trip back to the bottom of the bowl often require

active orienting devices. Out of bowl tooling is usually of the active type, as there is no

means of recirculating parts outside of the bowl [60].

24
Active and passive tooling can be further classified into dimension orienting devices and

feature orienting devices. Dimension orienting devices use the dimensional differences

within the basic shape of a part to reject an incorrect orientation of the part. An example

would be a cut-away placed on the VBF track that would drop a rectangular part back

into the bowl if it happened to be fed with the longer dimension perpendicular to the bowl

wall. Feature orienting devices utilize a certain feature of the part to reject or reorient it.

A slot cut into the above mentioned rectangular part could be used to ensure a proper

keyed orientation. Orienting devices are often used in series to obtain the desired effect.

The literature covers many of these basic orienting devices, their implementation, and

cost considerations [3,6,61,62,]. In addition to covering tooling for various vibratory

feeders, as well as VBFs, Boothroyd [63] introduces a novel coding system for use with

feeding and orienting small parts. This system uses the basic and underlying geometric

features of a part to describe its overall shape; assigning values developed empirically to

properties such as symmetry, rotation, thickness and length. These values are then

compiled into coded numbers that provide a reference as too how difficult the part will be

to feed and orient.

Early examinations of orienting devices for VBFs generally involved passive devices.

Boothroyd and Murch [64] performed a statistical analysis of the performance of a vee

cutout orienting device installed on a VBF track. The results of the analysis allowed for

the design and implementation of the vee orienting device without the need for traditional

trial and error procedures, while also retaining a high level of efficiency. The experiment

was conducted in such a manor as to allow for the substitution of most other types of

25
passive orienting devices; creating the potential for the development of an empirical

database to aid designers in the choice of components for assembly, and in the design of

VBF orienting devices and systems. This goal was partially realized in the “Handbook for

Feeding and Orienting Techniques for Small Parts” [26,63], where the complete analysis

of some 30 basic types of passive orienting devices is described. In addition to VBFs, this

work covers the design and tooling of a vast array of parts feeding devices, including but

not limited to: bladed wheel, centrifugal, reciprocating tube, stationary hook, centerboard,

and rotary disc hoppers. Murch and Poli [65] exemplified one of these orienting devices

(edge riser I) for feeding and orienting rectangular prisms. The purpose of this work was

to describe in detail the procedure used to obtain the data presented in [63], providing a

template from which future efforts could be launched.

Boothroyd and Murch [66] designed a technique using matrices to calculate the

efficiency of a system of passive orienting devices. The efficiency of any particular

device would be the product of that matrix. To determine the overall efficiency for a

series of devices, each device’s matrix is first multiplied by an initial distribution matrix,

and then the product of all the matrices is found. The resulting number is the efficiency of

the combined system. Similarly, Yeralan and Chang [67] described three generalized

classifications of part orienting systems dependent on the placement of the constituting

devices in either: series, parallel, or feedback arrangements. Each system is modeled as a

group of transition matrices with the efficiencies of each determined by matrix

manipulations.

26
Sethi and Sriskandarajah [68] developed and proved theorems to order the orienting

devices in a series configuration based on Yeralan’s work. Heuristic procedures were

developed to select the optimum devices for a series system for either one part or m-part

families. These methods proved time consuming as optimal solutions were found by

exhaustive searches. Later efforts by Sethi [69], in an attempt to improve earlier heuristic

procedures, provided new analytical methods for developing serial systems with two

orientations for single and multiple part families. A practical example of using this

heuristic model with the tooling of a VBF, for use with cup shaped parts, is provided.

Parallel configurations are briefly examined. Jaumard et al. [70] also built on Yeralan’s

work to examine the design parameters and ordering of series part-orienting devices.

However, where Sethi selected the orienting devices in a sequential manor, this work

emphasized precedence selection. Three Heuristic methods are developed and simulated

in Fortran-77 for a VBF with three orienting devices: step, scallop cutout and ledge for a

cup-shaped part. Efficiencies are calculated and found reasonable when compared with

those published in [63].

For even the simplest parts, manually designing part orienting systems can quickly

become a tedious and cumbersome exercise. Recognizing this shortcoming, many

investigations were launched into the development of methods that would automate the

design of part orienting systems. Natarajan [71] presented an algorithmic approach to the

automated design of two simple types of part orienting devices: a stepped belt and a

panhandler. The belt is defined as a device for orienting two dimensional polygonal

objects that are infinite in the third dimension, while the pan handler is for planar

27
polygonal objects. This work attempts to decompose ill-defined physical problems into

the computational domain for analysis. For the examined cases, the results proved

modestly successful, but computationally intensive. While theoretically applicable to any

form of parts feeder, it is unclear how effective this method would be when applied to a

complex series of orienting devices in a VBF.

Natarajan later expands this examination by classifying parts feeders as either orienters or

filters within an algorithmically defined boundary [72]. First, a formal statement of the

parts feeder design problem as it pertains to the orientation and presentation of parts is

given. “Given an object O and two sets of orientations T0(Θ0) and Tf for it, design a set of

obstacles Tfeeder(Θ0β) that forces the object to move from any orientation in T0(Θ0) to

some orientation in Tf.” The generic algorithm proposed is as follows: starting with a

geometric representation of the part which has to be fed; a range of initial orientations of

the part that the feeder must handle, and the desired final orientation of the part as it exits

the feeder, a feeder design algorithm should come up with a suitable feeder and the

detailed setup data for it, along with performance estimates and other technical

predictions. Three devices were considered for this work. The belt and panhandler from

the previous work are classified as orienters. In the filters class, an inclined track

vibratory feeder (approximating a VBF) equipped with passive orienting devices such as

pins and cut-outs is studied for use with planar polygonal parts. As before, the problem is

first made precise by making suitable assumptions and then abstracted to the

computational domain. Also as before, the focus of this work was on the combinatorial

aspects of the problem and not on the modeling of the physics.

28
Christiansen et al. [73] developed a genetic algorithm specifically tailored for the design

of gates on VBF tracks. The highly parallel nature of the genetic algorithm allows this

method to supercede earlier exhaustive search methods in terms of speed, while still

providing near-optimal designs. Part and orientation information is entered by means of

the stochastic matrices defined by Murch and Boothroyd [66]. Screw like fasteners and

cup shaped parts were used to test and compare the system to earlier work. Results

compared favorably to those of Boothroyd [5].

Recognition of the usefulness of geometric algorithms to solve complex problems,

combined with the recent advent of inexpensive computing power, has led to the

development of an advanced algorithm specifically for use with VBFs to design trap

filters for n-sided polygonal parts [74]. In this work, parts are described by the number of

vertices, the center of mass, and the number of possible orientations. Three types of traps

are considered: gap, canyon, and slot. A general framework is also provided for the

custom application of the algorithm to other trap types. Parts are filtered only in 2-D,

difficulties arose with 3-D filtering, namely parts getting stuck halfway falling. Small

tolerance variations in parts and positional uncertainly associated with vibratory feeding

impeded the efficiency of the algorithm. An improved algorithm appears in [75].

Improvements include the provision of an on-line Java applet to demonstrate the

algorithm and the analysis of two addition trap types: balconies and bridges. Agarwal et

al. [76] take a minimalist approach to the development of a geometric algorithm to design

trap filters. A different (from [74,75]), considerably simplified, geometric algorithm is

presented. The simpler data structure reduces the time to solution. It is shown that if a

29
feeder exists that supports one particular pose of a part the algorithm will eventually find

it. Finally, a heuristic is offered to aid in the design of a realistic feeder.

An examination of geometric algorithms applied to the design of several forms of

statically tooled parts feeders can be found in [77]. Parts feeders that do not use sensing

information to accomplish the task of orienting a part are considered: traditional VBFs -

the design of passive traps is considered; simple parallel jaw grippers - push and squeeze

functions; conveyor belts - fence design, with the goal of finding the shortest possible

design that will result in an acceptable orientation, and for tilted plates, examinations of

the problems associated with pushing parts in 3D space in combination with fence design.

The algorithms take the description of the part geometry as input and output a sequence

of actions that moves the part from its unknown initial pose into the desired unique final

pose. For each part feeder considered, the classes of orientable parts are determined,

algorithms for synthesizing the sequences of actions are derived, and system limitations

are provided.

Berkowitz and Canny [78] presented a tool based on dynamic simulation for doing

parameter enumeration, analysis, and Markov model building of tooling in a VBF. The

VBF was simulated as if the track had been unwound and laid linearly at an angle equal

to the average angle of inclination along the helical track. The VBF is characterized by a

small set of parameters, thus, allowing for a large range of parameter values and

thousands of experiments to be conducted and analyzed quickly. Results from the

simulation of two parts feeder designs indicate that dynamic simulation may be a feasible

method for determining the proper configuration of orienting devices. In [79], the effects

30
of the dynamic simulation tool are compared to a real design. Results reflected reality

with a high degree of accuracy; however, it was found that minor inaccuracies arose in

the simulation because of the simplifications in the dynamics model employed by the

software to make calculation times reasonable.

Attempts to computerize the design tools outlined in Boothroyd’s methodology [63] have

been made [32,80,81,82]. The identification of relevant part features is performed

through an interactive ‘query, answer and reason’ session. These systems made use of

expert knowledge to generate part codes for the selection of suitable feeding and

orienting devices for use in automatic assembly. Tapadia and Henderson [83] combined

the UMASS coding system of [63] with feature recognition and extraction together with a

rule based expert system. Li and Huang [84] used feature based geometric modeling to

automatically generate the code. Lo and Dick [85] used CAD solid modeling techniques

to generate part orienting tracks in a limited non-analytical fashion. While functional for

the purpose of generating part codes, these methods lack significant analytical

capabilities and with one exception the ability to link part codes and orienting devices

seamlessly.

Yeong and Warren developed a methodology for parts feeder design combining previous

design efforts into a framework for feeder design [86]. From [72], the problem statement

on design specifications and constraints was borrowed, but modified to include time

allowed to orient parts and the maximum forces that a part can tolerate. Selection of

devices is handled by a feeder transformation matrix which expresses the combinations of

translation and rotations about the X, Y, and Z axis in mathematical context. To reduce

31
the complexity of series configuration of orienting devices, a sequence of feeding zones,

proposed in [85], is incorporated. By dividing a feeder into task oriented subcomponents

or zones, responsible for a single reorientation process, the task of designing complex

sequences of tools is made manageable. In order to fully characterize the feeding device,

the physical parameters of each zone, such as: barrier angle, step height, length,

coefficient of friction, and feeder velocity needs to be determined. The authors

recommend using published analytical models for whichever feeder the designer is

developing to generate potential solutions through dynamic simulation to iteratively

improve the zone designs. To illustrate the validity of the methodology, a brief case

study is provided. A belt feeder with a step tool is used to orient a rectangular prismatic

aluminum block from a specific initial condition to a desired final aspect.

A comprehensive expert system that linked part features directly with an orientation plan

was developed by La Broy [87]. The system accepts user-drawn views of parts of an

assembly, from either the internal drawing package or from a variety of commercial CAD

systems, evaluates the design for efficiency based on the principles of Product Design for

Assembly, and specifies the details of the machinery needed to feed and orient parts at

high speed (usually VBF based). The strength of this system lies in the comprehensive

database of orienting methods and uncomplicated user interface.

Ou-Yang and Maul [33] developed a system that directly coupled the CAD representation

of a part to the selection and sequencing of orienting devices by analyzing the

geometrical and topological properties of the part and selecting appropriate orientation

devices for efficient feeding. This analysis package incorporates: near convex shape

32
computation; basic shape analysis; symmetric analysis; feature identification and

analysis; stable orientation analysis, and orientation device analysis into a comprehensive

design tool. Early stage part modification allows complete design flexibility. However,

this system has constraints; part geometry is limited to rectangular and rotational parts. In

addition, only one feature from each part face may be considered.

A functionally identical system of selection and sequencing of orienting devices was

presented by Lim et al. [88] and later, with improved functionality by Tan et al. [89]. The

traditional CAD representation model was deemed too complex to represent geometric

features and replaced with a system of three-dimensional spatial matrices called the

‘Spatial Representation’ [90]. A knowledge based expert system was employed for the

selection of the orienting devices through the use of a unique internal coding system

similar to, but more comprehensive than, Boothroyd’s [63]. Although this system lacks

the analytical capabilities of Ou-Yang and Maul, the limitations of this system are based

entirely on the completeness of the knowledgebase.

Manufactured parts are rarely identical. Part tolerance introduces a certain amount of

shape uncertainty, yet most orienting devices are designed with the ideal part in mind.

The main operational effect of shape uncertainty on parts orienting is the introduction of

nondeterminism arising from variations in part geometry. Akella [91] examines the

design of orienting devices that account for part shape uncertainty and proves that non-

determinism is introduced with non-trivial effect. It was demonstrated that it is possible

to generate reliable sensor-based and sensor-less orienting plans for a class of shape

uncertain parts.

33
For part feeding devices other than VBFs, the orienting of parts has been a brisk topic of

research. Erdman and Mason [92] were able to eliminate configuration uncertainty of a

part by repeatedly tilting a tray. A vibrating plate was used to position and orient parts

[93]. A number of researchers dealt with the general design of a sequence of passive

fences placed over a conveyor to automatically orient a sliding part [94, 95, 96, 97]. A

complete set of algorithms for designing a sequence of passive curved fences to orient

polygonal parts was developed in [98,99]. Active part manipulation systems utilizing a

sequence of fences to push parts at different angles was examined in [100]. Rules

predicting the rotational direction of pushed objects formed the basis of this research

[101]. A system using a single, movable, one degree of freedom fence oriented parts on a

conveyer [102]. In [103], a frictionless gripper oriented polygonal parts using an

algorithm to generate optimal orienting plans. Sensor-based part reorientation was

implemented by using a tilted tray and a tactile probe [104]. Later, sensor-based orienting

plans were generated automatically for tray tilting and grasping by a parallel jaw [105].

Orientability and diameter sensing part recognizability are defined using a parallel-jaw

gripper with polygonal parts in [106]. In [107], a new type of feeder is proposed that

orients polygonal parts with elevated edges by pull operations with an overhead finger. A

general comparison of sensor-less and sensor-based orienting plans showed that simple

sensors reduce the number of orienting steps [108,109]. Redford et al. presented a broad

survey of feeding and orienting systems for presentation of parts to a multi-arm assembly

robot [110].

34
1.6 Programmable VBF Research- Flexible Parts Feeding

Dedication to single part geometry has relegated traditional fixed methods of parts

feeding and orientation to long run manufacturing scenarios. As assembly technology

increased in capacity and complexity, the need for dynamic orientation of parts and

increased flexibility in assembly systems was soon recognized [111, 112, 113, 114, 115,

116]. With the introduction of the personal computer and reasonably fast machine vision

systems, new hopes for the development of limitless assembly techniques arose [117].

Over the past 20 years researchers have examined a number of different approaches to

overcome the problems associated with dedicated feeders. The objective has been to

reduce the amount of special purpose equipment associated with feeding a particular

component while simultaneously reducing the time required to reconfigure the system for

different component types. The result of these labors has been generically termed the

‘flexible feeder”.

A flexible feeder is a feeding system capable of delivering a wide variety of different

component types by either mechanical or sensor based means. The principle of flexible

feeding attempts to eliminate or reduce the costs associated with dedicated systems, the

resulting feeder is not limited to one component type. Costs associated with parts feeding

can be dramatically reduced as the cost of the feeder is no longer tied to the life of a

single product, but rather amortized over the life of the feeder. In addition, Flexible

feeding methods allow for dynamic product modification; which in the past would have

rendered dedicated parts feeders obsolete.

35
Few attempts were made at flexible parts feeding without some programmable

methodology. Redford et al. [110] proposed a method of manually exchanging orienting

tracks. The VBF was replaced with a linear vibrator equipped with orienting tracks

machined with CNC milling centers. To automate NC code generation and enable

feature-based design of tracks, an interactive computer-assisted part programming

software package was developed. The user would design a track by first selecting, from a

library of functions, the required sequence of orientations and then by entering the

physical dimensions of the part. The program would generate NC code to machine the

feeder track into modular sections of equal mass; the number of section being dependent

on the complexity of the orienting scheme. The cost of this system still proved to be high,

as different components still required the physical exchange and re-tooling of track

sections.

A methodology for developing programmable parts feeders using wholly mechanical

programming was developed in [118,119]. The trial exercise utilized a VBF in

conjunction with a part classification scheme based on Boothroyd’s coding system [63].

One part family, the headed part, was chosen to demonstrate the programmable tooling

concept. Six tools were required for the orientation of the headed part; the wiper, pressure

break, narrow track, retaining rail, slotted track and hold down. Each tool consisted of a

lead screw carriage with a dial to count the number of turns applied. With the machine

off, a part is placed at each tool in the desired position. The lead screw is then

manipulated into the required setting and locked into place. In this way, each tool can be

independently programmed and the ‘program’ saved for later reference. While simple and

36
easily programmed, this system, once implemented, is generally limited to a single part

family, incurring re-tooling costs if the need to feed alternate parts families arises. Later

work on this concept included an adaptive control algorithm that learned the proper

configurations of tooling by an iterative poling process utilizing photo sensors to detect

the presence and passage of parts [120]. Each tool in sequence receives preset

information from the data gathered from the previous tool. The original tooling plan for

headed parts was used to determine the effectiveness of the algorithm. The testing of the

adaptive algorithm was simulated by manually executing the steps of the control

algorithm on a programmable feeder to determine the tool settings for a variety of parts.

Programming times were found to be rapid; the effectiveness of the algorithm was

proven.

Devlin developed a programmable Silhouette Recognizer (PSR) at the Pennsylvania State

University [121]. The basis of this system was a simple, efficient, and inexpensive sensor

package mounted to the outlet of a VBF. In place of a camera, a grid of sixteen fiber optic

light sensors with overhead lighting was used. The sensor array interfaced to a personal

computer which first memorized and then comparatively recognized part silhouettes.

Sixteen phototransistors provided the analog-to-digital conversion of the light/dark

information in the silhouette patterns. An air-jet mounted in the VBF wall immediately

before the outlet was used to return incorrectly oriented parts back into the bowl. The use

of an air jet as tooling provided many advantages. An air jet is passive, no complex

algorithms are required for control; non-contact, fragile parts are less likely to be

damaged; selective, response time is quick to allow correctly oriented parts to pass; and

37
common, compressed air is readily and inexpensively available in most manufacturing

environments. The sixteen-bit vision sensor, although simple and inexpensive, was well

suited for simple part orientations. The PSR concept faced low throughput issues due to

the nature of passive tooling systems. Stacked, overlapping or contiguous parts created

irresolvable difficulties for the relatively low resolution detection system. In addition,

only relatively simple parts were distinguishable.

Later work at The Ohio State University improved upon the first PSR system [122,123].

The VBF could now handle a sequence of geometrically different parts. A personal

computer system was used to store the recognized images, recall them in a random access

manor, and control an air jet based on the results of a comparative analysis. A pre-

programmed sequence of parts in the prescribed orientation could then be provided.

Programming the system consisted of placing a part in the desired orientation in the

sensor window, turning a control switch to “Read” and pushing a “Set” button. Any

number of parts may be entered in this fashion, limited only by the physical memory of

the computer. A script could then be generated instructing the controller to accept parts in

a certain order. An algorithm for predicting the cycle time for any sequence of parts was

provided. This allowed for the mixing of many different types of parts in a single VBF

system, greatly reducing the number of feeders required in an assembly operation and

allowing for greater overall flexibility in the manufacturing process. Like all systems

singularly employing passive tooling, this system suffered from low throughput.

Further development of the PSR system at The Ohio State University [2,124] involved a

new computer based 3-D sensing strategy and a faster 16-bit single board computer

38
system. Three primary concerns were addressed: the problem of contiguous and

overlapping parts; the computational resolution of parts into discrete units, and the speed

of recognition and decision making. Two groups of eight fiber-optic sensors placed

perpendicular to each other replaced sixteen sensors in a planer configuration. As the

parts move by the sensor arrays, two silhouettes are recorded, one from each array, and

compared with the silhouettes of the correct orientations previously stored in computer

memory. If they don’t match, the air jet returns the part back into the bowl. Following

analysis the algorithm automaticly loops, awaiting the next part. The vertical set of

optical-fibers is used to detect overlapping parts; while contiguous parts are detected

algorithmically. Longitudinally symmetrical parts pose particular problems for this

system, for example, with rectangular prismatic parts, it is often not possible to detect

where one part ends and the other begins. In addition, variations in part velocity inherent

in VBF systems seem to occasionally confuse the algorithm. For most geometrics,

however, the developed algorithm deals successfully with overlapping and contiguous

parts. Like all PSR systems before, this system suffered from throughput issues. With the

increased computational capabilities available in modern computers, weakness in the

system became apparent; limited sensor precision resulting from only eight fiber-optic

sensors became the operational bottleneck.

If an air jet stream could knock a part back into a VBF, could not a lesser, more precisely

directed stream change the orientation of that part? The logical extension of the work

with passive air jet tooling is the analysis of active air jet tooling. Jaksic [87, 125, 126,

127] designed, built, tested and analyzed a VBF equipped with a set of active

39
programmable air jet tools in combination with a passive air jet tool (air-barrier). This

system could quickly readjust operating parameters to successfully feed a variety of parts

and eliminate jamming. A PSR, identical in basic function to that in [2, 124], with the

exception of an improved computer system, was used. Three active tools were studied to

control: yaw, pitch, and roll of a part. A mathematical model of part behavior during

reorientation was developed for each tool type. This model was incorporated into a

computer algorithm to supply an air jet pulse to reorient parts. Experiments with

rectangular prismatic parts, including: connector housings, electrical push-buttons, and

prisms were used to empirically validate this model. By incorporating active tooling the

throughput problems traditionally encountered with passive tooling is avoided. Delicate

parts, difficult to feed in conventionally tooled VBFs, are handled without breakage as

they are not regularly returned to the bowl. Research empirically examining the forces in

the air jets used by this system can be found in [128]. Additionally, a closer examination

of part reorientation modeling in a plane orthogonal [129] and parallel [130] to the track

and bowl wall has been conducted.

A modular approach for the design of passive orienting devices in a VBF was proposed

by Lim et al. [101,131] as an alternative to the conventional fixed-sequence method. By

using modular orienting devices (MODS), it was hoped that the function of a VBF could

be rendered flexible without the need for sensors and algorithmic control. Each MOD

functions independently and is designed to perform a specific orienting objective. The

MODS can be sequenced in any manner and easily interchanged, depending on the

features of the part to be orientated. A range of modular orienting devices (MODS) is

40
proposed. Twelve MOD sections were designed and tested for effectiveness. A series of

thirteen parts, nine rotational and four prismatic, were tested to determine the viability of

the modular approach. All thirteen parts were successfully oriented using combinations of

the ten prototype sections. A MOD sequence design methodology was not provided; the

authors used trial and error to determine the proper sequences for the test parts.

Cronshaw et al. [132,133] developed a flexible assembly system using a vibratory bowl

feeder combined with a vision system. The VBF is the first stage in the part orienting

process. The VBF outputs a part in a stable orientation onto a belt which transfers the part

to an inspection station. At the inspection station a pusher is used to ensure a constant

travel velocity as the part passes the sensors. The sensors are composed of a

semiconductor line scan camera with fiber optic inputs which form 2D binary images of

the part by repeated rapid scans. The camera and fiber optics are easily configurable to

allow for the examination of different part geometry envelops. A microcomputer analyzes

the image and determines if the part is acceptable in both orientation and type.

Programming the system involves the use of a TV screen and a light pen. This system

represents an early adaptation of active selective tooling coupled with a vision system.

The in-bowl tooling is still inflexible, prone to jamming and re-tooling expenses.

Suzuki and Kohno [134] utilized a system of multilevel untooled VBFs capable of

delivering parts to a vision system for orientation by a robotic arm. Parts to be examined

were fed singularly into a scanning area, where they are forced against orienting device to

assure a consistent datum plane. The vision system would then scan the part to determine

if it needed to be reoriented. If the current orientation of the part had been identified as

41
unsuitable, a robot arm was used to reorient the part. Flexibility was limited to part

shapes within a particular size and stable resting plane; reprogramming was required if a

part that fell out of this range was to be fed. The main advantage of this system is the

elimination of the special purpose bowl tooling costs associated with the traditional VBF.

In [135], Swift and Dewhurst examine a VBF fitted with a laser scanner to orient small

parts with slight asymmetry, which would be difficult to orient via other means. This

system is programmable and capable of handling a wide variety of part types. This

technique is based on measuring light intensities scattered from the surface of the part.

These measurements were then used to identify the part orientation and compare it to

those stored in a computer database to determine suitability for feeding.

Pherson et al. developed a programmable parts feeder based on a double belt system

[136]. The feeder consisted of an inclined feeding belt, a horizontal return belt and a

programmable part presenter. A spinning wheel was used to separate interlocked

components on the return belt. The programmability of the system was provided by a

series of optical reflection sensors. These sensors detect the orientation signature of a part

and compare the results with reference signatures stored in a computer database. Based

on the signature, various orientation blades were used in sequence to manipulate the

components by various rotational and tumbling actions.

A similar system designed by Zenger and Dewhurst simplified this design by utilizing a

single array of fiber-optic sensors to detect the signature of correctly oriented parts [137].

Those parts that did not express the correct orientation were rejected by means of a

42
solenoid pusher to re-circulate. While this approach simplified the system design,

minimizing costs in tooling and time spent on set-up and programming, it does not

passively or actively re-orient components. Orientation is set only by chance as the part

travels up the track towards the sensors, and reoriented by chance, if it is rejected back to

the bottom of the bowl to recirculate. A part classification system for this type of feeder

was developed. Parts are classified as stable and non-stable; where those classified as

stable have one or more stable orientations when traveling along the feed belt.

With the advent of inexpensive computing and sensing equipment, researchers revisited

the double belt feeder system with the goal of providing a low-cost and flexible parts

feeding system that is capable of feeding complex geometries at feed rate between 30 and

60 parts per minute [138]. Low cost, high resolution, pattern recognition sensors

combined with a simple, efficient controller and low cost active tooling is used to

upgrade the previous feeder into a design with significant increases in efficiency and cost

effectiveness. It was realized that the earlier proposed component classification scheme

was insufficient for the needs of the double belt feeder; correctly oriented components are

also dependent on the manor in which they interact in the feeder, not just the number of

stable orientations. In addition to stable and non-stable, parts were also classified as semi-

stable; different sides of the same part may exhibit varied stability. A comprehensive

analysis of feed-rate errors and systemic limitations for double belt type feeders is also

presented.

A flexible feeding system that utilizes multiple ‘cartridge like’ bins to feed different parts

is presented in [139]. Programmable mechanical guides are used to discretize and orient

43
parts. Several parts are dumped onto a vibrating platform. The parts then hop onto two

central conveyors; adjustable bars are used to separate overlapping parts. Adjustable

wedge shaped guides create two columns of parts, in single file, along each of the two

conveyors. Return conveyors recirculate any parts which happen to fall off of the belt.

After parts reach an inspection station at the end of the belt, a high-speed machine vision

system is used to determine the orientation of the parts. With a mirror placed at 45ْ to the

inspection station, two views of the part are simultaneously analyzed. A robotic arm

picks the part if it happens to be in the appropriate configuration, if not, the belt returns

the part to the feed bin and the process repeats. The number of part types which may be

successfully fed is limited to those with few natural resting states.

Hill and Sword [140] developed a flexible feeder using a vision system and turntable to

orient small non-rotational parts. Parts are initially fed onto a translucent turntable. A

back light was use to provide illumination through the table to enable a vision system to

see the profile of the part and identify its orientation. Following identification of part

orientation one of two possible scripts would be executed. The turntable would either

rotate to the left, rejecting the part for recirculation, or rotate to the right, allowing the

part to proceed onto a programmable elevating platform whose height determined into

which orientation the part would finally tumble. Hill later applied a vision system and air-

jet tooling to a VBF [141]. Parts moving along a track enter a view window. When a part

reaches the end of the view window the camera takes a picture. An air jet known as a

‘gate-jet’ is turned on, preventing other parts from entering the camera viewing area. The

picture is analyzed with a computer to determine the state and orientation of the part. If

44
the part happens to be in the desired state and orientation, the second ‘return-jet’ is turned

off long enough for the part to pass. If the ‘return-jet’ is not turned off, the part is

knocked back to the bottom of the bowl for recirculation. In either case, the ‘gate-jet’ is

turned off to allow another part to be inspected. No means of part reorientation is

incorporated into this system.

For the frictionless gripper studied in [103, 142], Goldberg et al. [143] presented an

algorithm to find stochastically optimal parts feeding plans for n-sided polygonal parts

for incorporation into a flexible parts feeding system. Two classes of actions were

studied, the squeeze action and the push-grasp action, where the part is pushed by one

jaw prior to grasping. The algorithm was implemented with a linear bearing and a Lord

parallel-jaw gripper attached to a PUMA arm. Two rectangular parts were examined to

determine the effectiveness of the algorithm; no failures were observed. To facilitate

rapid set-up of assembly lines using this system, Goldberg built a simulator to provide

visualizations and realistic timing estimates of feeder throughput [144]. The simulator

takes a CAD model of the part as well as the current position of the robot, conveyor belts,

and cameras as input. An estimated feeder throughput dependent on overall part arrival

rate, the distribution of stable states in which the parts arrive, and the time required to

carry parts from the feeder conveyor belt is provided. A description of how robot cycle

times may be estimated using statistical sampling is also provided. Experimental results

indicated a timing error of 4.66% for small payloads of parts.

Branicky et al. [102] introduced the modeling of a complete feeder system based on the

statistical probabilities of the feeder sub-systems and on the probabilities of parts resting

45
in stable orientations. The system studied was a conveyer belt and robot-arm vision based

selective feeder described in [145]. This work differs from previous modeling efforts by

offering a high-level statistical equivalent of the physical system that can be used to

examine the feeder as a whole; examining issues of throughput, systemic control

strategies and high-level simulation and analysis. The vision system and conveyor system

were modeled independently by the Poisson process, while the parts retrieval system was

modeled by a normal distribution. Parameter values for these distributions were

determined by empirical testing. This data was then combined into a generalized semi-

Markov process model of the entire flexible feeder system. Three physical test cases were

modeled: a single part, multiple parts fed at once, and multiple parts fed in a specific

order. The model proved consistent with previously collected empirical data.

Industry has driven many of the latest innovations in flexible feeding. Sony, with APOS,

was first to reach market with a viable flexible feeding system [146]. Originally meant to

feed electronic parts, this system utilizes vibratory dynamics to orient parts in large

pallets of part nests. Parts to be oriented are poured from a hopper onto the inclined

pallet. The pallet is subsequently vibrated with three degrees of freedom, two linear and

one rotational. The pallets are designed to help guide the parts into part-shaped cavities.

Over several seconds a high proportion of the parts fall into the nests; unnested parts are

swept away and recirculated. Specially tooled pallets are required for each part, as well as

a pallet transport system to transfer the palleted parts from the feeder to the assembly

station where robot arms utilize the oriented parts for assembly.

46
Adept Technologies inc. [147] has developed a flexible feeder composed of three primary

components: a robot arm, a part circulation unit, and a vision system. Parts are loaded

into a lifting bucket which then tips them onto a feed conveyor. To deal with the

possibility of overlapping parts, the feed conveyer feeds the parts onto a second belt

running at a higher velocity. This velocity differential is usually all that is required to

discretize the parts to be examined. The second belt is then stopped to allow a vision

system to scan and identify part orientations. The robot arm is then instructed to pick the

parts identified as having the correct orientation; parts may be oriented around the

vertical axis if required. Those that are not identified as having the correct orientation or a

correctable orientation are re-circulated by a return belt.

The Polyfeed system from MIKRON Assembly Technology is a hybrid of the Adept

system and a linear vibratory feeder [148]. The feeder consists of a compact part

conveying system, a vision system, and a robot arm. The basic operation of the system is

the same as the Adept feeder. A camera and lighting system moves over the inspection

area and identifies components lying in the chosen orientation. After a certain number of

components have been identified, a robot arm is instructed to pick them up. Once all the

components with recognizable orientation have been processed, the inspection area

vibrates in an attempt to re-orient the remaining parts; the identification and picking

process begins again. This process continues until the vision system is unable to identify

any further parts in the inspection area, at which point, a new batch of parts is delivered.

System cost is the primary drawback of these new flexible feeding systems; they all

require a dedicated robot cell resulting in large, complex, and expensive machinery.

47
1.7 Waveform Research

Traditional methods of vibratory feeding employ sinusoidal waveforms to excite the

feeder track. This generally results in the inclusion of inefficient part motions in a feeding

cycle. Typically these involve backward sliding or unstable bouncing type motions,

producing inefficiencies which result in the reduction of feed rate; increasing the cost of

production. To improve part feeding efficiency, researches have examined alternatives to

the standard sinusoidally driven parts feeder. A number of unique examples are

illustrated in the literature. Mansour et al. developed a vibratory conveyor utilizing a

bristled ciliated track [149]. Yokoyama and Okabe equipped a standard vibratory

conveyor with a non-linear damper that advantageously altered the sinusoidal waveform

[150]. In an attempt to provide a quieter less disruptive feeding system, Singh replaced

the traditional electromagnetic vibratory actuator of the standard linear vibratory

conveyor with a 1-hp motor eccentrically driving a four bar linkage [151].

Okabe et al. [152] examined vibratory feeding by non-sinusoidal vibration. The velocity

associated with the generalized vibration wave form is approximated by six connected

straight lines. Five equations called ‘distortion factors’ were defined in order to derive the

optimum vibration wave form and the optimum conveying conditions. The types of

motion of the part were classified into seven modes by the combinations of positive slip,

negative slip, and stick relative to the surface. It was determined that the ‘noise’

generated by the hopping of parts would hinder the fundamental analysis, hence, part

motion normal to the vibration surface is not considered. The experimental set-up

consisted of a rectangular prismatic part moving on a horizontal track excited by a

48
moving coil type vibrator. It was found that if a suitable wave form and proper vibrating

conditions are chosen, the instantaneous velocity of the particle never takes a negative

value and the mean conveying velocity becomes large relative to conventional vibratory

feeder designs. If the amplitude of the waveform is increased, it was found that the

conveying velocity was increased, bounded only by the limitations of the hardware. The

limited nature of the experimental setup prevented the exhaustive examination of all

possible waveforms. Ishizaka et al. utilized a nearly identical experimental set-up to

examine a vibratory conveyer which used a vibration involving higher harmonics

(Acos(pt+φ)+Bcos2pt) [153]. Experimental results confirmed the theoretical supposition

that such a system would result in higher feed rates. A research effort, similar to [152],

utilizing an identical research methodology, but applied to conveying by elliptical

vibration, was described in [154]. The results of the theoretical analysis indicate that

vibratory conveying by elliptical vibration is more advantageous than conveying by

rectilinear vibration. Experimental studies confined the theoretical results.

In [155], the motion of a part on an oscillating track having both parallel and normal

accelerations is studied in order to determine the optimum feeding conditions. The

analysis is limited to the case where the part does not lose contact with the track at any

point during the cycle. To simplify calculations, acceleration cycles in both parallel and

normal directions are assumed to be step functions. An attempt is made to determine the

important factors of track design and asses quantitatively their influence on feeding

performance. Theoretical results compared favorably with empirical data, indicating

49
improved feed rates over traditional parallelly excited tracks. A rational design

methodology for oscillating inclined tracks is provided.

A more thorough examination of non-sinusoidal vibratory feeding along a parallelly and

normally excited track was presented in [156]. A vibratory conveyor excited by two in-

phase non-sinusoidal waveforms, normal and parallel with the track, was examined.

These waveforms were composed of the first two harmonics of motion. The analysis of

part motion was based on single-particle dynamics. Types of part motion considered

include: positive slip, negative slip, stick, and hopping. To study the performance of this

vibratory conveyor, an exhaustive parametric study was carried out for 81 waveform

combinations. Analysis was not limited to a completely horizontal track, various angles

of inclination were considered. The study revealed that non-sinusoidal excitation gives

mean conveying velocities higher than that of a conventionally driven feeder. Also,

where conventional feeders have difficulty feeding parts when the track is configured at a

high angle of inclination and low coefficient of friction [157], it was found that the non-

sinusoidal feeder experienced no such difficulties.

Quaid developed a miniature mobile parts feeder resembling a small VBF with no bowl

reservoir [158]. A specially shaped feed tray is rigidly attached to a planar linear motor.

The tray has an annular feed path for parts, a sloped ramp section, and a flat plateau

section. The motor performs a rotational vibration, resulting in a counter-clockwise

motion of the parts. When the bulk parts are loaded at the bottom of the ramp, parts

slowly climb the ramp, but only near the outside edge, resulting in a single file line. Once

in the plateau section, the parts speed up and spread out. They continue to move around

50
the plateau, where an overhead vision system can be used to identify parts in the correct

orientation. Incorrectly oriented parts pass over the drop-off and return to the pile of bulk

parts. This feeder exploits the unique capabilities of a closed-loop planer linear motor to

reorient, segregate, and position parts using only horizontal vibrations. Large planar

motions are also possible, allowing a single parts feeder to serve multiple overhead

robots. The design of the feeder utilizes few critical physical dimensions; allowing

different parts to be fed with only software changes. Multiple waveforms are examined

for their suitability for this application, two are chosen as the most promising: the stick-

slip waveform and the Coulomb pump waveform. Dynamic models of the feeder system

using these waveforms are generated and verified experimentally. No provision for

selecting the appropriate waveform for a given part was provided. In addition, the feeding

system proved vulnerable to parts that tend toward nesting.

As an extension of [13], Redford and Boothroyd [7] examine a VBF driven by out-of-

phase parallel and normal components of vibration. A theoretical analysis was performed

which allowed predictions to be made of the motion of a part on a track which vibrates

with simple harmonic motion with or without a phase difference between the normal and

parallel motions. Empirical experimentation confirmed the theoretical analysis. It was

concluded that traditional VBF drives, where the normal and parallel motions are in

phase, express serious limitations. It was found that part movement on the track will

generally be achieved by the pushing action of one part on another while traveling around

the bottom of the bowl. The mean velocity of parts was found to be seriously affected by

changes in the coefficient of friction between the component and the track. By

51
introducing an appropriate phase difference between the normal and parallel motions of

the track, high conveying velocities, independent of the coefficient of friction between

the component and the track, could be achieved. A method was developed to use these

phase difference to design a VBF such that the conveying velocity of parts on the bowl

track is greater than that of parts traveling around the bottom of the bowl, eliminating the

pushing phenomenon. Since the parallel and normal components of motion can be altered

independently, it was shown that feed rates could be altered by adjusting the parallel

component only, while the normal component can be set at a stable fixed level. Also, the

system automatically senses the natural frequency of the VBF and generates signals equal

to this value, maximizing feeding efficiency. This system is totally independent of the

main power source frequency. Compensation for changes in mass and relaxation of the

springs is also provided. This allows for increased feed rates without excessive bouncing.

An experimental apparatus illustrating all of the proposed functions of the theoretical

analysis was built and proven viable.

Unlike the traditional VBF, the drive unit of this design is not dedicated to any particular

bowl. The driver permits the interchange of bowls on standard drive units; hence,

eliminating the requirement of bowl tuning. The capability to change the phase of the

driver permits the conversion of the drive unit from left-hand feed to right-hand feed, or

vice versa. Feed direction may also be reversed at any time to clear jams or reject

improperly oriented parts. Operating at the natural frequency of the system also allows

for the reduction in power consumption and noise levels.

52
Han et al. designed a nearly identical system utilizing either traditional electromagnets or

two groups of piezoactuators to separately generate the parallel and normal components

of motion [159]. A systems model of this type of VBF was developed. Since the vertical

linear vibration and the horizontal vibration are decoupled; a model could be generated

where each of the components of motion are treated independently. Since mechanically

this system is a modular structure with one system superimposed on the other, it was

presumed that a systems model could be produced accordingly. Each system was

modeled as a one-degree-of-freedom mass-spring damper system then superimposed to

generated a compete model. Prototypes were developed utilizing both methods of

actuation. Empirical data was collected and compared to the proposed systems model,

favorable results were obtained.

Mahdavian et al. studied the effect of various shapes of driving input signals on the feed

rate of a VBF [160]. A new design for the driving unit of a VBF was presented. A

computer was interfaced to the VBF driving unit to digitally control amplitude,

frequency, and driving signal. A software interface was written to allow for the rapid

evaluation of experimental data points. Square, triangular, and traditional sinusoidal

driving waves, produced by a standard commercial signal generator at various

frequencies and amplitudes, were studied. It was found that the square wave input signal

drives a VBF at a considerably greater feed rate than either the triangular or sinusoidal

waveforms. Studies were also made of the sensitivity to the loss of mass in the bowl as

the parts feed out under various driving waveforms. The square wave was shown to be

53
least sensitive to the changing mass of the system; keeping the feed rate nearly constant

as the VBF emptied.

1.8 Research Objectives and Organization

VBF technology is mature; industry has been using VBFs to great effect for over 30

years. Research has not been lacking; altered driving input waveforms (DIWs) have been

examined, empirical and theoretical studies on the nature of part resting aspects have

been conducted, new and novel designs have and are being considered. However, a

deficiency exists in our understanding of the nature of VBFs. It had been shown that

optimum performance, defined as motion with the least amount of instability and a

maximized effective travel distance, occurs when the part just touches the track once in

every period, and then only when the track just reaches its maximum velocity in the

upward direction [31]. The VBF knowledge base lacks a fundamental understanding of

the interactions between the physical characteristics of a part and the various design

parameters of a VBF in relation to optimal performance.

That is, the generalized optimum performance for a given generic part is known, trial and

error adjusting of VBF parameters can be used to laboriously obtain this optimum value

for any specific part, but a link relating the geometry of a part to VBF parameters for

optimal performance is not available. Many authors neglect part geometry as significant

in determining the optimum feed rates of parts, preferring to model parts as simple point

masses [44, 42]. Recent research has indicated that part geometry has a large influence on

optimum feed rate [161]. This research suggested that a non-symmetrical part, when fed

54
in different orientations have different feed rates. The primary focus of this research is to

investigate this phenomenon.

The objective of this project is to design and build an apparatus simulating a VBF to test

and analyze the relationship between part geometry, VBF parameters and performance.

The experimental portion of the project will be conducted in three phases. The first phase

will be a pilot study. Two parts that are of different geometry and that express different

feed rates but are of the same mass, surface finish, material, surface area and volume will

be selected. These parts will be run on the experimental apparatus at varying VBF

parameter settings to determine if these settings influence the observed feed rate

difference. The second phase of the project will be an in-depth examination of the VBF

parameters determined to be significant on the feed rate difference, additional parts will

be manufactured if necessary. The third phase will involve verification of the results in a

commercial VBF.

At the conclusion of the experimental portion of the project, the results will be discussed

and the data analyzed. In the final chapter, the research contributions will be summarized,

conclusions derived, and areas of further research indicated. In the appendices complete

data tables for all experiments may be found.

55
 CHAPTER 2

EXPERIMENTAL ORGANIZATION

2.1 The Experimental Apparatus

For this project it was determined that track angle, vibration angle, frequency and

acceleration amplitude (normal to track) are the most pertinent VBF parameters to

compare with part geometries to determine optimum performance relationships. While a

commercial VBF allows for the alteration of driving frequency and acceleration

amplitude, it does not allow for the simple or rapid alteration of parameters such as track

angle and vibration angle. An apparatus (figure 2.1, figure 2.2) was designed and built

that simulates a traditional VBF and allows for the simple and expedient alteration of

driving frequency, acceleration amplitude, vibration angle, and track angle.

Figure 2.1 illustrates the conceptual design of the experimental apparatus; figure 2.2

displays the as built model. To change the vibration angle; the ‘platform’ is moved to the

desired angle, in 5û increments, and secured with bolts through the ‘securing bolt holes’.

The track angle is set by loosening the ‘cross bar’ nut, setting the track at the desired

angle and then retightening the nut. To ensure that the proper angle has been set, an

ADXL202 [162] accelerometer is used to determine the angle of tilt relative to the earth.

The ADXL202 was calibrated on a surface plate which had been leveled to within

55
.000050” with a master precision level. The calibrated accelerometer had an accuracy of

+/- .10û. Frequency and amplitude are controlled by directly manipulating the driving

waveform to the electromagnet. Both values are verified through the use of an ADXL250

[163] accelerometer mounted as shown in figure 2.2. The electromagnet chosen to drive

the apparatus was the Duramagnetics ER2-201 [164]. Its compact size, high holding

power, and inexpensive nature make it ideal for this application.

Two tracks were constructed; one of acrylic and another of aluminum. Both tracks have

slots and holes drilled to mount infra-red (IR) LED gates used to measure the feed-rate of

the parts. Once a part breaks the first IR beam, a timer is started, upon breaking the

second beam it is stopped. The distance between the gates is known, the feed rate is

simply derived by diving the distance traveled by the time required to travel that distance.

IR Gate Slot
Track

C ross Bar
Ele ctromagne t

Support Spring Platform

Securing Bolt Hole s

Figure 2.1: Experimental Apparatus, as Modeled.

56
In addition, the plastic track has a 2û side-to-side incline to enhance the simulation of a

VBF. Each track was carefully polished to ensure consistent surface finish. Figure 2.3

and figure 2.4 are measurements of the damped natural frequency of the system with each

track mounted. Table 2.1 is a summary of the response properties of the apparatus. The

system mass is defined as the moving mass and is comprised of all moving parts. The

acrylic track was chosen for the experiment; the lower mass of the acrylic track allows

for a greater damped natural frequency, thereby reducing the size of the power supply

required to drive the system in the desired ranges. In addition, the acrylic track more

closely resembles the track of a commercial VBF in terms of geometry.

Track

IR Transmitter
ADXL250
Accelerometer
IR Receiver
Cross Bar

Electromagnet

Support Spring

Platform

Securing Bolt Holes

Figure 2.2: Experimental Apparatus, as built

57
 Track Moving Mass Damped Natural Damping Natural Spring
ounces(grams) Frequency (hz) Ratio Frequency (hz) Constant
Lbs/in
Plastic 6.57(186.53) 43 hz .198 43.86 80.27
Aluminum 9.38(266.07) 36 hz .188 36.65 79.94

Table 2.1: Summary of Experimental Apparatus Response Properties

(a) (b)
Figure 2.3
(a) System Impulse Response with Plastic Track
(b) FFT of Impulse Waveform (43hz max)

(a) (b)
Figure 2.4
(a) System Impulse Response with Aluminum Track
(b) FFT of Impulse Waveform (36hz max)

58
2.2 The Experimental System

The complete experimental system is displayed in a simplified block diagram in Figure

2.5, figure 2.6 is a photograph of the actual system. Frequency and amplitude were

controlled with a solid state relay (SSR) and a National Instruments 1620E [165] data

acquisition system (DAQ). The input of the SSR was connected to the timer/counter

output of the DAQ; the output connected a 48v DC power supply to the electromagnet of

the experimental apparatus. The DAQ generated a pulse train which in turn activated the

SSR. The frequency of the pulse train determines the frequency of vibration, the duty

cycle of the pulse train determines the amplitude of vibration. Amplitude and frequency

were verified with an ADXL250 accelerometer attached as indicated in figure 2.2; the

output of the accelerometer was feed into a second National Instruments 1620E DAQ.

Two DAQ systems were required as the 1620E is not capable of reliably providing output

while receiving input; however, it is capable of receiving inputs from multiple sources

simultaneously. The second DAQ computer was dedicated to processing sensor

information and as such was also responsible for receiving the IR gate signals for

determining feed rate and the pulse width modulated output of the ADXL202E for

determining track angle. National Instruments Labview 6.1i [165] was chosen as the

interface software for data collection and electromagnet control. Detailed design

information can be found in the appendices: Appendix A contains the circuit diagram of

the IR gate interface circuit; Appendix B contains a detailed equipment list; Appendix C

diagrams the National Instruments LabView programs used to drive the electromagnet

and collect data.

59
Figure 2.5: Block Diagram Overview of Experimental System

60
 5v Sensor Power Supply SC 2345 #1
48v DC Power Supply
IR Gate Interface Circuit DAQ #2

DAQ #1

DAQ
Computer One
Experimental ADXL202 DAQ
SSR
SC 2345 #1 Apparatus Tilt Sensor Computer Two

Figure 2.6: Experimental System

2.3 Experimental Parts

Initial observations suggested that length was one of the key geometrical factors to

consider. With this in mind, two parts of different length were constructed for the pilot

study. To reduce the number of possible variable interactions the parts would have equal

bottom surface areas, surface finishes, mass and height. It was not possible to keep the

width the same and have different lengths while maintaining equivalent bottom surface

areas. Nor was it possible to have equal side surface areas while changing length and

keeping the heights the same. All parts were rough cut on a vertical milling machine and

61
finished on a Browne & Sharpe surface grinder. Careful attention was paid to the final

grinding process to ensure equivalent surface finishes on all parts. Hot rolled steel was

chosen as the construction material because it was relatively available and easy to

machine.

At the conclusion of the pilot study, it was determined that additional experimental parts

would be required. Four additional pairs of parts were manufactured out of hot rolled

steel. Two pairs altered length while maintaining the widths of the original parts the

others altered width while maintaining length. The new parts preserved the mass of the

original parts; however, since the volume had to remain identical neither the bottom or

side surface areas nor height would be the same as the originals. To improve the

manufacturing process a Sodic EDM machine was used to rough cut the parts; this

resulted in a significantly improved finished product. The same careful attention was paid

to the final finishing process to ensure identical surface finishes. Table 2.2 summarizes

the physical properties of experimental parts. The target mass for all parts was 18.44 gr.

(.65 oz), however, due to inaccuracies in the manufacturing process some variation is to

be expected; all parts were within +/- .5% of this goal.

2.4 Experimental Methodology

To ensure accurate and repeatable results, a fixed experimental methodology had to be

developed and enforced. This general policy was followed for every phase of data taking

involving the experimental apparatus. First, the desired vibration angle was set. Next, the

track angle was set. Since this variable is the most difficult to set and has the greatest

62
probability of user error; three independent readings of the ADXL202E tilt sensor were

taken to ensure that the track angle had been correctly adjusted. Frequency and amplitude

were then set with software controls; however, to determine if the desired result ensued,

the values were verified through the use of the ADXL250 accelerometer. Necessary

adjustments were made, usually to the duty cycle, and the verification process was

repeated. Once the frequency and amplitude satisfied the requirements, the IR gates were

checked for proper operation. Often, before the first trial of a session, the trimming

potentiometers of the IR driving circuit would need adjustment. After the experimental

system was shown to function properly, data collection began. Should the apparatus need

to be powered down, to either change settings or conclude the day’s activities, this

procedure was repeated prior to resuming further activity.

The verification data set required a different procedure. The only variable adjusted was

amplitude. The ADXL250 accelerometer was remounted to the commercial VBF to

verify the desired amplitude. The IR gates could not be remounted; a different procedure

was required to determine feed rate. A Kodak Kodacrome [166] high speed digital

camera and a paper grid were used for this purpose. Motions of the part were recorded

over the length of this grid. To determine the feed rate, the length of the grid was dived

by the time required to traverse it. While fundamentally identical to the previously

employed method, the errors introduced by manually collecting data required that at least

twenty-five trials needed to be run for each data point.

63
 Part # Length Width Height Mass
in. In. in. gram(ounce)
1. (original) 1.004 .748 .195 18.52(.653)
2. (original) 1.502 .496 .195 18.35(.647)
3 1.167 .750 .165 18.40(.649)
4 1.750 .500 .165 18.40(.649)
5 .833 .750 .232 18.48(.651)
6 1.250 .500 .232 18.48(.651)
7 1.500 .249 .385 18.35(.647)
8 1.001 .374 .385 18.38(.648)
9 1.500 .749 .128 18.37(.647)
10 .999 1.124 .128 18.35(.647)

Table 2.2: Summary of Experimental Parts

2σ measurement error of +/- .185%

64
 CHAPTER 3

THE PILOT STUDY

3.1 The Pilot Study

Preliminary investigations had suggested that length would be the critical geometric

factor. A pilot study using parts one and two was conducted in an attempt to formalize

this relationship and determine the influence, if any, of vibration angle, frequency, and

track angle on feed rate. It was decided that equation 1.2.1 would be used with part #1 to

develop a base-line configuration for comparison purposes. Initially, for a frequency of

80 Hz, vibration angle of 30û, and a track angle of 3û a reasonable feed rate was chosen;

this feed rate would be used for this frequency and track angle combination for all values

of vibration angle. Using equation 1.2.1, the feed rates were determined at all other

frequency settings for a track angle of 3û. In each case, for each vibration angle, the duty

cycle of the electromagnet driving waveform was adjusted until the desired feed rate was

obtained; the resulting normal acceleration was recorded. In this way, by fixing the

constant in equation 1.2.1, part #1 would have the same feed rate for a given frequency if

track angle was fixed at 3û but the vibration angle varied. For all other combinations of

parts, vibration frequency, and track angle, given a particular vibration angle; the

amplitude found to drive part #1 at a constant feed-rate would be used. Thus, a base line

was established through which meaningful comparison could be made.

65
Base-line feed rates and normal accelerations for frequency and vibration angle variations

are indicated in table 3.1. The factors and levels utilized for this experiment are

summarized in table 3.2. Averaged experimental results are indicated in tables 3.3-3.5,

comprehensive experimental results can be found in APPENDIX D. As predicted by

Boothroyd [5,7], if vibration angle was increased, the normal acceleration required to

maintain 1.2.1 at a constant value must also be increased; this is displayed in figure 3.1

Feed Rate Frequency Fv Normal Acceleration Vibration Angle

in./s. Hz Hz*in./s. Amplitude g deg.
1.5216 40 60.864 2.37 20
1.0126 60 60.756 2.40 20
.7906 80 63.248 2.35 20
1.5138 40 60.552 3.02 30
1.0174 60 61.044 3.03 30
.7662 80 61.296 2.98 30
1.526 40 61.04 3.67 40
1.0244 60 61.464 3.52 40
.7892 80 63.136 3.63 40

Table 3.1: Part #1: base-line feed rates for fixed 3û track angle

Factor Level 1 Level 2 Level 3

Vibration Angle (deg.) 20 30 40
Frequency (Hz) 40 60 80
Track Angle (deg.) 2 3 3.5
Part #1 #2

Table 3.2: Pilot study: experimental factors and levels

66
Frequency Part #1 Part #2
Hz. (in./s.) (in./s.)
2û 3û 3.5û 2û 3û 3.5û
40 2.04 1.521 1.250 2.437 1.816 1.508
60 1.381 1.012 0.826 1.656 1.216 0.987
80 1.075 0.790 0.647 1.305 0.956 0.789

Table 3.3: Averaged Feed Rates (in./s.) for 20û Vibration Angle

Frequency Part #1 Part #2

Hz. (in./s.) (in./s.)
2û 3û 3.5û 2û 3û 3.5û
40 2.04 1.513 1.199 2.418 1.800 1.424
60 1.383 1.017 0.805 1.645 1.231 0.960
80 1.043 0.766 0.621 1.273 0.942 0.761

Table 3.4: Averaged Feed Rates (in/s) for 30û Vibration Angle

Frequency Part #1 Part #2

Hz. (in./s.) (in./s.)
2û 3û 3.5û 2û 3û 3.5û
40 2.059 1.526 1.233 2.445 1.833 1.480
60 1.392 1.024 0.843 1.673 1.236 1.007
80 1.082 0.789 0.643 1.303 0.957 0.783

Table 3.5: Averaged Feed Rates (in/s) for 40û Vibration Angle

67
 4
3.5

Normal Acceleration (g)

3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Vibration Angle (deg.)

Figure 3.1: Normal Acceleration (averaged) vs. Vibration Angle

3.2 The Effect of Track Angle

Figure 3.2 illustrates feed rate verses track angle for given settings of vibration angle and

frequency for both parts. In all cases, increasing track angle decreases feed rate. This

correlates well with Boothroyd [5,7]. Moreover, the feed rate difference between the two

parts does not appear to be effected by alterations in track angle. Figure 3.3 graphs the

percentage difference in feed rate between the two parts against track angle. In all cases,

the difference remains approximately constant.

68
 3 3

2.5 2.5

Feed Rate (in./s.)

Feed Rate (in./s.)

2 40û P.1. 2 30û P.1.
40û P.2. 30û P.2.
1.5 1.5

1 1

0.5 0.5
1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
40 Hz Driving Frequency 40 Hz Driving Frequency
Track Angle (deg.) Track Angle (deg.)
40û Vib ration Angle 30û Vib ration Angle

3 1.9
1.7
2.5
Feed Rate (in./s.)

Feed Rate (in./s.)

1.5
2 20û P.1. 1.3 40û P.1.
20û P.2. 1.1 40û P.2.
1.5
0.9
1
0.7
0.5 0.5
1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
40 Hz Driving Frequency 60 Hz Driving Frequency
Track Angle (deg.) Track Angle (deg.)
20û Vib ration Angle 40û Vib ration Angle

1.9 1.9
1.7 1.7
Feed Rate (in./s.)

Feed Rate (in./s.)

1.5 1.5
1.3 30û P.1. 1.3 20û P.1.

1.1 30û P.2. 1.1 20û P.2.

0.9 0.9
0.7 0.7
0.5 0.5
1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
60 Hz Driving Frequency 60 Hz Driving Frequency
Track Angle (deg.) Track Angle (deg.)
30û Vib ration Angle 20û Vib ration Angle

1.4 1.4
1.3 1.3
1.2 1.2
Feed Rate (in./s.)

Feed Rate (in./s.)

1.1 1.1
1 40û P.1. 1 30û P.1.
0.9 40û P.2. 0.9 30û P.2.
0.8 0.8
0.7 0.7
0.6 0.6
0.5 0.5
1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
80 Hz Driving Frequency 80 Hz Driving Frequency
Track Angle (deg.) Track Angle (deg.)
40û Vib ration Angle 30û Vib ration Angle

1.4
1.3
1.2
Feed Rate (in./s.)

1.1
1 20û P.1.
0.9 20û P.2.
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
80 Hz Driving Frequency
Track Angle (deg.)
20û Vib ration Angle

Figure 3.2: Feed Rate vs. Track Angle

69
 22.5 22.5
20 20

Percentage Difference

Percentage Difference
17.5 17.5
15 15
20û vib. 20û vib.
12.5 12.5
30û vib. 30û vib.
10 10
40û vib. 40û vib.
7.5 7.5
5 5
2.5 2.5
0 0
1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Track Angle Track Angle
40 Hz Driving Frequency 60 Hz Driving Frequency

25
22.5

Percentage Difference
20
17.5
15 20û vib.
12.5 30û vib.
10 40û vib.
7.5
5
2.5
0
1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Track Angle
80 Hz Driving Frequency

Figure 3.3: Percentage Difference in Feed Rate vs. Track Angle

3.3 The Effect of Vibration Frequency

Figure 3.4 is a graph of feed rate verses vibration frequency. It is important to note that at

all experimental settings; the general trends follow those of the base-line configuration.

Figure 3.5 graphs the percentage difference of feed rate between parts #1 and #2 verses

frequency for all experimental settings. No significant deviations outside of the range of

experimental error are observed. APPENDIX E contains graphs displaying the constant

in equation 1.2.1 verses frequency for all experimental settings. For each part at a given

track angle and frequency, the constant remains nearly unchanged. The observed errors

are well within those reported by Boothroyd [5,7]. This verifies the assumed premise

stated in section 3.1 regarding the use of equation 1.2.1 as the basis for comparison of

feed rates across multiple frequencies.

70
 3 3
Feed Rate (in./s.) 2.5 P.1.2û 2.5 P.1.2û

Feed Rate (in./s.)

2 P.2.2û 2 P.2.2û
P.1.3û P.1.3û
1.5 1.5
P.2.3û P.2.3û
1 P.1.3.5û 1 P.1.3.5û

0.5 P.2.3.5û 0.5 P.2.3.5û

0 0
35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85
Frequency (Hz) 20û Vibration Angle Frequency (Hz) 30û Vibration Angle

2.5 P.1.2û
Feed Rate (in./s.)

2 P.2.2û
P.1.3û
1.5
P.2.3û
1 P.1.3.5û

0.5 P.2.3.5û

0
35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85
Frequency (Hz) 40û Vibration Angle

Figure 3.4: Feed Rate vs. Vibration Frequency

P.1.2û = Part #1, 2û Track Angle

25 25
Percentage Difference

Percentage Difference

20 20

15 2û Track 15 2û Track
3û Track 3û Track
10 3.5û Track 10 3.5û Track

5 5

0 0
35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85
Frequency Frequency
20û Track Angle 30û Track Angle

25
Percentage Difference

20

15 2û Track
3û Track
10 3.5û Track

0
35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85
Frequency
40û Track Angle

Figure 3.5: Percentage Difference of Feed Rate vs. Frequency

71
3.4 The Effect of Vibration Angle

Feed rate verses vibration angle for a given part at given settings is indicated in figure

3.6. The base-line configuration, P.1.3, was determined so as to allow part #1 to have the

same feed rate over all ranges of vibration angle for a given vibration frequency and 3û

track angle. For increased vibration angles, the normal acceleration had to be increased,

as indicated in figure 3.1.1, to allow for the desired feed rates. The remaining curves

represent experimental data run at the base-line settings for amplitude. This indicates that

for all other combinations of parts and settings, the general trend is to follow the base-

line. Figure 3.7 graphs the percentage difference in feed rate between the two parts

against vibration angle. In all cases, the difference remains approximately constant and

equivalent to previous results.

3 1.8
1.6
2.5 P.1.2û P.1.2û
1.4
Feed Rate (in./s.)

Feed Rate (in./s.)

2 P.2.2û 1.2 P.2.2û

P.1.3û 1 P.1.3û
1.5
P.2.3û 0.8 P.2.3û
1 P.1.3.5û 0.6 P.1.3.5û
P.2.3.5û 0.4 P.2.3.5û
0.5
0.2
0 0
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Vibration Angle (deg.) 40 Hz. Vibration Frequency Vibration Angle (deg.) 60 Hz. Vibration Frequency

1.4
1.2
P.1.2û
Feed Rate (in./s.)

1 P.2.2û
0.8 P.1.3û
0.6 P.2.3û

0.4 P.1.3.5û
P.2.3.5û
0.2
0
15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Vibration Angle (deg.) 80 Hz. Vibration Frequency

Figure 3.6: FV vs. Vibration Frequency

P.1.2û = Part #1, 2û Track Angle

72
 25 22.5
22.5 20

Percentage Difference

Percentage Difference
20 17.5
17.5 15
15 2û Track. 2û Track.
12.5
12.5 3û Track 3û Track
10
10 3.5û Track 3.5û Track
7.5 7.5
5 5
2.5 2.5
0 0
10 20 30 40 50 10 20 30 40 50
Vibration Angle (deg.) Vibration Angle (deg.)
80 Hz Driving Frequency 60 Hz Driving Frequency

22.5
20

Percentage Difference
17.5
15
2û Track.
12.5
3û Track
10
3.5û Track
7.5
5
2.5
0
10 20 30 40 50
Vibration Angle (deg.)
60 Hz Driving Frequency

Figure 3.7: Percentage Difference of Feed Rate vs. Vibration Angle

3.5 Statistical Analysis

The data was placed into a design of experiments matrix and analyzed. The results are

indicated in APPENDIX F. The percentage difference (PD) of feed rate between the two

parts was chosen as the response variable.

Initial examinations of the p-values indicate that vibration and track angle are most likely

insignificant in regards to changes in the percentage difference. This combined with a

small coefficient for frequency, an adjusted R2 value of 47.6% and the data presented in

section 3.2-3,4; the most likely conclusion is that the factors of frequency, track angle,

and vibration angle have an insignificant effect on the percentage difference between the

feed rates of the two parts within the bounds of this experiment.

73
 CHAPTER 4

STUDY I

4.1 Study I

In the previous experiment, it was determined that the percentage difference in feed rate

between parts one and two was insensitive to changes in track angle, vibration angle, and

frequency. It was decided to manufacture additional parts that varied length and width,

and explore variations in feed rates at fixed frequency, track angle and vibration angle.

Track angle was fixed at 2.82û; this was chosen to represent the average of those track

angles tested in the pilot study. Vibration angle was set at 30û to represent the median

value of those used during the pilot study. Normal acceleration was set at 3.04 g in an

attempt to get as close as possible to 3 g; the normal acceleration value used during the

pilot study for 30û vibration angle. The driving frequency was fixed at 80 Hz. This value

was selected in an attempt to reduce the amount of time required to balance the

experimental apparatus and to increase the overall lifespan of the equipment. The logic is

as follows: equation set 4.1.1 represents the displacement, velocity and acceleration of a

generic sinusoidal waveform, of which the motions of the experimental apparatus

approximate. For a fixed normal acceleration of 3.04 g, as frequency ω is increased, the

value of A is decreased. In terms of displacement, this represents reduced maximum

74
amplitude; putting less stress on the system, thereby reducing the number of times the

system must be rebalanced and increasing the overall lifespan by reducing wear.

x = A sin ω
*
x = Aω cos ω (4.1.1)
**
x = − Aω 2 sin ω

All of the parts indicated in table 2.2 were used; for convenience this table is repeated in

4.1. Table 4.2 indicates the average feed rated; complete experimental data in available in

APPENDIX G. Figure 4.1 is a graph of length verses feed rate, initial observation

indicates that length is a strong factor in determining the feed rate difference. Figure 4.2,

a graph of feed rate verses width, tells us nothing. Figure 4.3, a graph of feed rate verses

height is similar in this regard; however, a pattern appears to be evident, but no definitive

conclusions can be drawn; this will be discussed in greater detail in chapter 7.

74
 Length Width Height Mass
Part # in. In. in. gram(ounce)
1. (original) 1.004 .748 .195 18.52(.653)
2. (original) 1.502 .496 .195 18.35(.647)
3 1.167 .750 .165 18.40(.649)
4 1.750 .500 .165 18.40(.649)
5 .833 .750 .232 18.48(.651)
6 1.250 .500 .232 18.48(.651)
7 1.500 .249 .385 18.35(.647)
8 1.001 .374 .385 18.38(.648)
9 1.500 .749 .128 18.37(.647)
10 .999 1.124 .128 18.35(.647)

Table 4.1: Study I: Experimental Parts

Part # Feed Rate (in./s.)

1 0.822
2 0.993
3 0.878
4 1.049
5 0.757
6 0.916
7 1.003
8 0.838
9 0.984
10 0.814

Table 4.2: Study I: Averaged Data

75
 1.1
1.05
1

Feed Rate (in./s.)

0.95
0.9
0.85
0.8
0.75
0.7
0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9
Length (in.)

Figure 4.1: Study I: Feed Rate vs. Length

1.1
1.05
1
Feed Rate (in./s.)

0.95
0.9
0.85
0.8
0.75
0.7
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2
Width (in.)

Figure 4.2: Study I: Feed Rate vs. Width

76
 =
1.1
1.05
1

Feed Rate (in./s.)

0.95
0.9
0.85
0.8
0.75
0.7
0.055 0.105 0.155 0.205 0.255 0.305 0.355 0.405
Height (in.)

Figure 4.3: Study I: Feed Rate vs. Height

4.2 Statistical Analysis

The data was processed by means of regression analysis. The results are indicated in

APPENDIX H. The percentage difference (PD) of feed rate between parts #2-9 and part

#1, the original base-line part, was chosen as the response variable. The results are in

general agreement with the initial observations regarding the graphs. Length has a p-

value of 0.000 and a large coefficient; suggesting a strong association with the observed

feed rate difference. Width has a p-value of .792 and a small coefficient value; suggesting

insignificance in regard to changes in feed rate. Height appears to be insignificant;

however, it has a p-value of .495 and a coefficient that is greater than width’s by a factor

of 6.28, which does not inherently exclude it; this will be discussed in further detail in

chapter 7. With an adjusted R2 value of 99.0% and the resultant p values, the most likely

conclusion is that the percentage difference in feed rate is sensitive to variations in

length, while width appears to be insignificant within the bounds of this experiment.

Height is most likely insignificant; however, there are some indications to the contrary.
77
 CHAPTER 5

STUDY II

5.1 Study II

In the previous experiments, it was determined that the percentage difference in feed rates

between parts was insensitive to track angle, vibration angle, and frequency. Further, it

was determined that length contributes significantly to this difference. Width was shown

to be most likely insignificant, while no definitive conclusion may be drawn about height;

it may or may not be significant; if it is significant, the contribution is small; this will be

discussed further in chapter 7. This experiment endeavors to determine the effect of

normal acceleration on the observed feed rate difference between parts. Track angle was

fixed at 2.96û, frequency at 80 Hz and vibration angle at 30û for the reasons stated in

section 4.1. All of the parts indicated in table 2.2 were used; this table is repeated in 5.1

for clarity. Normal accelerations of 2.4g, 2.64g, 2.95g, 3.11g and 3.45g were used: 2.4g

represents the lowest normal acceleration that still moves parts, while 3.45g is the largest

normal acceleration possible without physically damaging the experimental apparatus.

Complete experimental data can be found in APPENDIX I. Table 5.2 is a summary of the

averaged data. Figure 5.1 is a graph of feed rate verses normal amplitude. The data

indicates that the increase in feed rate is approximately linear for each part, until a certain

78
value of normal acceleration is reached, after which the graph takes on a slightly non-

linear characteristic. In addition, the percentage difference in feed rate increases as the

amplitude is increased. Figure 5.2 graphs feed rate vs. length. It is immediately apparent

that the percentage difference in feed rate is dependant on normal acceleration; the lower

the normal acceleration, the smaller the difference between parts. At the higher end of the

normal acceleration/length spectrum, the graph expresses the slightly nonlinear nature

observed in figure 5.1

Length Width Height Mass

Part # in. In. in. gram(ounce)
1. (original) 1.004 .748 .195 18.52(.653)
2. (original) 1.502 .496 .195 18.35(.647)
3 1.167 .750 .165 18.40(.649)
4 1.750 .500 .165 18.40(.649)
5 .833 .750 .232 18.48(.651)
6 1.250 .500 .232 18.48(.651)
7 1.500 .249 .385 18.35(.647)
8 1.001 .374 .385 18.38(.648)
9 1.500 .749 .128 18.37(.647)
10 .999 1.124 .128 18.35(.647)

Table 5.1: Study II: Experimental Parts

N. Accel. Part 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
(g) #1 in./s. in./s. in./s. in./s. in./s. in./s. in./s. in./s. in./s.
2.4 0.500 0.51 0.502 0.514 0.492 0.504 0.511 0.505 0.507 0.496
2.64 0.636 0.701 0.657 0.737 0.617 0.673 0.71 0.647 0.693 0.628
2.95 0.803 0.953 0.852 1.024 0.743 0.878 0.963 0.816 0.949 0.793
3.11 0.89 1.080 0.952 1.140 0.820 0.989 1.092 0.909 1.072 0.879
3.45 1.044 1.283 1.144 1.349 0.959 1.184 1.295 1.069 1.274 1.036

Table 5.2: Study II: Averaged Data

79
 1.4
P.1
1.2 P.2
Feed Rate (in./sec) 1 P.3
P.4
0.8
P.5
0.6 P.6
0.4 P.7
P.8
0.2
P.9
2.25 2.4 2.55 2.7 2.85 3 3.15 3.3 3.45 3.6
P.10
Normal Acceleration (g)

Figure 5.1: Study II: Feed Rate vs. Normal Acceleration

P.1 = Part #1

1.6
1.4
1.2
Feed Rate (in./s.)

2.4g
1 2.64g
0.8 2.95g
0.6 3.11g
0.4 3.45g
0.2
0
0.65 0.8 0.95 1.1 1.25 1.4 1.55 1.7 1.85
Length (in.)

Figure 5.2: Study II: Feed Rate vs. Length

80
5.2 Statistical Analysis

The data was processed by means of regression, and response surface regression analysis.

The results are indicated in APPENDIX J. The percentage difference (PD) of feed rate

between parts #2-9 and part #1, the original base-line part, was chosen as the response

variable. The results of the regression analysis agree with those of the previous

experiment. The response surface regression results indicate that the linear terms of

length, width, and height, are insignificant and that normal acceleration may or may not

be significant with a p-value of .284. Examining the squared terms suggests that only

normal acceleration is significant. The interaction terms indicate that length and normal

acceleration interact in a strong and meaningful manor with a p-value of 0.000. This

result agrees well with the data; length affects the observed percentage difference in feed

rates between parts. The degree to which this occurs however, is strictly determined by

amplitude; the greater the amplitude, the greater the observed difference.

81
 CHAPTER 6

VERIFICATION STUDY

The purpose of the verification study was not repeat earlier experiments in full, but rather

to examine the performance of selected parts in a commercial VBF to determine if the

same trends observed while using the experimental apparatus would be evident under

real-world conditions. An Automation Devices [167] VBF was chosen for the verification

study. Three parts and three normal accelerations were chosen. Previous experimentation

confirmed that the interaction of length and amplitude was the primary contributing

factor to the observed percentage differences in feed rate. Lengths of .833, 1.25 and 1.75

were chosen as they represented the widest possible distribution of lengths. A normal

acceleration of 1.68g was chosen as it was the lowest possible setting still capable of

feeding parts; 2.49g represented the highest possible setting of acceleration that reliably

fed parts; 1.99g represented a median value. The averaged results are indicated in table

6.1; a complete data set is available in APPENDIX K. Figure 6.1 and 6.2 display the feed

rate verses length and normal acceleration amplitude. The results, in general, agree with

the findings obtained while using the experimental apparatus. At the lowest possible

normal acceleration amplitude, the differences in feed rate are small, as this amplitude is

increased, the percentage difference increases, at high values, the difference saturates.

Differences in slope can be attributed to systemic differences between the two systems.

82
 Normal Acceleration Part #5 Part #6 Part #4
(g) (in./s.) (in./s.) (in./s.)
1.68 2.910 3.05 3.23
1.99 3.259 3.7 4.23
2.49 3.980 4.7 5.18

Table 6: Averaged Feed Rate Data

5.500

5.000
Feed Rate (in./s.)

4.500
1.68g
4.000
1.99g
3.500
2.49g
3.000

2.500

2.000
0.750 1.000 1.250 1.500 1.750 2.000
Length (in.)

Figure 6.1: Verification Study: Feed Rate vs. Length

83
 5.500

5.000
Feed Rate (in./s.)

4.500
.833 in
4.000
1.25 in
3.500
1.75 in
3.000

2.500

2.000
1.5 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.7
Normal Acceleration (g)

Figure 6.2: Verification Study: Feed Rate vs. Normal Acceleration

84
 CHAPTER 7

ANALYSIS

7.1 Introduction

The purpose of this chapter is to analyze the VBF and part interactions in order to

describe the trends observed in the experimental data. 2-D classical impact mechanics

equations will be developed to describe the part and VBF movements during a single

launch, flight and impact cycle. These equations will then be extended and incorporated

into a simulation to determine this effect over multiple cycles. Figures 7.1 and 7.2 depict

a typical sequence of motions of the longest part, part #4, and the shortest part, part #5.

7.2 Trajectory Analysis

Under ideal conditions, and ignoring air friction, Winkler [168, 169] indicates that the

condition for free flight on the track of a VBF requires that the normal track acceleration

exceed the gravitational constant g. After achieving maximum velocity, the VBF leaf

springs cause the bowl to decelerate. The part begins to slide as it does not decelerate at

the same rate as the bowl because it is not attached to the bowl. Boothroyd [5] indicates

that this forward sliding occurs when:

An µ s + tan θ
> (7.2.1)
g n cotψ + µ s

85
Figure 7.1: Sequence of Motions for 1.75” Part at 1.68 g Normal Acceleration

86
Figure 7.2: Sequence of Motions for .833” Part at 1.68 g Normal Acceleration

87
Assuming a reference plane with the normal axis perpendicular to the track and a tangent

axis parallel to it, the normal track velocity at the point of separation will be used as a

reasonable estimation of the normal velocity of the part at separation. Calculating the

value of 7.2 .1 indicates that the difference in tangential velocity of the track from the

point the part starts to slide and the point its separates from the track is between 1.5-2%.

Thus, a reasonable assumption for tangential velocity of the part at separation is the

tangential velocity of the track at separation. From the point of maximum normal

velocity, the normal force continuously decreases until it exceeds that of gravity and the

part separates from the track and follows a course prescribed by projectile motion.

Thomas [44] indicates that wall friction is an insignificant factor, thus it is ignored.

A typical graph of the normal displacement of the track and the part for the initial cycle is

indicated in figure 7.3.

Direct observation of the motions of the parts indicates that a torque is applied to the

parts at the moment of separation (figure 7.1.1,7.1.2). This torque induces a momentary

angular acceleration over a small time period, and hence imparts a component of angular

velocity about the axis of length during the flight trajectory. The exact magnitude of this

torque is unknown, but it is most likely very small. For these simulations, a torque of .1

in-ozs is assumed over a time period of one-thousandth of a second. The significance of

this is that the resulting impact on the track is oblique regardless of the magnitude of the

torque. The point of contact thus experiences not only a normal and tangential impulse,

but also an impulsive torque. The source of this torque is revealed when the nature of the

motions of the leaf springs in the VBF and the configuration of the coil springs in the

88
experimental apparatus is examined. After the electromagnet in a VBF releases the bowl,

the individual leaf springs follow the path of an arc. In the experimental apparatus; under

compression, the coil springs act as a solid cylinder, uncompressed, they ‘lean’ forward,

providing a small torque as the parts are launched. Figure 7.2.1 is an estimation of the

path of all the parts, since the initial angular velocity is very small, this will not be so for

subsequent impacts.

0.01
Y Displacement (inches)

0.008
0.006
0.004
0.002 Track
0
-0.002 Part
-0.004
-0.006
-0.008
-0.01
0 0.0025 0.005 0.0075 0.01 0.0125 0.015
Time (seconds)

Figure 7.3: Motion of Part and Track Normal Acceleration of 1.99 g

7.3 Impact Analysis

The methods of classical impact mechanics with friction presented by Wang and Mason

[170] and repeated in Stronge [171] are used for the analysis of the impact between the

part and the VBF track.

89
The sudden, short-term encounter between two colliding bodies is a very complicated

event. The major characteristics are the very brief duration and large magnitudes of the

forces generated. The vast complexity of the process leads to serious and significant

difficulties in mathematical analysis of the problem; by introducing the classical rigid-

body assumption and Coulomb’s friction law, the process is significantly simplified.

The primary simplifying assumption in rigid body impacts is the notion of set

deformation histories. All collisions follow the same basic timeline consisting of two

distinct periods: the period of compression which extends from the instant of collision to

the point of maximum compression and the period of restitution, lasting until the point of

separation. Thus, the contact period is assumed to be vanishingly small leading to

impulsive interactive forces with finite forces, such as gravity, being ignored. Since the

process is assumed to be near instantaneous, the linear and angular velocities of the

bodies have discontinuous changes. The near instantaneous change also indicates that no

significant displacements occur during the collision process.

The motion of the part and VBF are assumed to be those of 2-D planer rigid bodies with

friction. The coefficient of restitution is modeled by Poisson’s hypothesis rather than

Newton’s law of restitution by virtue of its apparent superiority [170,171]. The VBF

bowl is aluminum and the parts steel, hence a coefficient of restitution of .9 [172] and a

coefficient of dynamic friction of .47 [173] is chosen. Since a moment about the length is

applied during part separation from the track, a point to plane oblique impact is assumed

90
for all impacts. The motion of the VBF is assumed not to change after impact as the mass

of the VBF is assumed significantly greater than that of the part.

A frame of reference is attached at the contact point with the y axis normal to the

boundary and points into the part and the x axis pointing up the track. The center of mass

of the parts relative to this frame is considered (x , y). The initial linear velocities of the

⋅ ⋅ ⋅ ⋅
part and the track are labeled ( x o , y o ) and ( x ot , y ot ) respectively. Based on these

⋅
assumptions, the part will also have an initial angular velocity; θ o . hence, the initial

relative normal compression velocity is Co:

⋅ ⋅ ⋅
C o = ( y o + θ o x) − y ot (7.3.1)

The initial relative tangential (sliding) velocity is So:

⋅ ⋅ ⋅
S o = ( x o − θ o y ) − x ot (7.3.2)

At any instant during the impact, the motion of the part is governed by the linear and

angular impulse-momentum laws, which prove the following relations:

⋅ ⋅
m( x − xo ) = Px
⋅ ⋅
m( y − y o ) = Py (7.3.3)
⋅ ⋅
I (θ − θ o ) = − Px y + Py x

91
Where I is the moment of inertia of the part about the rotating axis and m is the mass and

Px and Py are tangential and normal components of impulse. There is an analogous set of

equations for the effect of the impulse on the VBF, however, these will not be considered

as the effect of the part on the VBF is assumed insignificant.

As the collision progresses to its conclusion, the accumulated impulse will change the

relative sliding and compression velocities. By combining the dynamics and kinematics

equations presented in [170] and removing those terms related to the VBF, since mVBF>>m

and IVBF >> I , the final relative velocities can be expressed in terms of the accumulated

impulse:

S = S o + B1 Px − B3 Py
(7.3.4)
C = C o − B3 Px + B2 Py

where

1 y2
B1 = +
m I
1 x2
B2 = + (7.3.5)
m I
xy
B3 =
I

Under this system, collisions are classified by three criteria: whether the collisions

stopped sliding or not; if so, whether it entered a sticking mode or a reverse sliding mode;

and whether it changed modes during the compression restitution phase of the impact.

These classifications are determined by the comparison of the coefficient of friction

92
between the part and track, µ, and the following quantities derived from Routh’s impact

criteria [170]. Table 7.3.1 summarizes these comparisons.

Pd = sS o ( B2 + sµB3 )
Pq = −C o ( µB1 + sB3 )
B3
µs = − (7.3.6)
B1
So
s=
So

Where s is the sign of the initial sliding velocity So, µs the friction necessary to prevent

sliding. Pq and Pd are constants derived from Routh’s method, refer to APPENDIX L for

a more detailed explanation. Once the collision mode has been determined, the resulting

impulses are given by Wang and Mason [170] and repeated below.

µ > |µs| µ < |µs|

Pd>(1+e)Pq sliding
(1+e)Pq>Pd>Pq sticking in restitution reversed sliding in restitution
Pq>Pd sticking in compression reversed sliding in compression

Table 7.1: Modes of collision

93
• Sliding

Px = − sµPy
Co (7.3.7)
Py = −(1 + e)
B2 + sµB3

• Restitution Sticking

B3 Py − S o
Px =
B1
(7.2.8)
Co
Py = −(1 + e)
B2 + sµB3

• Compression Sticking

B3 Py − So
Px =
B1
(7.3.9)
B C + B3 So
Py = −(1 + e) 1 o
B1B2 − B32

• Restitution Reversed Sliding

2S o
Px = sµ[ Py − ]
B3 + sµB1
(7.3.10)
Co
Py = −(1 + e)
B2 + sµB3

• Compression Reverses Sliding

2S o
Px = sµ[ Py − ]
B3 + sµB1
(7.3.11)
1+ e 2sµB3 S o
Py = − [C o + ]
B2 − sµB3 B3 + sµB1

94
The following is an analysis of the impact between the VBF track and the shortest part

(part #5), for a normal acceleration of 2.49g. The impact is assumed oblique and to occur

on the leading edge of the part. The mass moment of inertia I for the axis passing through

the length of a parallelepiped is given by APPENDIX M:

1
I= m(a 2 + b 2 ) = .040oz * in 2 (7.3.12)
12

Where ‘a’ is the height and ‘b’ is the length. Table 7.2 summarizes the relevant velocities

and positions at the point of impact. Table 7.3 summarizes the part property constants

and Routh’s quantities. From these it can be determined that Pd>(1+e)Pq and that µ < |µs|;

which places the mode of impact as sliding. Table 7.4 indicates the normal and

tangential impulse components, relative velocities, components of velocity of the point of

contact, angular velocity, and the velocities of the center of mass. Table 7.5 summarizes

the results for parts #1-4, and 6.

Examining the results indicate that as length is increased the angular velocity on rebound

is decreased. The normal and tangential velocities also differ; as the length increases, the

tangential velocity increases while normal velocity decreases. When paired with

observations of high speed digital footage of part motions, an insight into the relationship

between length and feed rate begins to materialize; the shorter the part, the higher the

angular velocity on rebound because of the smaller moment of inertia about the axis

through the length. This higher angular velocity creates instabilities in subsequent

interactions between the part and VBF. This is clearly illustrated in figure 7.4, where the
95
shortest part is clearly seen to undergo unstable inefficient motions, wasting kinetic

energy on actions not directly related to positive feed rate. The long part on the other

hand, figure 7.1, tends too rebound, just as the short part, but continues on its path with

few instable perturbations. While this chaotic behavior is not wholly described by simple

2-D planer impact analysis, simulation of multiple cycles could prove insightful.

⋅ 4.09 in/sec
xo
⋅ -2.93 in/sec
yo
⋅ 0.012 in/sec
θo
⋅ 2.538in/sec
x ot
⋅ 1.129 in/sec
y ot
x 0.421 in
y -0.094 in
So 1.335 in/sec
Co -4.141 in/sec

Table 7.2: Part #5: Velocities and Positions at Point of Impact

B1 1.755063
B2 5.925428
B3 -0.98036
Pd 7.221222
Pq -0.64455
µs 0.558591
s 1

Table 7.3: Part #5: Property Constants and Routh’s Quantities

96
 Py 1.441
Px -0.677
S 1.545
C 3.730
⋅ ⋅
4.866 in/sec
y f −θ f x
⋅ ⋅
4.098 in/sec
x f +θ f y
⋅
12.857 rad/sec
θf
⋅ -0.558 in/sec
yf
⋅ 2.886 in/sec
xf

Table 7.4: Part #5: Impact Results (l=.833”)

Mode of Impact ⋅
⋅ ⋅
y f (rad/sec) x f (rad/sec)
θ f (rad/sec)
Part #5 Unidirectional Sliding 12.857 -0.558 2.886
(L=.833”)
Part #1 Unidirectional Sliding 11.022 -0.693 2.913
(L=1”)
Part #3 Unidirectional Sliding 9.618 -0.779 2.915
(L=1.167”)
Part #6 Unidirectional Sliding 8.857 -0.715 2.918
(L=1.25”)
Part #2 Unidirectional Sliding 7.449 -0.789 2.932
(L=1.5”)
Part #4 Unidirectional Sliding 6.532 -0.863 2.945
(L=1.75”)

Table 7.5: Summary of First Impact Results for Parts of Varying Length at An=2.49

97
A simulation of equations 7.3.1 to 7.3.12 was written in Microsoft Visual Basic. All

parameter assumptions from the single point simulation were carried over into the multi

point simulation. Figure 7.5 is a typical graph of the part and track normal displacement

over the time period examined. The ‘lead’ line represents the position of the leading point

while the ‘trail’ line represents the position of the trailing point. A collision is resolved

anytime either of these points intersects with the track. Tables 7.6 and 7.7, summarize

the simulation results for amplitudes of 1.99, 2.49 g normal acceleration. The lower

setting of 1.68g was not simulated because the simulation accounts for impacts only, and

not forward/backward sliding, a phenomenon prevalent at lower settings.

The results are reasonable; they indicate a relative increase in feed rate from shorter to

longer parts. While the feed rates do not reflect those of the actual VBF, or of the

percentage differences observed they do fit the observed data in the basic trends. Longer

parts have higher resistance to angular accelerations, thus for parts of the same mass, the

longer the part the more stable it will be in its interactions with the VBF. Higher stability

allows for more efficient feeding, less energy is wasted on nonproductive motions.

Height is a factor; it has a squared term in the moment of inertia equation. However, for

the geometric envelope of the parts examined, the height is small, and varies by small

amounts between the various length parts which have different heights. This verifies the

earlier suspicion that height was a significant factor, even though the statistical analysis

was unclear in this regard. This position is supported by figures 7.6 and 7.7; graphs of

feed rate verses moment of inertia about length for the data presented in Study II and the

verification study. The larger the moment of inertia about length, the greater the feed rate;

98
the interaction between the moment of inertia and normal acceleration amplitude is also

apparent.

The high speed digital video indicates that increasing normal acceleration amplitude

increases this effect; greater instability leads to greater inefficiencies, likewise,

decreasing normal acceleration amplitude leads to less significant differences. 2-D planer

impact analysis verifies the basic underlying causation but does not adequately describe

this phenomenon. Further video analysis indicates that the majority of these inefficiencies

occur in 3-D space and are highly chaotic in nature.

Part # (length, inches) Tangential Displacement in/.07 seconds (ins/sec)

5 (.833) .154 (2.20)
1 (1) .155 (2.21)
3 (1.167) .157 (2.24)
6 (1.25) .168 (2.40)
7 (1.5) .191 (2.72)
4 (1.75 ) .212 (3.02)

Table 7.6: Simulation Results Summary, Normal Acceleration 1.99 g

Part # (length, inches) Tangential Displacement in/.07 seconds (ins/sec)

5 (.833) .265 (3.78)
1 (1) .265 (3.78)
3 (1.167) .268 (3.782)
6 (1.25) .273 (3.9)
7 (1.5) .275 (3.92)
4 (1.75 ) .280 (4)

Table 7.7: Simulation Results Summary, Normal Acceleration 2.49 g

99
Figure 7.4: Instabilities of the Shorter Part: 1.68 g

100
 track Lead Trail

4.00E-02

Normal Displacement (inches)

3.50E-02
3.00E-02
2.50E-02
2.00E-02
1.50E-02
1.00E-02
5.00E-03
0.00E+00
-5.00E-03 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07
-1.00E-02
Time (seconds)

Figure 7.5: Impact Simulation, Part #3, 1.99 g Normal Acceleration

1.6
1.4
Feed Rate (in./sec)

1.2 2.4g
2.64g
1
2.95g
0.8
3.11g
0.6 3.45g
0.4
0.2
0.025 0.05 0.075 0.1 0.125 0.15 0.175
Moment of Inertia (oz/in^2)

Figure 7.6: Feed Rate vs. Moment of Inertia: Study II

101
 5.5
5
Feed Rate (in./sec)

4.5
1.68g
4
1.99g
3.5
2.49g
3
2.5
2
0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.1 0.125 0.15 0.175 0.2
Moment of Inertia (oz./in^2)

Figure 7.7: Feed Rate vs. Moment of Inertia: Verification Data

102
 CHAPTER 8

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND FUTURE RESEARCH

8.1 Summary

In this study, parts with different geometric properties, but identical physical properties

were empirically examined in conjunction with VBF parameters to determine the effect,

if any, of geometry on feed rate and the interactions that these effects may have with

VBF parameters. Ten different parts were constructed and four VBF parameters were

selected a suitable for study.

An experimental apparatus was designed and built by which VBF parameters may be

quickly altered. A system of experimentation was developed around this apparatus

whereby empirical studies could be efficiently executed in a timely manner. Three

empirical studies were conducted using this apparatus at the full range of its capabilities.

A commercial VBF was used to verify the results of these studies. High speed digital

recordings of the part motions in the VBF were taken to aid in analysis.

Statistical methods and classical impact analysis were used to provide an insight into the

mechanics of the observed phenomenon. Based on qualitative observations and

quantitative analysis of the data; a conclusion on the nature of one aspect of the

interaction of part geometry and VBF parameters for the studied class of parts was made.

103
8.2 Research Contributions and Conclusions

The major research contribution of this dissertation is the description of the interaction

between part geometry, VBF parameters and feed rate for the examined class of parts. Up

until this point, the phenomenon by which parts of uniform physical properties such as

mass, surface finish and material could feed at different rates when placed or configured

in different geometric orientations in a VBF was not completely understood. It has been

shown that a primary contributing factor involved in this phenomenon is the moment of

inertia about the axis perpendicular to length; the larger this moment, the higher the

stability, the greater the feed rate. This conclusion is supported by Bauer ‘s [174] data.

8.3 Future Research

The results of this work generate many interesting questions. Much of the current

research in modern VBF technology is centered on tooling and part orientation. What

then would the effect of part geometry be on this? If part stability is an important factor

in determining feed rate, then most certainly it is an important factor in the interaction of

a part with passive and active tooling elements. This research could also be extended to

consider parts outside of the class of parts studied; perhaps a long-term and systematic

empirical effort to determine the boundaries of this phenomenon and to explore the

relevance of these issues in a more practical industrial setting. Considering the continual

advance of computer technology, the development of a comprehensive real-time

simulation of a VBF accounting for stability and the effect of micro-motions would be of

great benefit in either an industrial or academic setting.

104
 APPENDIX A

INFRARED TRANSMITTER AND RECIEVER CIRCUITS

105
106
 APPENDIX B

EXPERIMENTAL SYSTEM EQUIPTMENT LIST

(Complete Off-The-Shelf Items)

107
 Item Part Number Quantity
Data Acquisition Box National Instruments 6020E 2
Signal Conditioning Box National Instrument SC 2345 2
+/- 10v Analog Input Module SCC-AI03 2
Digital Input Module SCC-DI01 2
Solid State Relay CRYDOM DC60S7 1
Research Computer #1 Pentium III 1 Gz 1
Research Computer #2 Sony VAIO Laptop 1
Power Supplies 24 v American Standard 2

Table B: Pre-Built Equipment List

108
APPENDIX C

LABVIEW VIs

109
Figure C.1: Angle Measurement VI

110
Figure C.2: Electromagnet Control VI

111
Figure C.3: Infrared Gate Feed Rate Measurement VI

112
Figure C.4: ADXL250 Calibration VI

113
Figure C.5: Acceleration and Frequency Verification VI

114
 APPENDIX D

PILOT STUDY DATA SET

115
 Part #1 Part #2 Part #1 Part #2 Part #1 Part #2
2û 2û 3û 3û 3.5û 3.5û
80 Hz.
Trial #1 1.099 1.308 0.800 0.976 0.632 0.754
#2 1.080 1.308 0.800 0.978 0.696 0.799
#3 1.035 1.269 0.808 0.955 0.639 0.809
#4 1.094 1.323 0.783 0.941 0.669 0.828
#5 1.068 1.318 0.762 0.932 0.600 0.755
Average 1.0752 1.3052 0.7906 0.9564 0.6472 0.789
60 Hz.
Trial #1 1.338 1.644 0.975 1.233 0.874 1.034
#2 1.43 1.677 1.054 1.235 0.800 0.939
#3 1.335 1.682 0.977 1.201 0.858 1.013
#4 1.395 1.645 1.016 1.21 0.782 0.956
#5 1.410 1.634 1.041 1.205 0.816 0.993
Average 1.3816 1.6564 1.0126 1.2168 0.826 0.987
40 Hz.
Trial #1 1.978 2.337 1.479 1.783 1.272 1.542
#2 2.142 2.587 1.448 1.691 1.298 1.557
#3 1.999 2.35 1.541 1.873 1.243 1.482
#4 2.024 2.37 1.595 1.928 1.196 1.453
#5 2.096 2.544 1.545 1.813 1.243 1.506
Average 2.047 2.437 1.521 1.817 1.250 1.508

Table D.1: Pilot Study Data - 20û Vibration Angle

116
 Part #1 Part #2 Part #1 Part #2 Part #1 Part #2
2û 2û 3û 3û 3.5û 3.5û
80 Hz.
Trial #1 1.033 1.226 0.768 0.931 0.606 0.751
#2 1.015 1.225 0.766 0.946 0.656 0.808
#3 1.082 1.344 0.771 0.942 0.603 0.739
#4 1.031 1.259 0.766 0.942 0.655 0.797
#5 1.054 1.309 0.760 0.949 0.585 0.710
Average 1.043 1.273 0.7662 0.942 0.621 0.761
60 Hz.
Trial #1 1.344 1.694 0.990 1.259 0.862 0.943
#2 1.418 1.635 1.050 1.237 0.808 0.928
#3 1.373 1.622 0.993 1.233 0.824 0.978
#4 1.387 1.626 1.028 1.201 0.755 0.983
#5 1.395 1.651 1.026 1.229 0.778 0.969
Average 1.3834 1.6456 1.0174 1.2318 0.8054 0.9602
40 Hz.
Trial #1 1.977 2.321 1.505 1.754 1.242 1.452
#2 2.147 2.480 1.457 1.765 1.221 1.452
#3 1.988 2.337 1.522 1.771 1.192 1.392
#4 1.995 2.407 1.564 1.900 1.132 1.347
#5 2.094 2.546 1.521 1.814 1.211 1.474
Average 2.0402 2.4182 1.5138 1.8008 1.1996 1.424

Table D.2: Pilot Study Data - 30û Vibration Angle

117
 Part #1 Part #2 Part #1 Part #2 Part #1 Part #2
2û 2û 3û 3û 3.5û 3.5û
80 Hz.
Trial #1 1.086 1.275 0.763 0.948 0.635 0.756
#2 1.070 1.290 0.803 0.990 0.675 0.843
#3 1.131 1.292 0.812 0.973 0.607 0.728
#4 1.061 1.313 0.770 0.928 0.684 0.847
#5 1.063 1.349 0.798 0.947 0.618 0.742
Average 1.0822 1.3038 0.7892 0.9572 0.6438 0.7832
60 Hz.
Trial #1 1.342 1.675 1.01 1.202 0.897 1.070
#2 1.437 1.648 1.052 1.252 0.821 0.970
#3 1.383 1.702 0.999 1.242 0.864 1.015
#4 1.389 1.707 1.029 1.244 0.810 0.967
#5 1.411 1.633 1.032 1.240 0.826 1.016
Average 1.3924 1.673 1.0244 1.236 0.8436 1.0076
40 Hz.
Trial #1 1.992 2.316 1.514 1.857 1.198 1.448
#2 2.187 2.685 1.464 1.790 1.265 1.499
#3 2.007 2.364 1.547 1.820 1.240 1.517
#4 2.026 2.370 1.571 1.820 1.228 1.426
#5 2.087 2.491 1.534 1.882 1.234 1.512
Average 2.0598 2.4452 1.526 1.8338 1.233 1.4804

Table D.2: Pilot Study Data - 40û Vibration Angle

118
 APPENDIX E

FV VERSES VIBRATION FREQUENCY

119
 120 120

100 P.1.2û 100 P.1.2û

FV (Hz*in./s.)

FV (Hz*in./s.)
80 P.2.2û 80 P.2.2û
P.1.3û P.1.3û
60 60
P.2.3û P.2.3û
40 P.1.3.5û 40 P.1.3.5û

20 P.2.3.5û 20 P.2.3.5û

0 0
35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85
Frequency (Hz) 20û Vibration Angle Frequency (Hz) 30û Vibration Angle

120

100 P.1.2û
FV (Hz*in./s.)

80 P.2.2û
P.1.3û
60
P.2.3û
40 P.1.3.5û

20 P.2.3.5û

0
35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85
Frequency (Hz) 40û Vibration Angle

Figure E: FV vs. Vibration Frequency

P.1.2û = Part #1, 2û Track Angle

120
 APPENDIX F

PILOT STUDY: RESPONSE SURFACE REGRESSION

121
Response Surface Regression

The analysis was done using uncoded units.

Estimated Regression Coefficients for PD

Term Coef StDev T P

Constant 22.7869 6.41240 3.554 0.002
Freq -0.0060 0.09757 -0.061 0.952
Vib -0.5238 0.19514 -2.685 0.016
Track 2.4325 3.32151 0.732 0.474
Freq*Freq 0.0006 0.00071 0.870 0.397
Vib*Vib 0.0082 0.00282 2.903 0.010
Track*Track -0.3635 0.57536 -0.632 0.536
Freq*Vib -0.0001 0.00100 -0.119 0.907
Freq*Track -0.0095 0.01308 -0.730 0.476
Vib*Track 0.0125 0.02615 0.476 0.640

S = 0.6920 R-Sq = 65.7% R-Sq(adj) = 47.6%

Analysis of Variance for PD

Source DF Seq SS Adj SS Adj MS F P

Regression 9 15.6196 15.61956 1.73551 3.62 0.011
Linear 3 10.6615 3.91396 1.30465 2.72 0.077
Square 3 4.5879 4.58785 1.52928 3.19 0.050
Interaction 3 0.3702 0.37021 0.12340 0.26 0.855
Residual Error 17 8.1400 8.14004 0.47883
Total 26 23.7596

Unusual Observations for PD

Observation PD Fit StDev Fit Residual St Resid

14 21.042 19.519 0.352 1.523 2.56R

Figure F: Response Surface Regression, Pilot Study

122
APPENDIX G

STUDY I DATA

123
 Part #1 #2 #3 #4 5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10
Trial #1 0.820 0.988 0.872 1.042 0.766 0.900 1.006 0.833 0.982 0.805
2 0.827 0.992 0.879 1.037 0.756 0.931 0.974 0.842 1.002 0.808
3 0.828 0.992 0.865 1.056 0.768 0.936 0.974 0.850 0.998 0.804
4 0.825 0.975 0.892 1.036 0.746 0.936 0.990 0.851 0.988 0.822
5 0.827 0.986 0.862 1.059 0.753 0.903 1.014 0.859 0.996 0.810
6 0.835 0.997 0.884 1.063 0.762 0.907 1.019 0.848 0.990 0.829
7 0.838 0.996 0.863 1.036 0.755 0.930 1.007 0.821 0.981 0.815
8 0.804 1.005 0.865 1.052 0.766 0.903 1.011 0.848 0.997 0.823
9 0.802 0.986 0.892 1.063 0.757 0.923 0.995 0.832 0.965 0.820
10 0.825 0.994 0.860 1.063 0.762 0.907 0.993 0.841 0.975 0.807
11 0.835 0.999 0.874 1.036 0.746 0.931 1.017 0.832 0.985 0.825
12 0.814 1.014 0.891 1.042 0.737 0.904 1.023 0.816 0.985 0.829
13 0.820 0.984 0.889 1.050 0.753 0.922 1.003 0.857 0.971 0.801
14 0.812 0.972 0.872 1.058 0.780 0.915 1.015 0.826 0.975 0.799
15 0.805 0.984 0.887 1.047 0.754 0.934 1.022 0.827 0.965 0.810
16 0.837 1.014 0.881 1.044 0.771 0.907 0.992 0.834 0.993 0.822
17 0.828 1.012 0.891 1.062 0.749 0.909 0.982 0.836 1.002 0.801
18 0.806 0.984 0.886 1.055 0.751 0.904 1.024 0.860 0.972 0.801
19 0.839 0.996 0.886 1.063 0.739 0.922 0.989 0.817 0.984 0.807
20 0.830 1.004 0.872 1.051 0.779 0.932 1.021 0.856 1.000 0.825
21 0.804 0.995 0.861 1.037 0.753 0.907 1.010 0.854 0.971 0.828
22 0.832 0.978 0.893 1.054 0.771 0.929 0.985 0.849 0.991 0.810
23 0.824 0.993 0.887 1.047 0.768 0.922 1.005 0.824 0.976 0.820
24 0.832 0.982 0.891 1.037 0.734 0.917 1.016 0.838 0.970 0.824
25 0.825 1.012 0.865 1.055 0.772 0.891 1.006 0.820 0.987 0.815

Ave. 0.8230 0.9934 0.8784 1.0498 0.7579 0.9169 1.0037 0.8388 0.9840 0.8144

Table G: Study I Data

124
 APPENDIX H

STUDY I: REGRESSION ANALYSIS

125
Regression Analysis

The regression equation is

PD = - 40.2 + 39.4 L - 1.31 W + 8.2 H

Predictor Coef StDev T P

Constant -40.151 8.272 -4.85 0.003
L 39.426 2.582 15.27 0.000
W -1.308 4.736 -0.28 0.792
H 8.17 11.26 0.73 0.495

S = 1.198 R-Sq = 99.3% R-Sq(adj) = 99.0%

Analysis of Variance

Source DF SS MS F P
Regression 3 1275.07 425.02 296.25 0.000
Residual Error 6 8.61 1.43
Total 9 1283.68

Source DF Seq SS
L 1 1265.44
W 1 8.88
H 1 0.76

Unusual Observations
Obs L PD Fit StDev Fit Residual St Resid
10 1.75 27.616 29.540 0.788 -1.924 -2.13R

R denotes an observation with a large standardized residual

Figure H: Study I Regression Analysis

126
 APPENDIX I

STUDY II DATA

127
Trial Part #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10
#1 1.036 1.277 1.133 1.35 0.942 1.216 1.312 1.101 1.246 1.017
2 1.024 1.262 1.179 1.386 0.978 1.202 1.285 1.069 1.273 1.033
3 1.060 1.286 1.121 1.361 0.955 1.199 1.295 1.051 1.285 1.012
4 1.042 1.280 1.147 1.371 0.941 1.155 1.318 1.089 1.271 1.019
5 1.044 1.286 1.120 1.324 0.984 1.192 1.293 1.069 1.297 1.054
6 1.077 1.300 1.145 1.351 0.970 1.168 1.288 1.090 1.275 1.036
7 1.063 1.306 1.135 1.341 0.949 1.175 1.272 1.059 1.259 1.046
8 1.022 1.310 1.163 1.342 0.974 1.167 1.272 1.054 1.302 1.043
9 1.036 1.253 1.145 1.341 0.940 1.184 1.305 1.054 1.256 1.067
10 1.044 1.274 1.153 1.329 0.963 1.191 1.316 1.059 1.277 1.038

Ave. 1.044 1.283 1.144 1.349 0.959 1.184 1.295 1.069 1.274 1.036

Table I.1: Study II Data: 3.45 g

Trial Part #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10

#1 0.908 1.069 0.942 1.135 0.796 0.972 1.078 0.910 1.054 0.875
2 0.877 1.075 0.950 1.145 0.830 0.994 1.104 0.899 1.080 0.888
3 0.911 1.070 0.964 1.114 0.830 0.976 1.100 0.924 1.086 0.886
4 0.892 1.095 0.946 1.135 0.818 0.999 1.080 0.924 1.075 0.872
5 0.880 1.097 0.973 1.154 0.818 1.001 1.094 0.909 1.074 0.888
6 0.885 1.067 0.969 1.139 0.815 0.980 1.078 0.921 1.053 0.854
7 0.884 1.068 0.951 1.142 0.811 1.002 1.078 0.912 1.062 0.880
8 0.879 1.097 0.947 1.156 0.822 0.976 1.102 0.907 1.068 0.890
9 0.889 1.087 0.943 1.148 0.830 0.999 1.112 0.896 1.080 0.884
10 0.895 1.084 0.938 1.134 0.831 1.000 1.099 0.890 1.088 0.875

Ave. 0.89 1.080 0.952 1.140 0.820 0.989 1.0925 0.909 1.072 0.879

Table I.2: Study II Data: 3.11 g

128
Trial Part #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10
#1
#1 0.803 0.964 0.859 1.018 0.746 0.881 0.951 0.818 0.949 0.783
2 0.811 0.956 0.842 1.038 0.739 0.889 0.977 0.805 0.954 0.807
3 0.805 0.945 0.841 1.034 0.738 0.870 0.960 0.823 0.942 0.783
4 0.793 0.938 0.854 1.022 0.729 0.887 0.973 0.825 0.945 0.803
5 0.807 0.962 0.844 1.017 0.752 0.865 0.961 0.804 0.967 0.793
6 0.800 0.944 0.863 1.014 0.755 0.873 0.970 0.829 0.961 0.784
7 0.793 0.906 0.838 1.030 0.738 0.878 0.958 0.799 0.938 0.777
8 0.815 0.963 0.864 1.037 0.754 0.891 0.975 0.823 0.940 0.803
9 0.815 0.943 0.853 1.020 0.732 0.868 0.949 0.824 0.947 0.805
10 0.794 0.958 0.863 1.014 0.752 0.886 0.965 0.813 0.947 0.794

Ave. 0.803 0.953 0.852 1.024 0.743 0.878 0.963 0.816 0.949 0.793

Table I.3: Study II Data: 2.95 g

Trial Part #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10

#1 0.634 0.704 0.657 0.735 0.623 0.664 0.706 0.655 0.697 0.636
2 0.631 0.707 0.666 0.729 0.623 0.677 0.702 0.643 0.700 0.634
3 0.631 0.697 0.661 0.743 0.607 0.68 0.700 0.651 0.687 0.621
4 0.647 0.695 0.647 0.734 0.616 0.669 0.703 0.639 0.687 0.630
5 0.640 0.694 0.654 0.744 0.617 0.673 0.710 0.652 0.700 0.626
6 0.643 0.703 0.652 0.732 0.624 0.679 0.713 0.656 0.686 0.620
7 0.636 0.711 0.658 0.738 0.609 0.676 0.712 0.651 0.693 0.624
8 0.631 0.693 0.661 0.736 0.627 0.666 0.720 0.657 0.692 0.634
9 0.628 0.705 0.656 0.733 0.611 0.679 0.712 0.637 0.694 0.633
10 0.643 0.703 0.667 0.747 0.619 0.667 0.722 0.631 0.701 0.622

Ave. 0.636 0.701 0.657 0.737 0.617 0.673 0.710 0.647 0.693 0.628

Table I.4: Study II Data: 2.64 g

129
Trial Part #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10
#1 0.499 0.511 0.502 0.518 0.494 0.507 0.515 0.502 0.511 0.494
2 0.501 0.509 0.501 0.516 0.498 0.508 0.505 0.512 0.511 0.494
3 0.501 0.511 0.505 0.512 0.497 0.502 0.512 0.500 0.507 0.497
4 0.502 0.512 0.495 0.514 0.486 0.498 0.510 0.503 0.506 0.502
5 0.494 0.506 0.506 0.513 0.489 0.510 0.519 0.504 0.506 0.491
6 0.504 0.504 0.496 0.513 0.490 0.500 0.512 0.508 0.509 0.504
7 0.502 0.517 0.499 0.511 0.489 0.506 0.513 0.510 0.508 0.496
8 0.494 0.511 0.506 0.507 0.489 0.506 0.506 0.506 0.501 0.492
9 0.505 0.504 0.504 0.519 0.490 0.505 0.512 0.509 0.514 0.496
10 0.504 0.515 0.506 0.519 0.498 0.504 0.513 0.500 0.505 0.501

Ave. 0.500 0.510 0.502 0.514 0.492 0.504 0.511 0.505 0.507 0.496

Table I.5: Study II Data: 2.40 g

130
 APPENDIX J

STUDY II: RESPONSE SURFACE REGRESSION

131
Regression Analysis

The regression equation is

PD = 3.81 - 3.91 L + 1.07 W - 1.92 H

Predictor Coef StDev T P

Constant 3.805 2.902 1.31 0.238
L -3.9056 0.9058 -4.31 0.005
W 1.068 1.661 0.64 0.544
H -1.916 3.950 -0.49 0.645

S = 0.4202 R-Sq = 93.8% R-Sq(adj) = 90.7%

Analysis of Variance

Source DF SS MS F P
Regression 3 16.0653 5.3551 30.33 0.001
Residual Error 6 1.0594 0.1766
Total 9 17.1246

Source DF Seq SS
L 1 14.5741
W 1 1.4497
H 1 0.0415

Unusual Observations
Obs L PD Fit StDev Fit Residual St Resid
5 0.83 1.600 0.909 0.248 0.691 2.04R

R denotes an observation with a large standardized residual

Figure J.1: Study II: Regression Analysis 2.4 g Normal Acceleration

132
Regression Analysis

The regression equation is

PD = 17.0 - 19.2 L + 3.44 W - 1.95 H

Predictor Coef StDev T P

Constant 16.974 2.665 6.37 0.001
L -19.2080 0.8319 -23.09 0.000
W 3.438 1.526 2.25 0.665
H -1.953 3.628 -0.54 0.610

S = 0.3859 R-Sq = 99.7% R-Sq(adj) = 99.6%

Analysis of Variance

Source DF SS MS F P
Regression 3 345.36 115.12 772.88 0.000
Residual Error 6 0.89 0.15
Total 9 346.25

Source DF Seq SS
L 1 337.55
W 1 7.77
H 1 0.04

Unusual Observations
Obs L PD Fit StDev Fit Residual St Resid
4 1.75 15.881 -15.243 0.254 -0.638 -2.19R

R denotes an observation with a large standardized residual

Figure J.2: Study II: Regression Analysis 2.64 g Normal Acceleration

133
Regression Analysis

The regression equation is

PD = 39.3 - 37.9 L + 0.58 W - 7.23 H

Predictor Coef StDev T P

Constant 39.330 3.590 10.95 0.000
L -37.870 1.121 -33.79 0.000
W 0.581 2.055 0.28 0.787
H -7.231 4.887 -1.48 0.189

S = 0.5198 R-Sq = 99.9% R-Sq(adj) = 99.8%

Analysis of Variance

Source DF SS MS F P
Regression 3 1158.39 386.13 1428.87 0.000
Residual Error 6 1.62 0.27
Total 9 1160.01

Source DF Seq SS
L 1 1152.72
W 1 5.08
H 1 0.59

Unusual Observations
Obs L PD Fit StDev Fit Residual St Resid
5 0.83 7.472 6.543 0.306 0.929 2.21R

R denotes an observation with a large standardized residual

Figure J.3: Study II: Regression Analysis 2.95 g Normal Acceleration

134
Regression Analysis

The regression equation is

PD = 42.2 - 40.6 L + 0.78 W - 10.3 H

Predictor Coef StDev T P

Constant 42.212 8.331 5.07 0.002
L -40.613 2.600 -15.62 0.000
W 0.784 4.769 0.16 0.875
H -10.35 11.34 -0.91 0.397

S = 1.206 R-Sq = 99.4% R-Sq(adj) = 99.0%

Analysis of Variance

Source DF SS MS F P
Regression 3 1335.44 445.15 305.92 0.000
Residual Error 6 8.73 1.46
Total 9 1344.17

Source DF Seq SS
L 1 1324.04
W 1 10.19
H 1 1.21

Unusual Observations
Obs L PD Fit StDev Fit Residual St Resid
4 1.75 -28.090 -30.176 0.793 2.087 2.30R

R denotes an observation with a large standardized residual

Figure J.4: Study II: Regression Analysis 3.11 g Normal Acceleration

135
Regression Analysis

The regression equation is

PD = 38.6 - 41.1 L + 3.30 W - 3.3 H

Predictor Coef StDev T P

Constant 38.61 13.49 2.86 0.029
L -41.103 4.210 -9.76 0.000
W 3.301 7.722 0.43 0.684
H -3.32 18.36 -0.18 0.862

S = 1.953 R-Sq = 98.4% R-Sq(adj) = 97.7%

Analysis of Variance

Source DF SS MS F P
Regression 3 1447.66 482.55 126.51 0.000
Residual Error 6 22.89 3.81
Total 9 1470.55

Source DF Seq SS
L 1 1438.23
W 1 9.30
H 1 0.13

Unusual Observations
Obs L PD Fit StDev Fit Residual St Resid
4 1.75 -29.215 -32.215 1.284 3.001 2.04R

R denotes an observation with a large standardized residual

Figure J.5: Study II: Regression Analysis 3.45 g Normal Acceleration

136
Response Surface Regression

The analysis was done using uncoded units.

Estimated Regression Coefficients for PD

Term Coef StDev T P

Constant 456 5434.3 0.084 0.934
L -284 2706.6 -0.105 0.917
W -525 5994.4 -0.088 0.931
H -1539 16749.1 -0.092 0.927
A 24 22.4 1.088 0.284
L*L 20 353.2 0.057 0.955
W*W 141 1605.6 0.088 0.930
H*H 1261 13257.1 0.095 0.925
A*A -10 2.4 -4.280 0.000
L*W 124 1508.7 0.082 0.935
L*H 333 3870.9 0.086 0.932
L*A 37 5.4 6.853 0.000
W*H 862 9489.2 0.091 0.928
W*A -1 9.9 -0.077 0.939
H*A 4 23.6 0.167 0.868

S = 2.045 R-Sq = 97.1% R-Sq(adj) = 96.0%

Analysis of Variance for PD

Source DF Seq SS Adj SS Adj MS F P

Regression 14 4956.58 956.584 354.042 84.64 0.000
Linear 4 4123.59 6.818 1.705 0.41 0.802
Square 4 90.08 77.098 19.275 4.61 0.004
Interaction 6 742.91 742.914 123.819 29.60 0.000
Residual Error 35 146.41 146.405 4.183
Total 49 5102.99

Unusual Observations for PD

Observation PD Fit StDev Fit Residual St Resid

30 27.466 23.181 0.972 4.285 2.38R
50 29.173 34.547 1.326 -5.374 -3.45R

R denotes an observation with a large standardized residual

Figure J.6: Study II: Response Surface Regression

137
 APPENDIX K

VERIFICATION DATA

138
 1.68 g 1.99 g 2.49 g
Part #5 6 4 5 6 4 5 6 4
0.272 0.261 0.227 0.24 0.205 0.184 0.185 0.151 0.142
0.254 0.264 0.223 0.243 0.213 0.188 0.170 0.147 0.156
0.24 0.228 0.226 0.221 0.211 0.183 0.192 0.149 0.147
0.27 0.243 0.219 0.22 0.206 0.168 0.192 0.151 0.15
0.273 0.258 0.239 0.217 0.207 0.189 0.205 0.174 0.147
0.268 0.257 0.235 0.24 0.193 0.184 0.177 0.160 0.155
0.241 0.264 0.248 0.221 0.206 0.166 0.189 0.167 0.138
0.238 0.252 0.233 0.231 0.199 0.188 0.182 0.167 0.144
0.257 0.224 0.241 0.211 0.194 0.177 0.198 0.154 0.138
0.275 0.241 0.233 0.233 0.189 0.172 0.172 0.161 0.15
0.26 0.230 0.246 0.245 0.211 0.172 0.200 0.164 0.141
0.264 0.232 0.232 0.217 0.200 0.182 0.174 0.170 0.134
0.26 0.240 0.239 0.227 0.210 0.168 0.173 0.144 0.139
0.234 0.223 0.216 0.248 0.191 0.172 0.188 0.152 0.147
0.246 0.256 0.218 0.232 0.196 0.175 0.172 0.157 0.137
0.235 0.237 0.225 0.238 0.212 0.169 0.181 0.170 0.151
0.267 0.228 0.217 0.226 0.193 0.169 0.189 0.155 0.139
0.253 0.235 0.244 0.23 0.212 0.180 0.203 0.163 0.147
0.262 0.248 0.237 0.216 0.214 0.174 0.184 0.148 0.138
0.272 0.223 0.227 0.245 0.212 0.174 0.194 0.170 0.145
0.275 0.252 0.244 0.212 0.212 0.175 0.201 0.174 0.143
0.257 0.262 0.219 0.213 0.197 0.185 0.190 0.149 0.149
0.263 0.265 0.247 0.248 0.188 0.179 0.182 0.171 0.151
0.235 0.250 0.236 0.234 0.187 0.186 0.206 0.159 0.155
0.265 0.257 0.223 0.244 0.206 0.169 0.201 0.162 0.135

0.25744 0.245 0.232 0.230 0.203 0.177 0.188 0.160 0.145 Av.
Feed
2.913 3.058 3.236 3.259 3.702 4.234 3.989 4.700 5.182 Rate

Table K: Verification Data: Trials in Seconds, Feed Rate in in./s.

139
 APPENDIX L

ROUTH’S METHOD: ORIGIN OF PQ, PD

140
Origin of Pq and Pd:

Routh’s method [175] involves constructing five lines in impulse space along which the

state of collision travels or at which the state of collision changes.

The first two lines are related to the relative normal and tangential velocity of the two

objects. By setting the equation set 7.3.4 to zero, the line of maximum compression and

line of sticking are produced

C o − B3 Px + B2 Py = 0
(K.1)
S o + B1 Px − B3 Py = 0

The line of termination is obtained by setting the first equation in K.1 to -eCo:

(1 + e)C o − B3 Px + B2 Py = 0 (K.2)

This is the line at which the collision will end under Newton’s law of restitution. This

condition will not hold for Poison’s law; this will be discussed later. The fourth line is the

line of limiting friction:

Px = − sµPy (K.3)

As impact progresses through the compression and restitution phases, impulse along the

Py axis will accumulate, changing the normal velocity until the collision is over. Impulse

along the Px axis accumulates due to friction between the part and the track in accordance

with Coulomb Friction. The collision follows a path in impulse space starting at the
141
origin, and initially following the line of limiting friction. The collision continues (in a

sliding mode) along this line until the collision is over or until it crosses the line of

sticking. At that point, the object either sticks (thus following the line of sticking) or

slides in the opposite direction. If the object slides in the opposite direction, the line of

reversed limiting friction is followed:

dPx = sµdPy (K-4)

If Newton’s law is used, then the collision terminates when the line of termination is

reached. Poisson’s law however, terminates the impact based on the normal impulse

accumulated during compression and restitution and thus:

Py(final) = (1+e)Py(maximum compression) (K-5)

Point Pq and Pd, represent the intersection points of the line of sticking, line of maximum

compression and the line of limiting friction. Wang and Maison [170] developed a set of

conditions, outlined in table 7.1, that allow for simple comparisons to be made in the

determination of the impact mode.

142
 APPENDIX M

DERIVATION OF THE MASS MOMENT OF INERTIA FOR A

PARALLELEPIPED

143
 Z

+
b
Y

X
a

Figure M: Parallelepiped

m = ρv
dm = ρdxdydz
I x = 4∫ ( z 2 + y 2 )dm
c a b
2 2 2
I x = 4 ρ ∫ ∫ ∫ ( z 2 + y 2 )dxdydz
−c 0 0
2

z3
I x = 4 ρ [ + y 2 z ]dzdy
3
z3 y3
I x = 4 ρ[ y + z ]dx
3 3
z3 xy 3 z
I x = 4 ρ [ yx + ]
3 3

144
 b a b
( ) x( ) 3 ( )
a
Ix = 4 ρ[ 2 x( ) + 2 2 ]
3 2 3
3 3
ba ab
Ix = 4 ρc[ + ]
8* 3* 2 8* 3* 2
b2 + a2
Ix = 4 ρ (abc)[ ]
48
b2 + a2
Ix = 4m[ ]
48
1
Ix = m [a 2 + b 2 ]
12

145
 Bibliography

1. J. Rodriguez, “How to Plan a Robot-Based Automated Molding Cell,”

Robotics Today Magazine 9, n. 3, 1996.

2. G.P. Maul and N.I. Jaksic, “Sensor-Based Solution to Contiguous and

Overlapping Parts in Vibratory Bowl Feeders,” Journal of Manufacturing
Systems 13, no. 3 (1994): 190-5.

3. G. Boothroyd , C. Poli, and L.E. Murch, Automatic Assembly (New York:

Marcel Dekker Inc., 1982).

4. REO technical notes, http://www.reo.co.uk/products/p_gloss.html, Reo (UK)

Ltd., Shropsire, UK, Controls manufacturer, 2001.

5. G. Boothroyd, Assembly Automation and Product Design, (New York:

Marcel Dekker Inc., 1992).

6. G. Boothroyd and A. H. Redford, Mechanized assembly: fundamentals of

parts feeding, orientation, and mechanized assembly, (London, New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1968).

7. A. H. Redford and G. Boothroyd, “Vibratory Feeding,” Proc. I Mech. Eng.

182, part 1, no. 6 (1967-1968): p. 135146.

8. V.A. Povidaylo, “Design calculations and construction of vibratory hoppers,”

Machines and Tooling Magazine 30(2), n. 5, 1959.

9. H.P. Wiendahl and A. Horst, “Design of Vibratory Feeders,” Assembly

Automation 4, (1984): 198-202.

10. F.E. Smith, “Applying Vibratory Bowl-Type Feeders: Part 1 Part, Bowl and
Drive Considerations,” Automation 9, (November 1962): 97-101.

11. I. Gutman, “Vibratory Conveyors,” Engineers Digest Magazine 24, n. 5, 1963.

12. M.A. Parameswaran and S. Ganapathy, “Vibratory Conveying - Analysis and

Design: a Review,” Mechanism Machine Theory 14, (1979): 89-97.

13. A.H. Redford, “Vibratory Feeders,” Proceedings of the Eighth International

Machine Tool Design and Research (MTDR) Conference in Manchester,
England, September, 1967, by the Institute of Science and Technology, 1267-
1284.

146
14. G. Boothroyd, “Vibratory Feeders Speed handling and Orienting Parts,”
Automation 14, (1967): 86-92.

15. L.R. Moskowitz, “Vibratory feeding and Conveying,”, Automation 6, (1959).

16. A.N. Kochan, “Feeder automatically separates easily tangled parts,” Design
News Magazine 48, September 20 (1993): 129.

17. B. J. Schroer, “Electronic parts presentation using vibratory bowl feeders,”

Robotics Magazine 3, (1987).

18. V.A. Povidaylo, “Optimum Vibratory Feeder Operating Conditions,”

Machines and Tooling Magazine 31, (1960): 2-6.

19. J. Shaw, “Good Vibration: Improving Feeding Efficiency,” Assembly

Engineering Magazine, no. 3 1990: 32-4.

20. R.J. Ruhl, “Increasing parts Feeder Productivity,” Automation 35, (1987): 18-
20.

21. S. Shelley, “Frequency Control Keeps this Vibratory Feeder Humming,”

Chemical Engineering Magazine 102, no. 4 (1995): 145.

22. L. Han and W.L. Xu, “A Novel Vibratory Bowl Feeder for Automated
Electronic Production,” Proceedings Of the Japan-U.S.A. Symposium on
Flexible Automation in Otsu, Japan, July 12-15, 1998, 841-843.

23. K. Kaisha, Parts feeding apparatus of the piezoelectric drive type, Toshiba
Corp., US Patent 4795025.

24. S.E. Negrete, Vibratory Feeder, US Patent 5335779.

25. Scribner et al., Noise Attenuation System for Vibratory Feeder Bowl, US
Patent 5,414,775.

26. G. Boothroyd, “Automatic Handling of Small Parts,” C.I.R.P. annals of

manufacturing technology 24, (1974): 393.

27. P.E. Berry, “Research on oscillating conveyors and basic theory,” Journal of
Agricultural Engineering Research 3-4, (1958-59).

28. P.E. Berry, “Basic Theory of low-acceleration Oscillating Conveyors,”

Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research 4, (1959): 204.

147
29. J.H. Booth and H. McCallion, “On Predicting the Mean Conveying Velocity
of a Vibratory Conveyor,” Proceedings of. Institution of Mechanical
Engineers 178, no. 20 (1964): 521-538.

30. K. Sakaguchi and O. Taniguchi, “Studies on Vibratory Feeders,” Transactions

of the JSMF 35, 279 (1969): 2183-2189.

31. H.G. De Cock, “Vibratory Feeders,” Phillips Technical Review 24, no. 3
(1962): 84-93.

32. L.M. Rosario, “Expert system to analyze products for ease of assembly,”
Proceedings of NSF Design and Manufacturing Systems Conference in Tempe
(Arizona State University), Arizona, USA, January 8-12, 1990.

33. C. OU-Yang and G.P. Maul, “A computer analysis of orientation devices for
vibratory bowl feeders,” International Journal of Production Research 31, no.
3 (1993): 555-578.

34. H.A. Gaberson, “Particle Motion on Oscillating Conveyors Part 1: The

Equations of Motion and the Rules for Predicting Motion Form Transitions,”
ASME Transactions, Journal of Engineering for Industry 94, no. 1 (1972): 50-
6.

35. H.A. Gaberson, “Particle Motion on Oscillating Conveyors Part 2 - Practical

Solutions to the Equations of Motion and the Extension of the Theory to Beds
of Granular Material,” ASME Transactions, Journal of Engineering for
Industry 94, no. 1 (1972): 57-63.

36. R.A. Rejent, Research and Development of a Systems Model of a Vibratory

Bowl Feeder, Master’s Thesis, The Ohio State University, 1985.

37. S. Daneshmand, System Model and Simulation of the Vibratory Bowl Feeder,
Master’s Thesis, The Ohio State University, 1988.

38. G.M. Gladwell and W.M. Mansour, “Simulation of Vibratory feeders,”

Proceedings of the Symposium of Computer Aided Engineering in Waterloo,
Ontario, Canada, May 11-13, 1971.

39. W.M. Mansour, “Analog and Digital Analysis and Synthesis of Oscillatory
Tracks,” ASME Transactions, Journal of Engineering for Industry 94, no 2.
(1972): 488-494.

40. S. Okabe, Y. Yokoyama and Y Jimbo, “Motion of a Particle on a Vibratory

Conveyor,” Journal of the Japan Society of Precision Engineering 35, no. 5
(1969): 299-306.

148
41. N.L. Ng, L.A. Ang and S.C. Chng, “A Computer Model for Vibrating
Conveyors,” Proceedings of the Institute of Mechanical Engineers, Part B,
Management and Engineering Manufacture 200, no. B2 (1986): 123-130.

42. D. Morrey and J. E. Mottershead, “Modeling of Vibratory Bowl Feeders,”

Proceedings of the Institution Of Mechanical Engineers, Part C, mechanical
Engineering Science 200, C6 (1986): 431-437.

43. G. Maul and M. Thomas, “A Systems Model and Simulation of the Vibratory
Bowl Feeder,” Journal of Manufacturing Systems 16, no. 5 (1997): 309-314.

44. M.B. Thomas, An Improved Systems Model and Simulation of the Vibratory
Bowl-Feeder, Master’s Thesis, The Ohio State University, 1995.

45. G.H. Lim, “Vibratory feeder motion study using turbo C++ language,”
Advanced Engineering Software 18, no. 1 (1993): 53-59.

46. G. H. Lim, “On the Conveying Velocity of a Vibratory Feeder,” Computers &
Structures 62, no.1 (1997): 197-203.

47. S. Okabe and Y. Yokoyama, “Study on Vibratory Feeders: Calculation of

Natural Frequency of Bowl-Type Vibratory Feeders,” ASME Journal of
Mechanical Design 103, no. 0 (1981): 249-256.

48. P. Wolfsteiner and F. Pfeiffer, “Dynamics of a Vibratory Feeder,”

Proceedings of DETC'97; ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences
in Sacramento, California, USA, Sept. 14-17, 1997.

49. G. Boothroyd , A.H. Redford, C. Poli and L.E.Murch, “Statistical

distributions of natural resting aspects of parts for automatic handling,” SME,
Manufacturing Engineering Transactions 1, (1972): 93-105.

50. G. Boothroyd and C. Ho, “Natural resting aspects of parts for automatic
handling,” Journal of Engineering for Industry 99, (1977): 314-317.

51. B.K.A. Ngoi et al., “Analyzing the natural resting aspects of a component for
automated assembly,” ImechE Proceeding of the Institution of Mechanical
Engineers 209, (1995): 125-131.

52. S.S.G. LEE et al., A Computational Method for The Prediction of The Natural
Resting Aspects of Small, (Dearborn: SME Technical Publications, 1994).

53. I.N. Bronstein and K.A. Semendyayev, Handbook of Mathematics, (New

York: Van Nostrand Reinhold CO., 1990).

149
54. B.K.A. Ngoi, L.E.N. Lim and S.S.G. Lee, “Analyzing the Natural Resting
Aspects of a Component by its Centroid Solid Angle,” Journal of Electronics
Manufacturing 5, no. 3 (1995): 193-197.

55. B.K.A. Ngoi, S.W. Lye and J. Chen, “Analyzing the Natural Resting Aspect
of Prism on Hard Surface for Automated Assembly,” International Journal of
Advanced Manufacturing Technology 11, no. 6 (1996): 406-412.

56. B.K.A. Ngoi, S.S.G. Lee and L.E.N. Lim, “Analyzing the Natural Resting
Aspects of a Complex Part,” International Journal of Production Research
33, no. 11 (1995): 3163-3172.

57. B.K.A. Ngoi, L.E.N. Lim and S.S.G. Lee, “Analyzing the Probabilities of the
Natural Resting Aspects of a Component with Displaced Centre of Gravity,”
International Journal of Production Research 33, no. 9 (1995): 2387-2394.

58. B.K.A. Ngoi, L.E.N. Lim and J.T. Ee, “Analysis of Natural Resting Aspects
of Parts in a Vibratory Bowl Feeder - Validation of "Drop Test”,"
International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 13, no. 4
(1997): 300-310.

59. L.M. Rosario, “Experimental Study of the Behavior of Certain Connectors in

a Vibratory Bowl Feeder,” 1st Forum for the Promotion of Engineering
Research in Puerto Rico in Mayaguez, Puerto Rico, Feb 26-27 1998.

60. F.E. Smith, “Applying Vibratory Bowl-type feeders; Part 3: Out-of-Bowl

Tooling Considerations,” Automation 10, (1963): 78-85.

61. F.E. Smith, “Applying Vibratory Bowl-Type Feeders: Part 2, In-Bowl

Tooling,” Automation 9, (1962): 79-85.

62. G. Boothroyd, Assembly Automation and Product Design, (New York: Marcel
Dekker, 1992).

63. G. Boothroyd, C. Poli and L.E. Murch, Handbook of Feeding and Orienting
Techniques for Small Parts, (Amherst, University of Massachusetts, 1977).

64. G. Boothroyd and L.E. Murch, “Performance of an Orienting Device

Employed In Vibratory Bowl Feeders,” Transactions of the ASME 92, no. 3
(1970): 694-698.

65. L.E. Murch and C. Poli, “Analysis of Feeding and Orienting Systems for
Automatic Assembly,” Transactions of the ASME, Journal of Engineering for
Industry 99, (1977): 308-313.

150
66. L.E. Murch and G. Boothroyd, “Predicting the efficiency of parts orienting
systems,” Automation 18, (1971): 55-57.

67. S. Yeralan and C.A. Chang, “Models of Parts-Orienting Systems,” Decision

Sciences 17, no. 3 (1986): 357-375.

68. S.P Sethi and C. Sriskandarajah, “Optimal Selection and Ordering of Part-
Orienting Devices: Series Configurations,” Proceedings of the 2nd
International Conference on Production Systems in Le Chesnay Cedex,
France, April, 1-14, 1987.

69. S.P. Sethi, et al., “Heuristic methods for selection and ordering of part-
orienting device,” Operations Research 38, no. 1 (1990).

70. B. Jaumard, S.H. Lu and C. Sriskandarajah, “Design parameters and ordering

of part-orienting devices,” International Journal of Production Research 28,
no. 3 (1990): 459-476.

71. B.K. Natarajan, “An Algorithmic Approach to the Automated Design of Parts
Orienters,” Proceeding of the 27th Annual Symposium on Foundations of
Computer Science in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, October 27-29, 1986: 132-
142.

72. B.K. Natarajan, “Some Paradigms for the Automated Design of Parts Feeder,”
Proceedings of the International Journal of Robotics Research 8, no. 6
(1989).

73. A.D. Christiansen, A.D. Edwards and C.A. Coello, “Automated Design of
Part Feeders using a Genetic Algorithm,” Proceedings of the 1996 IEEE
International Conference on Robotics and Automation in Minneapolis,
Minnesota, USA, April, 1996: 846-851.

74. R.-P. Berretty et al., “Geometric Algorithms for trap design,” Proceedings of
the Symposium of Computational Geometry in Miami Beach, Florida, USA,
June 13-16, 1999: 95-104.

75. R.P. Berretty, K. Goldberg and L. Cheung, “Trap Design for Vibratory Bowl
Feeders,” Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference. on Robotics and
Automation in Detroit, Michigan, USA, May 1999: 2558-2563.

76. P.K. Agarwal, A.D. Collins and J.L. Harer, “Minimal trap design,”
Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and
Automation (ICRA) in Seoul, Korea, May, 2001.

151
77. F. van der Stappen et al., Modeling of Sensor-Based Intelligent Robot Systems,
(Berlin: Springer Verlag, 2001).

78. D.R. Berkowitz and J. Canny, “Designing Parts Feeders Using Dynamic
Simulation,” Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics
and Automation in Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA, April, 1996: 1127-1132.

79. D.R. Berkowitzl and J. Canny, “A Comparison of Real and Simulated Designs
for Vibratory Parts Feeding,” Proceedings of the IEEE International
Conference on Robotics and Automation in Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA,
April, 1997.

80. M. Jakiela, P. Papalambros and A.G. Ulsoy, “Programming Optimal

Suggestions in the Design Concept Phase: Application to the Boothroyd
Assembly Charts,” ASME Journal of Mechanisms, Transmission and
Automation in Design 107, 1985.

81. Y.T. Chen and R.E. Young, “PACIES - A Part Code Identification Expert
System,” IIE Transactions 20, 2 (1988): 132-136.

82. H.Y. Lai, “A coding design expert system for automatic assembly,”
Proceedings of the ASME Computers in Engineering Conference in San
Francisco, California, USA, July 31-August 4, 1988: 443-450.

83. R.K Tapadia and M.R. Henderson, “Using a Feature-Based Model for
Automatic Determination of Assembly Handling Codes,” Computers and
Graphic 14, no. 2 (1990): 251-262.

84. R.K. Li and C.L. Huang, “Assembly Code Generation from a Feature-Based
Geometric Model,” International Journal of Production Research 30, no. 3
(1992): 627-646.

85. E.K. Lo and M.D. Dick, “The Solid Modeling of Part Orienting Tracks for
Automated Assembly,” International Journal of Production Research 28, no.
8 (1990): 1513-1525.

86. M.I. Yeong and W.R. De Vries, “A Methodology for Part Feeder Design,”
Annals of the CIRP 43, no. 1 (1994).

87. R. LaBrooy, C. Jiang and P.O. Chan, “Design of an Expert System for
Automatic High-Speed Parts Feeding,” Proceedings of the 6th International
Conference on Manufacturing Engineering in Melbourne, Australia,
November, 1995, 359-367.

152
88. L.E.N. Lim et al., “A Computer-Aided Framework for the Selection and
Sequencing of Orienting Devices for the Vibratory Bowl Feeder,”
International Journal of Production Research 32, no. 11 (1994): 2513-2524.

89. P.S. Tan et al., “A Knowledge-based advisor for the Automatic Selection and
Sequencing of orienting Devices for Vibratory Feeding,” Engineering
Applications of Artificial Intelligence 8, no. 1 (1995): 1-13.

90. B.K.A. Ngoi and K. Whybrew, “A fast spatial representation method,”

International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 8, (1993): 71-
77.

91. S. Akella and M. Mason, “Parts Orienting With Shape Uncertainty,”

Proceedings of the 1998 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and
Automation in Leuvan, Belgium, May 16-20, 1998.

92. M. Erdmann and M.T. Mason, “An Exploration of Sensor-less Manipulation,”

IEEE Journal of Robotics and Automation 4, no. 4 (1998): 369-379.

93. K.F. Bohinger, V. Bhatt and K.Y. Goldberg, “Sensor-less Manipulation Using
transverse Vibrations of a Plate,” Proceedings of the IEEE International
Conference on Robotics and Automation in Nagoya, Japan, May 21-27, 1995.

94. J. Wiegley et al., “A Complete Algorithm for Designing Passive Fences to

Orient Parts,” Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics
and Automation in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA, 1996, 1133-1139.

95. R.P. Berretty et al., “On Fence Design and the Complexity of Push Plans for
Orienting Parts,” Proceedings of the 13th ACM Symposium on Computational
Geometry in Nice, France, June, 1997, 21-29.

96. M. Brokowski, M.A. Peskin and K. Goldberg, “Optimal Curved Fences for
part alignment on Belt,” Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on
Robotics and Automation in Atlanta, Georgia, USA, May, 1993, 467-473.

97. R.P. Berretty et al., “Computing fence designs for orienting parts,”
Computational Geometry, Theory and Applications 10, no. 4 (1998): 249-262.

98. M. Mani and R.D. Wilso, “A Programmable Orienting System for Flat Parts,”
Proceedings of the 13th North American Manufacturing Research Conference
in Berkley, California, USA, May, 1985.

99. R-P. Berretty et al., Robotics, the Algorithmic Perspective, (Natick: A K

Peters, 1998), 279-295.

153
100. M.T. Mason, “Mechanics and Planning of Manipulator Pushing
Operations,” International Journal of Robots Research 5, no. 3 (1986): 53-71.

101. L.E.N. Lim et al., “Flexible vibratory bowl feeding using modular
orienting devices,” Journal of the Institution of Engineers 33, no. 4 (1993):
25-29.

102. M.S. Branicky, G.C. Causy and R.D. Quinn, “Toward a Science of
Flexible Feeding,” Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on
Advanced Intelligent Mechatronics in Atlanta, USA, September, 1999.

103. K. Goldberg, “Orienting Polygonal parts without sensors,” Algorithmica

10, no. 2 (1993): 201-225.

104. D.D. Grossman and M.W. Blasgen, “Orienting Mechanical Parts by

Computer-Controlled Manipulator,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and
Cybernetics 5, no. 5 (1975).

105. R.H. Taylor, M.T. Mason and K.Y. Goldberg, “Sensor-based

Manipulation Planning as a Game with Nature,” Robotics Research: The
Fourth International Symposium at Santa Cruz, California, USA, August 9-14,
1987, 421-429.

106. A.S. Rao and K.Y. Goldberg, “Shape from Diameter: Recognizing
Polygonal Parts with a Parallel jaw Gripper,” International Journal of
Robotics Research 13, no.1 (1994): 16-37.

107. R.P. Berretty et al., “Orienting Parts by Inside-Out Pulling,” Proceedings

of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation in Seoul,
Korea, May, 2001.

108. S. Akella, Robotic Manipulation for Parts Transfer and Orienting

Mechanics, Planning and Shape Uncertainty, Robotics Institute Technical
Report CMU-Ri-TR-96-38, The Robotics Institute, Carnegie Mellon
University, 1996.

109. S. Akella and M. T. Mason, “Parts Orienting with Partial Sensor

Information,” Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics
and Automation in Leuven, Belgium, May, 1988.

110. A.H. Redford, E.K. Lo and P.J. Killeen, “Parts presentation to multi-arm
assembly robots,” Annals of the CIRP 32, 1983.

111. J.L. Goodrich and G.P. Maul, “Programmable Parts Feeders,” Industrial
Engineering Magazine 15, no. 5 (1983): 28-33.

154
112. M. Kosanchick and G.P. Maul, “Programmable Feeding Systems: The
Right Step for Flexible Systems,” Synergy Conference Proceedings in
Chicago, Illinois, USA, November13-15, 1984. 188-189.

113. D. Boehlke, “Smart Design for Flexible Feeding,” Machine Design

Magazine, Dec 1994.

114. J.H. McRainey, “Parts Handling in Flexible Manufacturing,” Production

Engineering Magazine 29, (1982): 54-59.

115. A.S. Kiran and R.J. Krason, “Automating Tooling In A Flexible

Manufacturing System,” Industrial Engineering, (1988): 52-7.

116. K.R. Snyder and C.S. Elliot, “Barriers to Factory Automation: What are
They, And How Can They Be Surmounted,” Industrial Engineering 20,
(1988): 44-46.

117. R.K. Baird, “Vision Keeps Bowl Feeder Parts In Line,” Sensor Review
Magazine 11, no. 3 (1991): 29-31.

118. G.P. Maul, “A methodology for Developing Programmable Parts

Feeders,” Transactions of the IEEE 15, no. 4 (1983): 330-335.

119. G.P. Maul and J.L. Goodrich, “Programmable Parts Feeders,” Proceedings
of 15th CIRP International Seminar on Manufacturing Systems in Amherst,
Massachusetts, USA, June 20-22, 1983.

120. Gary P. Maul, “The Adaptively Controlled Parts Feeder Concept,”

Automated Assembly - Second Edition, (Dearborn: Society of Manufacturing
Engineers (SME), 1986).

121. Lee Devlin, A Vision System for Determining Part Orientation in a

Vibratory Bowl Feeder, Master’s Thesis, Pennsylvania State University, 1981.

122. G.P. Maul and C. Ou-Yang, “Predicting the Cycle Time for a Sequence of
Parts in a Sensor-Based Vibratory Bowl Feeder,” International Journal of
Production Research 12, (1987): 1705-1714.

123. C. Ou-Yang, A Study of Workpiece Sequencing in a Sensor Based

Vibratory Bowl Feeder, Master’s Thesis, The Ohio State University, 1996.

124. N.I. Jaksic, A Study of the Touching/Overlapping Parts Problem in a

Sensor Based Vibratory Bowl Feeder, Master’s Thesis, The Ohio State
University, 1992.

155
125. N.I. Jaksic, Programmable Air-Jet Tooling For Vibratory Bowl Feeder
Systems, Doctoral Dissertation, The Ohio State University, 2000.

126. N. Jaksic and G. Maul, “Modeling and Control of an Air-Jet Based

Vibratory Bowl Feeder Orienting System,” Proceedings of the 10th
International Conference on Flexible Automation and Intelligent
Manufacturing in College Park, Maryland, June 26-28, 2000, 1066-1073.

127. G. Maul and N. Jaksic, “Active Air Jet Tooling for Vibratory Bowl
Feeders,” Active Air Jet Tooling for Vibratory Bowl Feeders,” Proceedings of
the Second International Conference on Engineering Design and Automation
in Maui, Hawaii, USA, August, 1998.

128. N. Jaksic and G. Maul, “Empirical Study of Air-Jet Forces in Active

Vibratory Bowl Feeder Tooling,” Proceedings of the Fourth International
Conference on Engineering Design and Automation in Orlando, Florida, USA,
July 24-26, 2000, 321-326.

129. N. Jaksic and G. Maul, “Orienting Parts in a Plane Normal to the Track
and the Bowl Wall of a Vibratory Bowl Feeder with Active Air-jet Tooling,”
Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Engineering Design
and Automation in Las Vegas, Nevada, USA, August 5-8, 2001, 97-102.

130. P.K. Agarwal, A.D. Collins and J.L. Harer, “Minimal trap design,”
Proceedings of the 2001 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and
Automation (ICRA) in Seoul, Korea, May 21-26, 2001.

131. P.S. Tan et al., “Using the Modular Approach for the Design of Orienting
Devices in Vibratory Bowls,” Proceedings of International Conference on
Computer Integrated Manufacturing at GINTIC Institute of CIM, NTU,
Singapore, September 6-10, 1993, 431-439.

132. A.J. Cronshaw and W.B. Heginbotham, Robot Sensors : Volume 1 –

Vision, (Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1986).

133. A.J. Cronshaw, “A Practical Vision System for use with Bowl Feeders,”
Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Assembly Automation in
Brighton, UK, 1980.

134. T. Suzuki and M. Kohno, “The Flexible Parts feeder which helps a robot
Assemble Automatically,” Assembly Automation 1, no. 2 (1981).

156
135. K.G. Swift and R.J. Dewhurst, “Versatile Automatic Handling Systems
Based on a Laser Electro-Optic Component Recognition Technique,”
Proceedings of the 19th International Seminar on Manufacturing Systems,
CIRP in University Park, Pennsylvania, June 1-2, 1987.

136. D. Pherso, G. Boothroyd and P. Dewhursstm “Programmable Feeder for

Non-Rotational Parts,” Proceedings of the 15th CIRP International Seminar
on Manufacturing Systems in Amherst, Massachusetts, USA, 1983.

137. D. Zenger and P. Dewhurst, “Automatic Handling of Parts for Robot

Assembly,” Annals of the CIRP 33, 1984.

138. N.D. Edmondson and A.H. Redford, “Flexible Parts Feeding for Flexible
Assembly,” International Journal of Production Research 39, no. 11 (2001),
2279-2294.

139. S.J. Gorden et al., “On-Line-Reconfigurable Parts Feeder,” Proceedings of

the 2nd Conference on Flexible Assembly Systems in Chicago, Illinois, USA,
September 16-19, 1990, 127-131.

140. J.W. Hill and A.J. Sword, “Programmable Part Presenter Based on
Computer Vision and Controlled Tumbling,” Proceedings of the 10th
International Symposium on Industrial Robots in Milan, Italy, May, 1980,
129-140.

141. J.W. Hill, “Programmable bowl feeder design based on computer vision, “
Assembly Automation1, 1 (1990).

142. B. Carlisle et al., “A Pivoting Gripper for Feeding Industrial Parts,”

Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and
Automation in San Diego, California, USA, May 1994.

143. K. Goldberg, M. Mason and M. Erdmann, “Generating stochastic plans for

a programmable parts feeder,” Proceedings of the IEEE International
Conference on Robotics and Automation in Sacramento, CA, April, 1991.

144. K. Goldberg et al., “Estimating Throughput for a Flexible Part Feeder,”

Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Experimental Robotics
in Stanford, California, USA, June 30-July 2, 1995.

145. R.D. Quinn et al., “Design of an Agile Manufacturing Work Cell for Light
Mechanical Applications,” Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference
on Robotics and Automation in Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA, April, 1986.

157
146. H. Hitakawa, “Advanced parts orientation system has wide application,”
Assembly Automation 8, no. 3 (1988): 147-150.

147. Website, http://www.adept.com/, Adept Technology Inc., 150 Rose

Orchard Way San Jose CA 95134.

148. Website, http://www.mikron-tg.com/, Mikron Assembly Technology,

Mikron SA Boundry, Route du Vignoble 17, CH-2017 Boundary,
Switzerland.

149. W. Mansour et al., “The Mechanism of Conveyance With Bristled Track,”

ASME Journal of Engineering for Industry 97, 1 (1975): 167-174.

150. Y. Yokoyama and S. Okabe, “Vibratory Conveyor with Non-Linear

Damping,” Spring meeting of the Japan Society of Precision Engineering,
April, 1975, 91-92.

151. R. Singh, “Analysis of a Vibratory Conveyor,” Indian Journal of

Technology 13, (1974): 500-504.

152. S. Okabe et al., “Vibratory Feeding by Nonsinusodial Vibration -

Optimum Wave Form,” Journal of Vibration, Acoustics, Stress and Reliability
design, ASME Transactions 107, (1985): 188-195.

153. A. Ishizaka, M. Kimura and T. Kotaki, “The Vibratory Conveyor Applied

the Vibration Involving Higher Harmonics,” Journal of the Japan Society of
Precision Engineering 39, no. 1 (1973): 93-98.

154. Y. Yokoyama, S. Okabe and Y. Jimbo, “Vibratory Conveying by

Elliptical Vibration,” Journal of the Japan Society of Precision Engineering
40, no. 10 (1974): 840-845.

155. W.A. Morcos, “On Design of oscillating Conveyors,” ASME, Journal of

Engineering for Industry 92, no. 1 (1970): 53-61.

156. K. Srinath and R. Karmaker, “Vibratory Conveying by Non-Sinusodial

Excitation,” Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers 202, C6,
1988: 305-408.

157. W.A Morcos. and M.F. Massoud, “On the Design of Oscillating
Conveyors,” Journal of Engineering for Industry, Transactions of the ASME
91, no. 2 (1969): 353-356.

158
158. A.E. Quaid, “A Miniature Mobile Parts Feeder: Operating Principles and
Simulation Results,” Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on
Robotics & Automation in Detroit, Michigan, USA, May, 1999, 2221-2226.

159. l. Han, W.L. Xu, and S.K. Tso, “Decoupled Vibratory Bowl Feeder,”
Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Mechatronics and
Machine Vision in Practice in Nanjing, China, 10-12th September 1998, 481-
486.

160. S.A. Mahdavian, S.M. Mahdavian and R. La Brooy, “Effects of Driving

Signal Forms and Frequency in the Performance of a Vibratory Bowl Feeder,”
Proceedings of the International Conference on Manufacturing Automation at
University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, August, 1992, 836-841.

161. G.P. Maul, J. Bauer, “The Effect of Orientation on Part Velocity in

Vibratory Bowl Feeders,” Unpublished Article, The Ohio State University.

162. ADXL202E Datasheet, http://www.analog.com/, Analog Devices, One

Technology Way, P. O. Box 9106, Norwood, MA 02062-9106.

163. ADXL250 Datasheet, http://www.analog.com/, Analog Devices, One

Technology Way, P. O. Box 9106, Norwood, MA 02062-9106 .

164. Dura Magnetics Inc, 5500 Schultz Dr., Sylvania, OH 43560,

http://www.duramag.com/

165. National Instruments, www.ni.com, 11500 N Mopac Expressway, Austin,

TX 78759-3504

166. KODAK EKTAPRO HS Motion Analyzer, Model 4540, Manuel,

Eastman Kodak Company, Motion Analysis Systems Division,
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/digital /genInfo/masd/masd4540.shtml, 1999.

167. Automation Devices Inc, 7050 West Ridge Road, Fairview, PA 16415-
2099, http://www.autodev.com/

168. G. Winkler, “Analysing the Vibrating Conveyor,” International Journal of

Mechanical Sciencies 20, no. 9 (1978): 561-570.

169. G. Winkler, “Analysing the Hopping Conveyor,” International Journal of

Mechanical Sciencies 21, no. 1 (1979): 651-658.

170. Y. Wang and M.T. Mason, “Two-Dimensional Rigid-Body Collisions

With Friction,” Journal of Applied Mechanics 59, Sept. (1992): 635-642.

159
171. W.J. Stronge, Impact Mechanics (New York: Cambridge University Press,
2000)

172. J. S. Urbach and J. S. Olafsen, "Spheres on a Vibrating Plate: Clustering

and Collapse,'' in The 5th Experimental Chaos Conference, Orlando, FL M.
Ding, et al, eds. (World Scientific, Singapore, 2001).

173. E. A. Avallone and T. Baumeister Eds, Marks' Standard Handbook for

Mechanical Engineers (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1999)

174. J.R. Bauler, An Analysis of the Effect or Orientation on the Feed Rate in a
Vibratory Bowl Feeder, Master’s Thesis, The Ohio State University, 1998.

175. E. Routh, The Elementary Part of a Treatise on the Dynamics of a System

of Rigid Bodies (New York: Dover Publications, 1960)

160