Control and Measurement of Clamping and Machining Forces in Intelligent Fixturing

View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.
uk brought to you by CORE

provided by ScholarBank@NUS
CONTROL AND MEASUREMENT OF CLAMPING AND
MACHINING FORCES IN INTELLIGENT FIXTURING
RAWTHER ASHIQUL HAMEED

(B.Eng.(Hons.), NUS)
A THESIS SUBMITTED FOR
THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ENGINEERING
DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING
NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE
2003
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisors Associate Professor M.A.
Mannan and Professor A.Y.C. Nee who shared their wealth of knowledge and research
expertise and constantly helped me with their insightful advice and seemingly endless
research ideas that made my stint under them a truly learning and enriching experience.
Being a novice to research and struggling to meet their globally acclaimed standards and
excellence, their friendly spirit, support and rapport have been a real source of motivation
and enhancement of my research acumen. It was truly a great opportunity and rewarding
experience to have worked under them.
I would express my appreciation and gratitude to Mr SC Lim, Mr CS Lee and Mr CH Tan
for their support with all the experimental work needed for this research. Their friendly
gesture and air of informality made the experimental part of this work as light as it could
get.
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements i
Table of Contents ii
List of Figures v
List of Tables viii
Summary ix
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTI ON .........................................................................................1
1.1 RESEARCH M OTIVATION ..............................................................................................2
1.3 ORGANISATION OF THE THESIS ....................................................................................4
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW.............................................................................5
2.1 BASIC FIXTURE D ESIGN ...............................................................................................5
2.2 LOCATING PRINCIPLE ..................................................................................................5
2.3 REQUIREMENTS OF A FIX TURE.....................................................................................6
2.4 BASIC CLAMPING FORCE CONTROL ............................................................................8
2.5 FIXTURE HARDWARE DEVELOPMENT .........................................................................9
2.6 CUTTING FORCE M ODELS AND CUTTING FORCE M EASUREMENT ...........................10
2.7 DYNAMIC FORCE M EASUREMENT .............................................................................12
2.8 FIXTURE M ODELS AND D EVELOPMENTS ...................................................................13
2.9 EFFECT OF FRICTION IN FIXTURING..........................................................................15
ii
CHAPTER 3 CUTTING FORCE MEASUREMENT IN A FIXTURING SET-UP WITH
INSTRUMENTED LOCATORS ......................................................................................17
3.1 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................17
3.2 STABILITY ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................21
3.3 FORCE DISTRIBUTION IN END - MILLING ....................................................................22
3.4 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CUTTING, CLAMPING, LOCATOR AND FRICTIONAL FORCES
...........................................................................................................................................24
3.5 DETERMINATION OF THE CUTTING FORCES .............................................................26
3.6 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE .....................................................................................27
3.6.1 Instrumented Locators........................................................................................27
3.6.2 Experimental Set -up ...........................................................................................29
3.7 RESULTS AND ANALYSIS .............................................................................................30
3.7.1 Analysis of Engagement time .............................................................................34
3.7.2 Quantitative Analysis with the Model Developed Based on Planar Stability Analysis
.......................................................................................................................................34
3.8 PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS ..........................................................................................43
3.9 ADVANTAGES WITH THE D EVELOPED M EASURING S YSTEM ....................................44
3.10 DISADVANTAGES OF THE D EVELOPED S YSTEM.......................................................45
CHAPTER 4 FORCE MEASUREMENT IN A DYNAMOMETER OUTSIDE
ASSOCIATED WORKSPACE ENVELOPE ..................................................................47
4.1 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................47
4.2 STATIC LOADING TEST FOR THE D YNAMOMETER ....................................................47
iii
CHAPTER 5 DEVELOPMENT OF A CLAMPING ELEM ENT USING DIRECT-
TORQUE CONTROL ........................................................................................................52
5.1 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................52
5.2 DIRECT TORQUE CONTROL OF DC M OTOR ..............................................................53
5.3 CONTROL M ECHANISM ..............................................................................................54
5.4 M ECHANICAL S YSTEM ...............................................................................................56
CHAPTER 6 OPTIMISATION OF MINIMUM CLAMPING FORCE.......................59
6.1 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................59
6.2 ALGORITHM FOR OPTIMISATION ...............................................................................60
6.3 EXPERIMENTAL S ET- UP ..............................................................................................61
6.3 OPTIMISATION TECHNIQUE USING LINEAR PROGRAMMING....................................62
6.4 OVERALL S YSTEM INTEGRATION ..............................................................................69
CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK ................................................71
7.1 CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................................................72
7.2 CONTRIBUTIONS .........................................................................................................72
7.3 SCOPE FOR FUTURE WORK........................................................................................73
REFERENCES ...........................................................................................................................................................75
iv
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1.1 TYPICAL FIXTURE ASSEMBLY [CARR LANE 1995]..............................................1
FIGURE 2.1 THE 3-2-1 LOCATING PRINCIPLE [X IAO 1998] ...................................................6
FIGURE 3.1 FORCE PLATE (K ISTLER, 9253A) .....................................................................19
FIGURE 3.2 AN ILLUSTRATION OF LOADING OUTSIDE ENVELOPE......................................20
FIGURE 3.3 CUTTING AND CLAMPING FORCES [J ENG 1995] ..............................................22
FIGURE 3.4 CUTTING, CLAMPING AND LOCATOR FORCES ACTING ON A PRISMATIC PART 24
FIGURE 3.5 UNIAXIAL FORCE S ENSOR ......................... ERROR ! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.28
FIGURE 3.6 D ESIGN OF THE INSTRUMENTED LOCATOR WITH UNIAXIAL FORCE SENSOR ..28
FIGURE 3.7 EXPERIMENTAL SET- UP WITH THE LOCATORS AND CLAMPS PLACED ON THE
DYNAMOMETER ....................................................................................................29
FIGURE 3.8 SCHEMATIC DRAWING IN PLAN VIEW OF THE EXPERIMENTAL SET- UP ...........30
FIGURE 3.9 THE END MILLING OPERATION WITH THE ENGAGEMENT ANGLE SHOWN .......31
FIGURE 3.10 FORCE RECORDED FROM THE X-AXIS OUTPUT OF THE DYNAMOMETER ......32
FIGURE 3.11 FORCE RECORDED FROM CLAMP1, FAA .......................................................33
FIGURE 3.12 FORCE RECORDED FROM LOCATOR 1, FA.....................................................33
FIGURE 3.13 (A) FORCE DATA RECORDED FROM CLAMP FAA ...........................................35
FIGURE 3.13 (B) FORCE DATA RECORDED FROM CLAMP FAA ...........................................35
FIGURE 3.13 (C) FORCE DATA RECORDED FROM LOCATOR FA..........................................36
FIGURE 3.13 (D) FORCE DATA RECORDED FROM LOCATOR FB ..........................................36
FIGURE 3.13 ( E) FORCE DATA RECORDED FROM LOCATOR FC..........................................36
FIGURE 3.13 ( F) FORCE DATA RECORDED FROM LOCATOR FD ..........................................37
v
FIGURE 3.13 ( G) FORCE DATA RECORDED FROM LOCATOR FE..........................................37
FIGURE 3.13 ( H) FORCE DATA RECORDED FROM LOCATOR FF ..........................................37
FIGURE 3.13 ( I) FORCE DATA RECORDED FROM X-AXIS OF DYNAMOMETER .....................38
FIGURE 3.13 (J ) FORCE DATA RECORDED FROM Y-AXIS OF DYNAMOMETER .....................38
FIGURE 3.13 ( K) FORCE DATA RECORDED FROM Z-AXIS OF DYNAMOMETER ....................38
FIGURE 3.14 THE GEOMETRIC PARAMETERS FOR THE 3-2-1 LOCATOR SET - UP OF THE
WORKPIECE...........................................................................................................39
FIGURE 4.1 S ET- UP FOR STATIC LOADIN G ...........................................................................48
FIGURE 4.2 S ET- UP FOR STATIC LOADIN G ...........................................................................49
FIGURE 4.3 (A) FORCE ALONG THE Z-AXIS OF THE DYNAMOMETER ..................................50
FIGURE 4.3 (B) FORCE ALONG THE Y-AXIS OF THE DYNAMOMETER ..................................50
FIGURE 5.1 DC M OTOR- TORQUE CONTROLLER ................................................................55
FIGURE 5.2 M OTOR OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS .........................................................57
FIGURE 5.3 CALIBRATION GRAPH .......................................................................................58
FIGURE 6.1 OPTIMISATION SCHEME ...................................................................................60
FIGURE 6.2(A) PLAN VIEW OF THE SET - UP...........................................................................61
FIGURE 6.2(B) ISOMETRIC VIEW OF THE SET - UP .................................................................62
FIGURE 6.3 (A) COMPONENT OF CUTTING FORCE FT ..........................................................65
FIGURE 6.3 (B) COMPONENT OF CUTTING FORCE FF ..........................................................65
FIGURE 6.3 (C) COMPONENT OF CUTTING FORCE FA ..........................................................65
FIGURE 6.4 FORCE APPLIED BY CLAMP FBB.......................................................................66
FIGURE 6.5 FORCE APPLIED BY CLAMP FBB.......................................................................66
FIGURE 6.6 O UTPUT FROM THE OPTIMISATION SOLVER .....................................................68
FIGURE 6.6 SCHEMATIC REPRESENTATION OF THE SYSTEM INTEGRATION. ......................70
vi
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 3.1 CUTTING DATA FOR THE EXPERIMENTS PERFORMED……………….40
TABLE 3.1 ERROR VALUES AS A PERCENTAGE OF MEASURED FORCE…………41
TABLE 3.3 RMS VALUE OF THE ERRORS……………………………….……………….42
vii
SUMMARY
Accuracy and precision are the most important aspects of any machining operation. This is
greatly dependent on the stability of the workpiece, which is in turn decided by the
effectiveness and performance of the workholding device. Workholding in any
manufacturing process is performed by the fixturing elements. Fixture design and
implementation is dependent on the forces acting on the workpiece, which are
predominantly the cutting and the clamping forces.
Every machining process, especially those that involve the control of the fixturing forces
in flexible manufacturing systems, require the measurement of clamping and cutting
forces. This research addresses pertinent issues in both cutting force measurements and
control of the clamping force and an attempt is made to solve the problems associated
with the existing systems. The study and development in this work include the following:
A novel force measurement technique in a fixturing arrangement with instrumented
locators has been developed. Earlier works on the study of the stability of the workpiece
with a spatial stability analysis is incorporated in this work to develop the force measuring
system. A detailed study and experimental investigation into the performance of the
dynamometer is carried out. The developed system aims to overcome some problems
associated with the dynamometer and provide a viable alternative for force measurement
in real time during a machining operation. There is no prior work to establish the
relationship between the forces obtained using the locators based on the 3-2-1 locating
principle and forces obtained from a dynamometer. This study could lead to the feasibility
of fixturing set-ups with instrumented locators as a viable alternative to a dynamometer.
ix
An attempt is made to design a simple controllable electro-mechanical clamping element.
Using the principle of direct torque control of a permanent magnet DC motor, a clamping
system is developed. A rack and pinion mechanism is used to convert the rotary motion of
the clamp to linear motion of the clamping element and the torque is controlled in the
region of zero speed of the motor, which keeps wear and tear to a minimum.
An optimisation method to determine the minimum optimal clamping force using linear
programming is derived. This technique aims to simplify the process of optimisation and
provides a methodology to find an estimate of the minimum clamping force through an
iterative procedure so that control of clamping forces can be realised outside a laboratory
environment.
x
Chapter 1 Introduction
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Fixturing is one of the salient features of any manufacturing system, to ensure
workpiece stability and hence good quality and accuracy of the finished products.
A fixture is a mechanical device that locates, supports and secures the workpiece
in an accurate and definite orientation relative to the process co-ordinate system. The
stability of the workpiece is vital to achieve the desired dimensional tolerances in any
machining operation. A mechanical fixture normally consists of several components such
as locators, clamps, supports and the fixture body.
Fixtures are either dedicated or flexible depending on the intended application.
Figure 1.1 shows a typical machining fixture assembly. It consists of six locators that are
passive and two clamping elements that are active during the machining process.
Figure 1.1 A typical fixture assembly [Carr Lane 1995]
The National University of Singapore 1

1.1 Research Motivation
With the increase in demand for high precision products, various advanced
manufacturing processes have been developed. However, one important aspect for
achieving high precision and reducing distortion has often been overlooked. It is the
clamping system used for securing the workpiece to be machined.
Clamping forces provided by present day clamps are ironically constant in both
magnitude and position, though a machining process is dynamic in both direction and
magnitude of the cutting force. So it is imperative to make the clamping element capable
of adjusting itself in accordance with the cutting force. It is seen in most cases, during
manual clamping, that a workpiece is clamped with as much force as possible to ensure
that it does not disengage during a machining process. This inevitably leads to
deformation, especially in thin-walled workpieces, which could prove to be rather costly.
Hence there is a need to develop and enhance the fixturing systems and contribute to the
on–going research to make fixtures robust and dynamic in nature.
In a fixturing system, it is vital to know the optimal clamping forces. In order to
determine these values, the cutting forces have to be known. The accuracy of the available
analytical and empirical cutting force models is limited by the various factors that usually
cannot be accounted for in real machining conditions. In order to overcome the
inaccuracies in force measurement using developed force models, one can measure the
cutting forces in real time with a multi-component piezo-electric dynamometer. However,
a dynamometer has many inherent drawbacks when its application in a real machining
environment is considered e.g constraint on the volume of operation, high associated costs
and substantial weight cause limitations to its application in certain environments. So,

there is a need to develop an alternative force measuring system that can overcome these
drawbacks found in a dynamometer.
In an ideal fixturing system, both the location and magnitude of the clamping force
are controllable in real time, ensuring optimal workholding at all times. A more practical
and cost effective approach is to have off-line optimisation of the location of the clamping
forces and on-line optimisation of the clamping force magnitudes. However, real time
optimisation and control of clamping forces is still seen only in a laboratory environment
due to high associated costs and expertise required. Hence there is a need for a simplified
method with which one can determine the optimal clamping force and to develop an easily
controllable clamping element.
1.2 Research Objectives
• To develop a system to measure the cutting forces on-line during an end-milling
process.
• To conduct a sufficient number of experiments with various cutting parameters to
validate the developed system.
• To demonstrate the competency and advantages of the developed force measuring
system against the dynamometer.
• To design and develop a controllable electro-mechanical clamping element.
• To develop a simplified system to optimise the minimum clamping force required
during an end-milling operation.

1.3 Organisation of the Thesis
• Chapter 2 gives a survey of the literature related to this research.
• Chapter 3 presents the development of the cutting force measurement system in a
fixturing arrangement with instrumented locators. The principle of spatial stability
analysis is explained and its application to determine the cutting forces is
demonstrated. Results of several experiments conducted are illustrated and the
validity of the system is studied.
• Chapter 4 demonstrates the advantages of the system developed over the
dynamometer with regard to the volume of operation. Experiments conducted to
study the behaviour of the dynamometer when force measurement is attempted
outside its associated workspace envelope is explained.
• Chapter 5 presents the design and development of an electro-mechanical clamping
element using direct-torque control. The characteristics of the clamping element are
illustrated.
• Chapter 6 presents a simple optimisation technique to determine the minimum
clamping force to be applied to ensure workpiece stability.
• Chapter 7 states the main contributions of this work and recommendations for
future research.

Chapter 2 Literature Review
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Basic Fixture Design
A fixture is a workholding device that is used to locate and hold workpieces
securely in order to ensure that the manufacturing operation can be performed successfully
[Hoffman 1980]. Fixture design is an essential and integral part of all the manufacturing
operations. Good fixture design is important to achieve the required dimensional
tolerances. With increase in demand for high precision machining with shrinking
tolerances, good fixture design is imperative. It has been shown that the fixture cost can be
upto 10–20% of the total manufacturing cost [Grippo 1988]. Skilled fixture designers are
also hard to find [Finegold 1994]. Furthermore, an important problem encountered in
conventional fixturing operation is the discrepancy between the constant clamping forces,
fixed both in magnitude and points of application, and the dynamic cutting forces on the
workpiece which may vary both in magnitudes and direction during machining. To
overcome these problems of conventional clamping, there is a need to have a formal
science-based approach for the analysis and synthesis of fixtures used in manufacturing.
This shows the importance of fixturing in manufacturing processes and the need for
research and development in this field. One of the first researches on experimental
characterization of fixture-workpiece systems was conducted by Shawki and Abdel Al
[Shawki 1965]. In recent times various advances have been made and many different
models have been developed to analyse and enhance fixture designs.

2.2 Locating Principle
A workpiece has six degrees of freedom in 3D space. It can move in 12 directions
corresponding to the translational motion along the co-ordinate axes and rotational motion
about them. In order to restrain the motion of the workpiece, clamps and locators are used.
Clamps are active elements, which apply force on the workpiece and locators are passive
elements, which act as a datum. As far as possible, the 3-2-1 locating principle is used to
locate a typical prismatic workpiece [Nee 1995]. Figure 2.1 shows a typical fixture set-up
with an arrangement using the 3-2-1 locating principle. The primary locating plane is
usually the one with the largest surface area and located using three points, arresting two
rotational motions and one linear motion [Cecil 1996]. The secondary plane is the next
largest surface and located using two points, which arrest one rotational and one linear
motion. The tertiary plane has one locator restraining the last linear motion. The 3-2-1
locating principle is widely used in machining fixtures, as locating repeatability, part
accessibility and detachability are inherent features of this principle.
Figure 2.1 The 3-2-1 locating principle

2.3 Requirements of a fixture
Some general requirements of a fixture are listed below [Hoffman 1980]
• Accurate location and total restraint of workpiece during machining
• Limited deformation of the workpiece
• No interference between workpiece and fixuring elements
Chan et al classified the requirements for a good fixture as their ability to control
various physical aspects of the workpiece during machining [Chan 1999].
• Geometric control – The fixture must be able to ensure the stability of the
workpiece. For good geometric control, the workpiece must come into contact
with all the locators in an exactly repeatable way irrespective of operator skill.
• Dimensional control – The fixture must be able to choose the right position for the
locators and orientation for the workpiece. Good dimensional control exists when
irregularities on workpiece surface do not interfere with the location of the
workpiece
• Mechanical control – The fixture must be able to make correct placement of the
clamping forces. Good mechanical control is achieved when the changes in the
force of clamping do not affect the location of the workpiece.
Asada came up with the following set of constraints to be observed while
designing a viable fixture [Asada 1985].
• Deterministic location – A workpiece is said to be kinematically restrained when
no motion occurs when there is loss of contact with any locator. Locating errors
due to locators and locating surfaces of the workpiece should be minimised in

order to accurately and uniquely position the workpiece within the machine co-
ordinate frame.
• Total constraint – All movements of the workpiece should be restrained. Clamps
apply forces that prevent the workpiece from any motion once it is located. The
workpiece must be held in static equilibrium to withstand all the possible external
forces or disturbances.
• Contained deformation – Workpiece deformation during a machining operation
must be kept to a minimum to achieve the tolerance specifications.
• Geometric constraint – Geometric constraint guarantees that all fixturing elements
have an access to the datum surface. They should ensure that the fixture
components do not interfere with cutting tools during machining.
A good fixture requires desirable characteristics such as quick loading and
unloading, minimum number of components and a design equipped for multiple cutting
operations [Sakurai 1991]. It is also desirable to have fixtures that can be used for both dry
and wet cutting conditions, are capable of accommodating workpieces of various sizes, are
configurable to workpieces of different shapes, require little set-up time, do not demand
great expertise and keep associated costs to a minimum.
2.4 Basic Clamping Force Control
Control of clamping forces online is an important feature implemented in recent fixturing
systems to overcome the drawbacks of conventional fixturing arrangements with constant
clamping forces, which are usually applied manually.

In order to achieve dynamic clamping, pneumatic, hydraulic and elecro-
mechanical clamping systems are used. Electro-mechanical clamping is generally
preferred as it is more convenient to use, has a fast response time, is easy to control and
has a high resolution and very good precision. Pneumatic and hydraulic clamps are also
used to meet specific requirements.
Sollie [Sollie 1997] developed an electro-mechanical clamping element based on
hybrid position-force control using a stepper motor. Linear actuators can be used for the
same purpose [Chan 1999]. Cutkosky et al [Cutkosky 1982] developed a programmable
clamping device for turbine blades. Lee et al [Lee 1999] proposed a methodology where
piezo-ceramic crystals can be used to clamp and control the workpiece. Many other types
of clamping elements have been developed to control the clamping forces online.
2.5 Fixture Hardware Development
Commonly used fixturing hardware systems are classified into three types:
dedicated, modular and hybrid [Trappey 1990]. Dedicated fixtures are those which are
fabricated to suit a specific workpiece. Modular fixtures are more flexible and
configurable to suit workpieces of different shapes and sizes. The latter is generally
preferred, as it is very cost efficient. Hybrid fixtures are a combination of both dedicated
and modular fixture types. Liu [Liu 1994] presented a systematic methodology for
conceptual design on modular fixtures. Hou and Trappey [Hou 2001] developed a
computer-aided fixture design system for comprehensive modular fixtures. Lin et al
[Lin1997] developed a knowledge-based system for conceptual and layout modular fixture
design developed on an intelligent CAD system.

Dedicated fixtures are becoming increasingly less popular with the rapid
advancement of Flexible Manufacturing Systems (FMS) that require automated fixturing
capabilities. The replacement of dedicated fixtures by modular fixturing systems seems to
be a trend in the manufacturing field [Liu 1994]. There are many advanced fixture-
hardware systems developed in recent research works. A numerically controlled clamping
system was developed by Tuffentsammer [Tuffentsammer 1981] to speed up loading and
clamping of single part machining in an FMS. Chan et al [Chan 1991] developed an
automatically reconfigurable fixturing system for robotic assembly. Shirinzadeh
[Shirinzadeh 1993] also developed a similar fixture for robotic assembly that could be set-
up, adjusted and changed automatically. Du and Lin [Du 1998] developed a three-fingered
automated flexible fixturing for planar objects.
2.6 Cutting Force Models and Cutting Force Measurement
For any flexible manufacturing system, it is important to know the cutting forces
during the machining operation. The knowledge of the cutting forces helps to determine
the clamping forces required and hence the design of the fixturing system.
There have been many models developed for the purpose of measurement of
cutting forces in a machining operation. Koenigsberger and Sabberwal [Koenigsberger
1961] developed one of the first analytical models, which assumed that the instantaneous
cutting forces were proportional to the chip area on the cutter. Further studies were made
to verify the cutting force assumption and explored the effects of the cutting geometry on
the force system characteristics. They developed nomograms to relate the cutting

geometry to average forces, maximum forces and power requirements in milling
operations. This was a pioneering force measurement technique using an analytical model.
Many empirical models have also been developed. One of the earliest empirical
models was developed by Armarego and Brown [Armarego 1969]. The model was
formulated by performing a number of experiments and measuring the cutting forces.
Tlusty and McNeil [Tlusty 1975] performed empirical analysis to study the dynamics of
cutting in end milling. Ber et al [Ber 1988] developed an empirical method to determine
the cutting forces in end milling using specific force analysis.
Altintas [Altintas 2000] developed an analytic approach to calculate the specific
cutting forces as a function of cutting parameters. Lee and Altintas [Lee 1996] developed
a general mechanics and dynamics model for helical end milling. Engin and Altintas
[Engin 2001] presented a generalized mathematical model to suit most helical end-mills.
Kline [Kline 1982a] developed a model assuming that the cutting force is
proportional to the chip cross-sectional area. He based his model on one of the early works
done by Martelloti [Martelloti 1945] on the analysis of the milling process. Kline et al
[Kline 1982b] developed a model to predict the cutting forces applied to cornering cuts.
Kline and De Vor [Kline 1983] also presented a detailed account on the effect of runout
on the cutting force in end milling.
Using the models developed various force measurement techniques have been
developed. Altintas and Spence [Altintas 1991] developed end-milling force algorithms
for CAD systems. Armarego and Deshpande [Armarego 1994] developed force prediction
models for CAD/CAM systems. Yun et al [Yun 2001] developed a 3-D cutting force
prediction model using cutting condition independent co-efficients in end milling.

Other methods for force measurement have also been developed using different
techniques. Li et al [Li 2000] developed a new method for measurement of cutting force
using current sensors. Cutting forces could be measured using a neuro-fuzzy technique,
with current sensors installed on the a.c. servomotors of a CNC turning centre. Kim et al
[Kim 1999] developed a cutting force measurement method in contour NC milling
processes using current signals of the servomotors. Ozel and Altan [Ozel 2000] developed
a Finite Element Method to measure cutting forces during an end-milling operation.
2.7 Dynamic Force Measurement
A multi-component piezo-electric dynamometer has been widely accepted as a
standard for dynamic force measurements, especially for milling and turning processes.
The use of the dynamometer has been extended to many other applications as well.
Seker et al [Seker 2002] designed and constructed a dynamometer for measurement of
cutting forces during machining with linear motion. Gupta et al [Gupta 1988] developed a
sensor based drilling fixture with two dynamometers and a standard vise. It was used to
study the relationship between clamping forces and machining forces.
Tounsi and Otho [Tounsi 2000] studied the problem of distortion of the delivered
signals in a dynamometer and developed a method to compensate for it. Kim et al [Kim
1997] developed a combined-type tool dynamometer, which can measure the static cutting
force and the dynamic cutting force together by using strain gauges and a piezo-film
accelerometer.

2.8 Fixture Models and Developments
Various fixture models have been developed to analyse the clamping forces,
cutting forces, synthesis of fixture layout, stability and optimal clamping. Early work in
fixture analysis neglected the effects of friction, system inertia and damping which were
considered as important entities for fixture analysis in later works. Rigid body models and
contact elasticity models are the two major approaches undertaken.
Laximinarayana [Laximinarayana 1978] applied the screw theory to model a rigid
object constrained by frictionless point contacts. Laximinarayana’s work on ‘form closure’
was further extended to “force closure” for workpiece stability [Chou 1989]. Asada and
By [Asada 1985] used rigid body model without friction for deriving the condition for
total constraint of a workpiece. They formulated the condition for deterministic
positioning for a workable fixture and analysed the stability using the screw theory. De
Meter [De Meter 1992] used the screw theory approach for stability analysis of machining
fixtures with distinct contact geometries. Lee and Cutkosky [Lee 1991] analysed the
stability of the workpiece in a fixture using the concept of a force and moment limit
surface. Nnaji et al [Nnaji 1988] determined the fixture locating points based on the
singularity of the force matrix. Salisbury and Roth [Salisbury 1982] used the wrench
theory to analyse force closure. Tao et al [Tao 1998a] proposed an optimal clamping
scheme based on computational geometry of the contacting wrenches. Jeng et al [Jeng
1995] used spatial stability analysis for determining minimum clamping force. It was
extended further by Xiao [Xiao 1998], who used genetic algorithm to solve it.
To overcome the disadvantage of static indeterminacy, in rigid body modelling,
various elasticity models for the fixture-workpiece system have been developed in recent

years. This effectively reduces the error due to the rigid body assumption but considerably
increases the intensity of computations required. These models generally presume
elasticity at the vicinity of contact and consider the remaining part of the workpiece as
rigid [Johnson 1985]. Hockenberger and De Meter [Hockenberger 1996] used contact
models specific to a workpiece, empirically determined by analysing workpiece static
displacement. Mittal et al [Mittal 1991] modelled each locating and clamping element as a
translational spring damper actuator. The deformation was determined by allocating the
stiffness matrix for the fixturing elements. A similar approach was made by Gui et al [Gui
1996] by using a linear spring model for the fixturing elements to determine the minimum
clamping force. Li and Melkote [Li 1999] used elastic contact mechanics principles with
quasi-static and dynamic models to determine the contact forces.
Various automated fixture design systems have been developed for the purpose of
layout optimisation and determining the optimal clamping force. Non-linear programming
is largely used for the former and linear programming for the latter. Ferriera et al [Ferriera
1985] presented a rule-based expert sytem for automated fixture design, suitable for
general machining operations. Markus et al [Markus 1984] developed an expert system to
assist the selection and positioning of locators and clamps. Boerma and Kals [Boerma
1989] presented an automated rule-based system for the selection of fixture setups. Nee
and Kumar [Nee 1991] designed a system that used a predefined library for the synthesis
of a fixture. Tao et al [Tao 1998b] used computational geometry approach for automatic
generation of clamping forces.
Finite Element Method (FEM) approach has also been widely used for fixture-
workpiece modelling. Lee and Haynes [Lee 1987] conducted one of the earliest researches

by applying FEM to study the deformation of workpiece, the clamping forces, the stress
distribution and other characteristics of fixturing system by modelling the workpiece as a
deformable body completely accounting for the elasticity of workpiece and fixture.
Trappey et al [Trappey 1995] used FEM to ensure minimal deformation and maximum
workpiece accuracy. Sakurai [Sakurai 1991] used FEM to implement an automated fixture
design and set-up planning system. FEM approaches are generally very robust and do not
have the assumptions that are usually found in other approaches but they tend to be
computationally intensive and the model could be rather complex to simulate.
2.9 Effect of Friction in Fixturing
In many of the early works on fixture models [Laxminarayana 1978, Asada 1985],
friction was not considered. However, it is friction which plays a major role in work
holding in most fixturing applications [Lee 1987]. In recent years, many approaches on
frictional fixture force analysis have been reported. The addition of friction to the rigid
body model makes the analysis significantly more complicated [Mason 1988]. Friction is
primarily due to the adhesive forces arising from surface roughness between the
workpiece and fixture surfaces. For fixturing applications, static friction is considered,
which is the adhesive force between surfaces when there is no relative motion.
Couloumb’s law best describes static friction, which is used for most fixture analysis
[Mishra 1989]. Sinha and Abel [Sinha 1990] assumed that the Coloumb friction acts on
each contact to calculate the frictional and normal contact forces. Kerr and Roth [Kerr
1986] developed a Coloumb friction model for point contacts in hand grasping and used
linear programming to obtain the optimal grasping forces. Fuh and Nee [Fuh 1994]

described a frictional fixture workpiece model that considers the kinematics and dynamic
aspects of the fixturing processes. Wu et al [Wu 1995] developed a fixturing verification
system based on multiple frictional contacts. De Meter [De Meter 1994] analysed the
restraint of fixtures based on the friction developed in the contact surfaces. Li et al [Li
2001] modelled the frictional contact between the workpiece and the fixture element as an
elastic half-space subjected to distributed normal and tangential loads. Lee and Haynes
[Lee 1987] accounted for Coulomb friction and its effect on the fixture performance in
their FEM analysis.

Chapter 3 Cutting Force Measurement
CHAPTER 3
CUTTING FORCE MEASUREMENT IN A FIXTURING SET-UP

WITH INSTRUMENTED LOCATORS
3.1 Introduction
Cutting force is one of the most sensitive indicators of machining performance.
Force measurement is an important aspect in machining performance analysis, flexible
manufacturing systems, precision machining, intelligent fixturing and other advanced
manufacturing systems. In the analysis of fixturing systems, it is imperative to know the
optimal clamping forces for the synthesis of fixtures and determination of their locations
and magnitude of clamping forces. In order to determine these values, the cutting forces
have to be known. There are many empirical and analytical models available for modelling
and determining the cutting forces [Armarego 1969, Tlusty 1975, Ber 1988, Kline 1982a,
Altintas 2000]. However, the accuracy of the available analytical and empirical force
models is limited by the various factors that usually cannot be accounted for in real
machining conditions, like cutter run-out, tool and workpiece deflection, wear of tool and
other factors leading to inaccuracies. In order to overcome the inaccuracies in force
measurement using developed force models, one can measure the cutting forces in real
time with a multi-component piezo-electric dynamometer that has very high accuracy,
sensitivity and response time. This method is widely accepted as a standard for force
measurement.
Quartz is a piezoelectric material that yields an electrical charge when
mechanically loaded. Quartz dynamometer performs as a force transducer and the forces

acting on the quartz elements are directly converted into proportional electrical signals.
The mechanical stress induced in the quartz measuring element by the force to be
measured, which can be either tensile or compressive, produces the output signal with only
minimal mechanical deflection. This is a very important factor when measuring very slow,
quasi-static forces. The high rigidity is also important when measuring dynamic forces as it
provides for a high natural frequency thus allowing the measurement of very fast force
pulses. Two pairs of shear-sensitive quartz elements for Fx and Fy together with one pair
for compression for Fz result in a very compact 3-component sensor.
However, high accuracy and precision may not be required for many force
measuring applications. Though measurements with a dynamometer are very precise, there
are many inherent drawbacks when its application in real machining environment is
considered. Figure 3.1 shows a force plate (Kistler, 9253A) that has a surface dimension of
600 mm x 400 mm. The associated workspace envelope extends to upto 300mm
perpendicular to the surface of the force plate. This is the largest available piezo-electric
multi-component dynamometer and it can accommodate workpieces no larger than 400
mm x 600 mm x 300 mm. Every dynamometer has an associated workspace envelope.
Machining must take place within this envelope for the dynamometer to measure the forces
accurately.

Figure 3.1 Force Plate (Kistler, 9253A)
For machining larger parts, it is not feasible for accurate force measurement. Figure 3.2
shows schematically, a workpiece that is not completely enclosed by the workspace
envelope of the dynamometer. This makes it difficult for one to measure the cutting forces
accurately. Furthermore, in an industrial environment, machinists are reluctant to use
dynamometers due to the lack of instrumentation knowledge and associated high costs.
The cost of the dynamometer is high and the weight of a large-sized dynamometer could
be over 100 kgs, which is inconvenient for many applications.
These are some of the reasons why piezo-electric multi-component dynamometers,
which are commonly used for research and development purposes in a laboratory
environment, are seen to have a rather limited application in a real manufacturing
environment. Hence there is a need to develop an alternate device that can overcome the
disadvantages of a standard piezo-electric dynamometer but is versatile, less expensive and
can be accepted to be an alternate force measurement system with accuracy acceptable for
usual applications.

Figure 3.2 An illustration of a case when a workpiece can exceed the allowable machining
envelope associated with the dynamometer
In this work, it is proposed that six instrumented locators with uniaxial force
sensors positioned according to the 3-2-1 locating principle be considered as a feasible
alternative to the dynamometer. The force outputs from the sensors can be used to obtain
the three components of the cutting force acting on the workpiece. It can be shown that the
six instrumented locators can act as a substitute for the dynamometer within good tolerance
limits. This would effectively overcome the disadvantages that are inherent in a
dynamometer. The instrumented locators are capable of accommodating workpieces of any
size and configuration. As opposed to the dynamometer, which has a constrained volume
and the workpiece has to be accommodated within that volume, the instrumented locators
can be distributed around the workpiece without imposing any constraint on the workpiece
geometry. Furthermore, the cost of acquiring the components to develop the system with
instrumented locators is only about 10% of the cost of the dynamometer which can be

purchased. The handling of the instrumented locators is better as the space occupied is very
small and there is no significant addition to the load on the machine table.
In this chapter, an effort is made towards achieving the aforementioned objective,
cutting force measurement in a fixturing set-up with instrumented locators which can be an
alternative force measuring system to the dynamometer. The design and development of
the proposed force measuring system and the series of experiments that were performed to
validate the accuracy of the system under dynamic loading conditions are demonstrated in
detail.
3.2 Stability Analysis

Planar stability analysis [Jeng 1995] was used to analyse workpiece stability with
one clamping plane that could be further extended to spatial stability analysis in multiple
clamping planes. The Instantaneous Centre of Motion property is used for the analysis.
ICM Property [Jeng 1995] – For all points P ∈ of clamping plane Π such that the
clamping moment about P is greater than or equal to the cutting moment about P,
clamping is stable.
The difficulty in the minimum clamping force analysis is that the direction and often times,
the magnitude of the friction forces are indeterminate. The direction of a friction force can
be determined only when the location of the ICM is assumed. One has to note that the ICM
does not actually exist for a stable clamping but assumed for the purpose of analysis.
Figure 3.3 shows the general configuration of clamping a prismatic workpiece,
where FN,1, FN,2 and FN,3 are the three clamping forces. For the stability of plane XOY, the

clamping forces and the reaction forces that are normal to the clamping plane are the only
forces counterbalancing the external forces (FCX + FCY). In case of fixturing with one
clamping plane, stability analysis can be carried out by taking into account the friction
forces, which are due to the fixturing forces normal to the clamping plane and external
forces that are parallel to the plane, such as FCX and FCY.
Figure 3.3 Cutting and Clamping forces [Jeng 1995]

3.3 Force Distribution in End-milling
Clamps are active elements that exert force on the workpiece during workholding.
Locators that are used to locate the orientation of the workpiece and deliver reaction
forces. In this analysis, the workpiece is considered as a rigid body and friction in all
contact surfaces is taken into account.
Clamping forces are the primary fixturing forces and the friction forces associated
with the clamping forces are substantial. The locator forces are relatively smaller but have
to be maintained at non-zero values to ensure no loss of contact between the workpiece and
the fixture to ensure workpiece stability. External forces are the cutting forces and the
weight of the workpiece. In this work, the weight of the workpiece is assumed to be small
compared to the other forces and can be neglected in the analysis. Friction forces are
attributed to static friction that exists in the region of contact between the workpiece and
fixturing elements. Coulomb friction law is applied to determine the friction forces
-µFn ≤ Ff ≤ µFn (3.1)
One has to note that the fixturing forces are not normal to the boundary contact surface due
to the presence of frictional forces. The forces referred to as clamping forces and locator
forces refer to the normal component of the fixturing forces.
All the forces acting on a prismatic workpiece during end milling are shown in
Figure 3.4. The forces FAA, FBB are the forces exerted by the clamps and the forces FA,
FB, FC, FD, FE and FF are the reaction forces of the locators. Ff, Ft and Fa are the cutting
forces. T1, T2 and T3 are the cutting torques. The forces without labels are the friction
forces.

Figure 3.4 Cutting, clamping and locator forces acting on a prismatic part
3.4 Relationship between Cutting, Clamping, Locator and Frictional Forces
Using stability condition for a rigid body (Beer 1997), the balance of force and
moments give equations (3.2) to (3.7)
x1, x2 , x3, x4, y1, y2, z1, z2 , z3 and z4 are the dimensions that can be input by the
user after setting up a certain configuration. The subscripts fx, fy and fz (e.g. (FB)fx ) refer
to the component of friction in the x, y, and z directions, respectively, of the various forces.
Subscript c refers to the co-ordinates of the cutter position.
Equilibrium of forces along the X-direction
Ft + FF + (FD)fx + (FE)fx = FBB + (FA)fx + (FB)fx + (FC)fx + (FAA)fx (3.2)

Equilibrium of forces along the Y-direction
Fa = FA + FB + FC + (FD)fy + (FE)fy + (FF)fy + (FAA)fy + (FBB)fy (3.3)
Equilibrium of forces along the Z-direction
Ff + FAA + (FF)fz = FD + FE + (FA)fz + (FB)fz + (FC)fz + (FBB)fz (3.4)
Equilibrium of moments about X axis
z3 (FA) + z3 (FB) + z1 (FC) + y1 (FD) + y1 (FE) + z4 (FD)fy + z4 (FE)fy + z2 (FBB)fy + z2
(FF)fy + y2 (FBB)fz + T3 = zc (Fa) + y1(FF)fz + y2 (FAA) + yc (Ff) (3.5)
Equilibrium of moments about Y axis
z3 (FA)fx + z3 (FB)fx + x2 (FAA) + xc (Ff) + z1 (FC)fx +z2 (FBB) + x2 (FAA) = T1 + x1 (FD) +
x3 (FE) + x4 (FBB)fz + x2 (FC)fz + x3 (FA)fz + x1 (FB)fz + z2 (FF) + z4 (FE)fx + z4 (FD)fx
+ zc (ft) (3.6)
Equilibrium of moments about Z axis
x3(FA) + x1(FB) + x2(FC) + x1(FD)fy + x3(FE)fy + x2(FAA)fy + y2 (FAA)fx + x4(FBB)fy +
y2(FBB) = T2 + y1(FD)fx + y1(FE)fx + yc (Ft) + y1(FF) + xc (Fa) (3.7)

3.5 Determination of the Cutting Forces
Equations (3.2) to (3.7) relate the various forces that are acting on the workpiece
during the machining process. The aim of the developed relationship is to enable the
determination of the three components of the cutting force Fx*, Fy*, Fz*. The known
variables in the equations are the six locator forces (FA, FB, FC, FD, FE, and FF) and the
two clamping forces (FAA and FBB), which are obtained from the sensors placed on them.
It has to be noted that the equations developed are not limited to any particular
shape or size of the workpiece but can be configured with input given by a user to suit any
configuration. The equations obtained are complete and do not involve any assumptions.
They relate all the forces and torques that are involved.
For well-finished metal surfaces, the contact friction has co-efficient of friction, µ
values ranging from 0.1 to 0.3. If the contact area is small, µ takes values closer to the
lower limit. In the present experiment, as the locators have a hemispherical shape, the
contact area is very small and the µ value is found to be about 0.1-0.15. For rubber-metal
contact, µ is about 0.3 to 0.65. In the present experiment, the clamps have a hard rubber
layer which has a rough surface and the contact area is also quite large as the face of the
clamp is flat and the value of µ was found to be about 0.5-0.65.
Slipping condition is assumed for the analysis and the friction in the contacts is
estimated with the assumed position of the ICM. It has to be noted that these assumptions
will add to the error in the analysis, however these errors cannot be totally avoided to solve
a system which is statically indeterminate.

A program was written in Matlab for solving the equations. The known variables
are the locator forces and the clamping forces that will be input into the program and the
unknowns output by the program will be the cutting forces and the cutting torques.
3.6 Experimental Procedure
Experiments were performed with a fixturing set-up made on a dynamometer.
Series of tests were conducted to establish the validity of the system developed. In order to
achieve this, force measurements were recorded concurrently from the dynamometer,
instrumented locators and the clamps. The following sections explain the experimental set-
up, details of the conducted experiments and the analysis of the results.
3.6.1 Instrumented Locators
In the fixturing arrangement for this work, there is a need to measure the locating
forces in real time, accurately. In order to achieve this, instrumented locators were
designed with uniaxial force sensors (Kistler: Slim Line Sensor, 9134A). Figure 3.6 shows
different types of uniaxial Slim Line Force Sensors. It is capable of measuring forces with
very high precision and has a very fast response time. The sensor used is capable of
measuring a compressive force of upto 30kN. For the purpose in this work, the fixturing
forces are all compressive forces and hence can be measured with the above-mentioned
sensor.

Figure 3.6 Uniaxial Force Sensors [Kistler]
The sensor has to be placed on the locator and pre-loaded. The locators were designed and
the sensor pre-loaded to 3kN which is 10% of the maximum force value of the sensor. The
sensor has very high linearity above this value and can be considered extremely accurate
with error less than 0.1%. Figure 3.7 shows the instrumented locator with the pre-loaded
uniaxial force sensor.
Figure 3.7 Design of the instrumented locator with uniaxial force sensor

3.6.2 Experimental Set-up
The experiment requires measuring the forces from the clamps, locators and the
dynamometer simultaneously during a machining operation. This will facilitate the
analysis to validate the cutting force measurements calculated from the instrumented
locator set up against the cutting force measured by the dynamometer. Figure 3.8 shows
the locating and clamping elements mounted on the dyanamometer (Kistler, 9253A).
Figure 3.8 Experimental set-up with the locators and clamps placed on the dynamometer
The workpiece and the locators were set up according to the 3-2-1 locating
principle. The workpiece (180 mm x 180 mm x 120 mm) was mounted on a large
dynamometer. A schematic drawing of the set-up with the dimensions indicated is shown
in Figure 3.9. Charge amplifiers and tape recorders were used to obtain and record the

output forces. The force values were recorded simultaneously from the dynamometer, the
clamps and the locators, so that concurrent values from these components can be analysed.
The data were converted to ASCII format for analysis.
Figure 3.9 Schematic drawing in plan view of the experimental set-up
3.7 Results and Analysis
A series of end-milling tests were conducted with a 32 mm diameter tungsten
carbide indexable insert for various cutting parameters and the force values were recorded.
With the obtained force data, various aspects of the force details were analysed. The
analysis includes a comparison between the engagement periods and validation of the
mathematical model developed through a quantitative analysis.

3.7.1 Analysis of Engagement time
The force pattern in end milling has a peak during the engagement of each flute and
for a four-fluted end-mill, there will be four peaks in one rotation. In order to show the
concurrence between the dynamometer and the locator forces, the engagement period was
calculated and checked for both force values. For instance, take a particular machining
process for the cutting condition of axial depth of cut (ax) = 8 mm, radial depth of cut (ar) =
8 mm, rotational speed (rs) = 1500 rpm, feed rate (f) = 120 mm/min, diameter of cutter (d)
= 32mm.
Figure 3.10 The end milling operation with the engagement angle shown
θ = Cos-1 (1 –2*ar/d) (3.8)

The engagement time for a single tooth is given by t = (θo/ 360o)* T, where T is the time
for one rotation of the cutter. For the cutting parameters for this particular cut, θ = Cos-1 (1
–2*8/32) = 60o and T= 60/1500 s, the engagement time, t = 6.7 ms.
To compare the engagement time, force outputs are taken from the X-axis output of
the dynamometer and from the locator and the clamp in the same direction. The force
pattern for a period of 100ms is shown in figure 3.11. The displayed data has a sampling
rate of 2400 samples per second
t
1000
800
Force (Newton)
600
400
200
0
-200
-400
1 291 581 871 1161 1451 1741 2031 2321
Sample
Figure 3.11 Force recorded from the X-axis output of the dynamometer
The engagement time, t for a certain engagement period chosen from the data for a
sampling period is given by t = [∆t / (sample rate in total period)]* (total period) where ∆t
is the sampling period. From Figure 3.11, for a particular engagement period from sample
1461 to 1624, the time of engagement is given by t = [(1624 – 1461) / (2400)] * 100 ms =
6.8 ms.
The force from Clamp 1, FAA is shown in Figure 3.12. The graph shown is for a captured
period of 100 ms. The displayed data has a sampling rate of 1200 samples per second

t
1750
Force (Newton)
1700
1650
1600
1550
1500
1450
1 143 285 427 569 711 853 995 1137
Sample
Figure 3.12 Force recorded from Clamp1, FAA
From Figure 3.12, for a particular engagement period from sample 567 to 646, the time of
engagement is given by t = [(646 – 565) / (1200)] * 100 ms = 6.8 ms.
The force from Locator 1, FA is shown in Figure 3.13 The graph shown is for a captured
period of 100 ms. The displayed data has a sampling rate of 1200 samples per second
700
Force (Newtons)
600
500
400
300
200 t
100
0
1 140 279 418 557 696 835 974 1113
Sample
Figure 3.13 Force recorded from Locator 1, FA
From Figure 3.13, for a particular engagement period from sample 567 to 646, the time of
engagement is given by t = [(665 – 584) / (1200)] * 100 ms = 6.8 ms

The engagement time is found by smoothing the graphs. The region corresponding
to the engagement of the flute is seen by a significant rise in the force and hence the time is
determined. The engagement times found to be same from the dynamometer, locator and
the clamps serves as a preliminary measure that there is concurrence in the response
between them for engagement and disengagement of the cutter. This however does not
credit the accuracy of the actual magnitude of the measured forces. The analysis of the
engagement times proved as an early indicator that the responses during the cutting time of
the flute is same for the forces measured from the different equipments and thus the
analysis can be continued for the magnitude of the forces, which is of primary concern,
illustrated in the next section.
3.7.2 Quantitative Analysis with the Model Developed Based on Planar
Stability Analysis
It is to be noted that the sampling interval for the outputs from the dynamometer
during the engagement period should be divided by two (as the sampling frequency for the
8-channel DAT recorder is half that of the 4-channel DAT recorder). From the
corresponding output force value of the dynamometer, the appropriate force values were
chosen from the instrumented locators and clamps. This was done with much care and the
values obtained were substituted into the Matlab program. The program was developed
using Cramer’s rule [Kreyszig 1999]. A Matlab program was written to prompt the values
of the nine variables, which were obtained from the clamp and locator outputs. The
program allows the user to input the dimensions for different configurations, making it
possible for the equations to be applicable to different set-ups.

Fx, Fy and Fz are principally the values to be determined using the output from the
sensors. The cutting force components (Fx*, Fy*, Fz*) thus obtained using the set of
equations, were compared with the cutting force components (Fx, Fy and Fz) directly
measured using a dynamometer.
Table 3.1 displays the various cutting conditions under which the tests were
performed. The force data captured for one of the end-milling process is shown is shown in
Figures 3.14 (a) – 3.14 (k). A summary of the results is shown in Table 3.2.
Force in the clamp FAA

Force (Newtons)
1500
1000
500
0
1 201 401 601 801 1001
Sample
Figure 3.14 (a) Force data recorded from clamp FAA
Force in clamp FBB

Force (Newtons)
1800
1600
1400
1200
1 201 401 601 801 1001
Sample
Figure 3.14 (b) Force data recorded from clamp FBB

Force in locator FA
Force (Newton)
1200
1000
800
600
1 201 401 601 801 1001
Sample
Figure 3.14 (c) Force data recorded from locator FA
Force in Locator FB
Force (Newton)
1100
900
700
500
1 201 401 601 801 1001
Sample
Figure 3.14 (d) Force data recorded from locator FB
Force in locator FC
Force (Newton)
1000
500
0
1 201 401 601 801 1001
Sample
Figure 3.14 (e) Force data recorded from locator FC

Force in locator FD
Force (Newton)
200
100
0
-100
-200
1 201 401 601 801 1001
Sample
Figure 3.14 (f) Force data recorded from locator FD
Force in locator FE
Force (Newton)
150
100
50
0
1 201 401 601 801 1001
Sample
Figure 3.14 (g) Force data recorded from locator FE
Force in locator FF
Force (Newton)
200
100
0
-100
1 201 401 601 801 1001
Sample
Figure 3.14 (h) Force data recorded from locator FF

Force in the X axis of the dynamometer
Force (Newton)
2000
1000
0
-1000
1 401 801 1201 1601 2001 2401
Sample
Figure 3.14 (i) Force data recorded from X-axis of dynamometer
Force in the Y axis of the dynamometer

Force (Newton)
2000
1000
0
-1000
1 401 801 1201 1601 2001 2401
Sample
Figure 3.14 (j) Force data recorded from Y-axis of dynamometer
Force in the Z axis of the dynamometer

Force (Newton)
400
200
0
-200
-400
-600
1 401 801 1201 1601 2001 2401
Sample
Figure 3.14 (k) Force data recorded from Z-axis of dynamometer

The validity of the equations was tested by using the obtained force data. The
values for the parameters in equations (3.2) to (3.7) are dependent on the set-up
configuration. Figure 3.15 shows a schematic representation of the dimensional variables
of an example layout.
Figure 3.15 The geometric parameters for the 3-2-1 locator set-up of the workpiece
Table 3.1 gives the cutting data of the various milling operations that were performed and
recorded.
Material: Aluminium
Cutter: Tungsten Carbide Indexable insert with 00 helix angle. (4-flute)

Test Feed rate Speed Axial depth of cut Radial Depth of Cut
Number (10-2mm/tooth) (m/min) (mm) (mm)
1 3.125 120.6 6 4
2 3.125 120.6 8 8
3 2.00 150.6 8 8
4 3.125 120.6 10 8
5 2.00 150.6 10 10
6 2.00 150.6 8 10
7 2.50 120.6 4 4
8 2.50 150.6 10 10
9 2.50 120.6 6 6
10 2.50 150.6 6 6
11 2.50 150.6 8 6
12 2.50 150.6 4 8
13 2.50 150.6 10 8
14 3.125 120.6 8 10
15 2.00 150.6 4 6
16 2.00 150.6 10 10
17 3.125 120.6 8 6
18 2.50 120.6 8 4
Table 3.1 Cutting data for the experiments performed

Test Fx Fy Fz (Fx)* (Fy)* (Fz)* ex ey ez

Number (N) (N) (N) (N) (N) (N) (%) (%) (%)
1 225 590 65 235 667 49 4 13 -25
2 382 1017 57 350 1056 47 -8 4 -18
3 306 831 72 341 876 90 11 5 25
4 348 1312 83 367 1198 112 5 -9 35
5 506 1133 184 395 1316 143 -22 16 -23
6 562 919 123 544 867 114 -3 -6 -7
7 139 352 40 172 447 53 24 27 33
8 610 1215 134 577 986 115 -5 -19 -15
9 291 634 71 270 619 56 -7 -2 -21
10 276 804 144 308 784 97 12 -2 -32
11 343 954 66 322 965 78 -6 1 18
12 146 1003 87 152 1187 65 4 18 -25
13 598 1063 79 542 1090 86 -9 3 9
14 411 1124 45 440 953 66 7 -15 47
15 155 634 56 171 625 48 10 -1 -14
16 369 1425 148 348 1382 124 -6 -3 -16
17 405 861 49 352 887 66 -13 3 35
18 522 944 85 481 976 64 -8 3 -25
Table 3.2 Error values as percentage of the measured force

Figures 3.14(a) to 3.14(k) show the force recorded from the clamps, locators and the
dynamometer. In order to check the validity of the equations and calculate the errors, a
random point is chosen from one of the output and the corresponding point is chosen for
the 10 other outputs. Using these values the errors are measured. For each of the cutting
parameters shown in Table 3.1, the forces at one particular point in time are used to
calculate the forces represented in Table 3.2. More points can be chosen for each set of
parameters to have a larger data to statistically study the accuracy of the developed system.
However, the number of data analysed was considered sufficient to make the conclusions
in the error of the system. Future work could integrate the system developed with software
that can automatically gather the discrete points corresponding to the various force outputs
in the entire sampling range which can be used to establish the continuous force output for
the entire sampling range.
Table 3.2 gives the actual values of the cutting forces Fx, Fy and Fz, as measured
directly by a dynamometer and the values Fx*, Fy* and Fz* that were calculated using the
equations formulated. ex, ey and ez give the respective error values as a percentage of the
measured force. The r.m.s values of the errors are shown in table 3.3
Error RMS value
ex (%) 10.6
ey (%) 11.2
ez (%) 25.5
Table 3.3 RMS value of error

3.8 Performance Analysis
The dynamometer has a very high accuracy of force measurement within the
associated workspace envelope. Care was taken to ensure that the machining operation was
performed within this envelope. The forces obtained from the dynamometer can therefore
be considered as the accurate values of the cutting forces, which are used to determine the
errors in the force values obtained using the system with the instrumented locators. It can
be seen that the error values for X-axis and the Y-axis are rather small and the error values
are within 12 % of the actual force values as measured by the dynamometer.
The percentage error values from the Z-axis are fairly large as one can see that the
actual force values are small due to the 00 helix angle of the cutter. So the noise picked up
by the signals become more pronounced causing the discrepancy. However, it can be noted
that the force along the Z-axis, Fz < 10-12% (SQRT (Fx2+Fy2)). Hence it does not affect the
accuracy of the resultant cutting force significantly. Consequently, the error values from Z-
axis are not a good indication of the system developed but the errors in X- and Y- axis
show the accuracy of the system of force measurement using instrumented locators.
A piezo-electric dynamometer is capable of measuring the cutting force with less
than 0.1% error within its workspace envelope but this high accuracy may not be a
requirement for many applications. In typical machining processes, where clamping is
done manually, it can be noted that the clamping force can be much higher than what is
needed, in fact it can even be 100% higher than what is required to avoid slippage during
machining. The inaccuracies observed in the developed method with instrumented locators
are therefore within acceptable limits. It is well known that, in order to keep workpiece
deformation to the minimum possible extent, it is imperative to clamp with as little force as

required. However, due to manual clamping and the lack of a viable force measuring
device, the workpieces are quite often heavily over-clamped. This system with
instrumented locators allows the cutting forces to be measured and would, in turn, allow
the minimum clamping forces to be estimated providing a feasible solution to overcome
this problem. Further development in this direction would become a source of
encouragement to employ intelligent and adaptable fixturing beyond the laboratory
environment.
3.9 Advantages with the Developed Measuring System
The system developed with the instrumented locators establishes a novel and
convenient method of force measurement at low cost with reasonable accuracy. As
opposed to a piezo-electric dynamometer, which has a constraining workspace envelope,
the developed system is capable of accommodating workpieces of any shape and size, as
the force sensors can be placed around the workpiece to suit its geometry, hence the
inaccuracies due to exceeding size constraints can be overcome. For instance, the
dynamometer used for the experiments in this work has a certain associated volume
beyond which all the forces cannot be measured accurately. Milling operations performed
outside this limiting workspace are likely to produce inaccurate force recordings. This is
due to the fact that the moments induced by forces acting outside the limiting envelope
would become considerable and cannot be accommodated by the dynamometer. Static
loading tests were performed to confirm the effect of loading a workpiece outside the
workspace envelope. This is demonstrated in detail in Chapter 4.

By using the instrumented locators, one could eliminate this problem as the sensors
in the locators are in all the three orthogonal planes and placed at different levels. Any high
moment values can be accounted for. Furthermore, it is also possible to make this system
more sensitive than a dynamometer as sensors with different ranges and gains can be used
for different locators depending on the force experienced in a particular axis or plane. It
also has to be noted that the system developed is not designed for any particular workpiece
shape or geometry but can be configured to accommodate a wide variety of workpieces
with input parameters given by the user. The cost of the system developed is only about
10% of the cost of a dynamometer. This would be a major encouragement for applications
beyond the laboratory environment. The dynamometer used is about 90 kgs and 600 mm x
400 mm, which occupies significant space and it adds considerable load to the machine
table and also makes it difficult to handle. The space occupied by instrumented locators is
very small and there is no significant addition to the load on the machine table.
3.10 Disadvantages of the Developed System
There are also several disadvantages of the developed system that cannot be
overlooked. For each configuration, a new set of parameters has to be chosen and it can be
tedious for non-prismatic components. Though the equations need not be altered, the user
input variables have to be changed for each configuration. This would eventually lead to an
increase in set-up time. Furthermore, the overall set-up takes more time as compared to the
dynamometer as each of the sensors must be separately connected and calibrated.
However, this can be overcome by using an industrial terminal. Unlike the dynamometer,
which has all the connections concealed inside the base plate, instrumented locators have

wired connections, which could clutter the workspace area and make wet cutting
questionable. This could possibly be overcome by the use of wireless sensors.

Chapter 4 Force Measurement Outside Workspace Envelope
CHAPTER 4
FORCE MEASUREMENT ERRORS OUTSIDE THE ASSOCIATED
WORKSPACE ENVELOPE OF A DYNAMOMETER
4.1 Introduction
Moments caused by loading at significant distances from the dynamometer surface
cannot be accommodated by the dynamometer. Due to this, there exists a specification of
a workspace envelope for each dynamometer beyond which, the moment values become
pronounced and machining forces cannot be accounted for accurately. This chapter
attempts to illustrate the inherent drawback in the dynamometer due to this constraint on
the volume of operation, which is not present in the force measurement system developed
in this work.
4.2 Static Loading Test for the Dynamometer
In order to determine the accuracy of a dynamometer for loading conditions
outside the allowable workspace envelope, a series of static loading tests were performed.
A load of 9 kg was placed on the dynamometer. Using a 20 kg mass and pulley system, a
force was applied along the Y-axis of the dynamometer at various heights as shown in
Figure 4.1. The mass of 9kg provides a force precisely in the Z-axis. The set-up was made
to accommodate the loading in the Y-axis at different levels. In theory, the Z-axis of the
dynamometer should record a constant force, irrespective of the loading in the Y-axis.
Experiments were conducted to verify this.

Figure 4.1 Set-up for static loading (Actual set-up)
The dynamometer has a calibrated workspace envelope, which allows loading upto a
height of 50mm above the dynamometer. Horizontal load in the Y-axis was applied at
heights of 50mm, 100mm, 150mm, 200mm and 250mm as shown in Figure 4.2.

Figure 4.2 Set-up for static loading (Schematic)
The height of application of the load on the workpiece was gradually increased and the
resulting forces recorded along the Z-axis of the dynamometer are shown in Figure 4.3(a).
The corresponding variation on the Y-axis is shown in Figure 4.3(b).

140
130
120
Force (N)
110
100
90
80
50 100 150 200 250
Height (mm)
Figure 4.3 (a) Force along the Z-axis of the dynamometer
200
180
160
Force (N)
140
120
100
80
50 100 150 200 250
Height (mm)
Figure 4.3 (b) Force along the Y-axis of the dynamometer
It was noted that the forces along the Y-axis was constant but the force along the Z-axis
increased steadily. By applying a linear fit, this variation can be represented as
Z = Z0 + M*Ry (4.1)
where Z is the force recorded along the Z-Axis of the dynamometer, Z0 is force recorded
along the Z-axis at the boundary of the workspace envelope, M the force gradient

corresponding to the force equivalent of the moment produced and Ry is the moment arm,
which is the veritical distance from the level of the dynamometer.
One would expect the loading in the Y-axis not to affect the force measured along
the Z-axis of the dynamometer. This is usually the case when the loading is within the
workspace envelope. However, as one can see from Figure 4.3 (a), the measured value of
the force recorded along the Z-axis changes considerably as the position of the load
becomes higher. The calibrated accuracy for the dynamometer is applicable only within
the allowable workspace. This causes significant error values when the loading point was
moved further away from the workspace envelope. Forces recorded in one axis are no
longer independent of the forces acting in another orthogonal axis. This clearly shows a
major disadvantage in force measurements of machining large-sized workpieces that
cannot be encompassed within the workspace envelope of a dynamometer. This
substantiates the critical advantage in the developed force measurement system that is not
constrained by size or shape of the workpiece.

Chapter 5 Development of a Clamping Element
CHAPTER 5
DEVELOPMENT OF A CLAMPING ELEMENT USING DIRECT-
TORQUE CONTROL
5.1 Introduction
In work-holding operations, the application of excessive clamping forces would
lead to distortion and thus dimensional inaccuracy of a workpiece. This problem is
common in industries, which manufacture thin-walled components requiring high
precision, such as aerospace parts and hard disk drive casings. The cause of such a problem
is the conventional practice of manually applying the largest clamping force available to
ensure that the workpieces are secured against perturbations caused by dynamic cutting
force during machining.
In an actual machining operation, cutting forces change throughout the course of
the machining operation, causing the clamping force requirements to change in tandem. In
an ideal fixturing system, both the location and magnitude of the clamping force are
controllable in real time, ensuring optimal workholding at all times. A more practical and
cost effective approach is to have off-line optimisation of the location of the clamping
forces and on-line optimisation of the cutting force magnitudes.
In this chapter, the design and development of a clamping element based on direct
torque control is explained. The mechanical design, control mechanism and the
performance of the developed system are demonstrated. A series of experiments that were
conducted to study the repeatability, resolution and accuracy of the system are illustrated.

5.2 Direct Torque Control of DC Motor
There have been several force controlled clamping elements developed in the past.
Sollie and Mannan [1997] developed a force-controlled clamping element based on the
cutting force model developed by Altintas and Spence [Altintas 1991] and the fixture
model developed by Gui et al [Gui 1996], which introduces the localised contact rigidity
between workpiece and the fixturing elements by using virtual springs for analysis. The
control technique used is a hybrid position/force control developed by Raibert and Craig
[Raibert 1981] and Whitney [Whitney 1987]. In this system, controlled armature voltage of
the PMDC motor is transformed through a screw actuator into a linear motion to apply the
clamping force. A soft compression spring is introduced between the screw actuator and
the workpiece to make the system compatible with the model by Gui [Gui 1996]. The
hybrid position force controller developed by Sollie uses a stepper motor (which can also
be replaced with any actuator) to realise the position control and a force sensor is used for
force control. The method proposed in this work requires a simple DC motor and does not
require a force sensor. The torque is controlled in the region of zero speed of the motor.
The feasibility of this system is due to the directly proportional relationship that
exists between the developed torque and armature current. The developed torque and the
armature current are related as below
T = kφI a (5.1)
where, T is the developed torque, k is a constant, Ia is the armature current and φ is the
magnetic flux. As the magnetic flux under normal operating condition is almost constant,

as a PMDC motor is used, the developed torque (5.1) is directly proportional to current.
Hence the developed torque can be controlled by the armature current Ia. The control of
armature current is in turn achieved by controlling the armature voltage Va applied to the
motor (using a chopper). The transfer function between the armature current and the
armature voltage of the motor is given by:
I a (s) G Eb ( s )
= + (5.2)
D( s ) (Ra + La s ) (Ra + La s )
where Eb(s) is the back emf term dependent on the speed. With angular velocity being zero
in the present case, there is no back emf. So the transfer function between the armature
current and the armature voltage is given by
I a ( s) G
= (5.3)
D( s ) (Ra + La s )
where, Ra is the armature resistance and La is the armature inductance.
5.3 Control Mechanism
The control scheme employed for deriving a varying torque is shown in Figure 5.3.
It employs a Permanent Magnet DC (PMDC) motor for delivering a variable torque at zero
speed. The motor ratings are as below.
Rated armature voltage - 24 V
Maximum continuous current - 252 mA
Maximum continuous torque - 13.9 mNm
Stall torque - 33.1 mNm

The control scheme employs a two-quadrant chopper that is realized using two
MOSFETs (S1 and S2). S1 and S2 are switched in complement to each other at a high
frequency (50 kHz). Such a two-quadrant chopper can handle both positive and negative
torques (armature currents). However, the machine speed (armature voltage) cannot be
reversed. In the present control scheme, the motor operates only in the first quadrant of the
speed-torque plane. Hence, MOSFET S2 can also be replaced by a power diode. However,
as the voltage drop and hence the power loss in a power diode are generally higher than
those in a MOSFET, use of MOSFET S2 gives a higher efficiency.
Ia +
D S1
Vdc Va
S2
PMDC
1-D
motor
DRIVER
Ia
- -
PWM K
+ + Iref
Proportional
Controller
Figure 5.2 DC Motor- Torque controller

The applied armature voltage is controlled by the duty ratio D of S1. The relation between
the applied armature voltage Va and duty ratio D of S1 is given by
Va = D * Vdc (5.4)
where Vdc (= 24 V) is the dc source voltage. Considering (5.2), the control input-to-
armature current (D-to-Ia) transfer function of the motor can be written as
I a ( s) G
= (5.5)
D( s ) (Ra + La s )
where, G is the dc gain. It can be seen from (5.5) that the control-to-output transfer
function is similar to that of a simple first order system. Robust stability and performance
objectives can be easily achieved. A simple high gain proportional controller has been used
to realize the desired control of the armature current.
The motor current reference is derived from external sources (precision supply /
DAC of a computer). When the reference signal is derived from a DAC, the resolution of
the reference signal depends on the associated quantization process. The actual motor
current is sensed and is compared with the current reference to generate the armature
current error. This error is amplified by a high gain proportional controller K (Figure 5.2)
and is fed to the PWM comparator for generating the duty ratio pulses for S1 and S2.
5.4 Mechanical System
In the proposed method, the linear motion of the clamp is achieved using a simple
rack and pinion system. The factors that are to be considered for the clamp to deliver the
required force are the size of rack and pinion to control the moment arm and the maximum

allowable stall torque. The developed prototype was fabricated to deliver a maximum force
of 150N. Figure 5.3 shows the torque-speed characteristics of the selected PMDC motor.
The control of torque (force) is achieved at zero speed of the motor, which corresponds to
the X-axis of Figure 5.3.
In Figure 5.3, the shaded area is the region of continuous operation under nominal
loading conditions of the motor. To avoid overheating, the maximum continuous torque
under zero speed should not exceed 14 mNm. Hence with a gear ratio of 200:1 a maximum
torque of 2.8 Nm can be delivered. This translates to a force of 150 N with the chosen
moment arm of the rack and pinion.
n[rpm]
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
M [mNm]
0 10 20 30 40 50
Figure 5.3 Motor Operating Characteristics

For calibration purpose, a piezoelectric sensor was used to measure the clamping force. A
series of tests were conducted and the forces developed for different armature currents
were measured, as shown in Figure 5.4.
Force - Current Calibration
150
Force (Newton)
100
50
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Current (mA)
Figure 5.4 Calibration Graph
As one can expect, the calibration graph does not pass through the origin as current is
drawn under no load condition to compensate for motor losses such as eddy current and
hysteresis losses. The calibration factor was found to be 0.5N/mA. An accuracy of +/- 0.2
N was noted using a DAC of 10-bit word length. This error is less than 1% of the
maximum force delivered. Further reduction of error can be achieved by employing a DAC
of a longer word length. This shows that the developed clamping element and control
mechanism performs with good accuracy and resolution.

Chapter 6 Optimisation of Minimum Clamping Force
CHAPTER 6
OPTIMISATION OF MINIMUM CLAMPING FORCE
6.1 Introduction
As mentioned in the previous chapters, it is important in Flexible Manufacturing
Systems to determine the minimum allowable clamping force to secure the workpiece in a
stable position. Keeping the clamping forces to a minimum reduces the deformation of the
workpiece. However, care must be taken to ensure that the workpiece does not slip. In
other words, the clamping force must ensure that the locators are in contact with the
workpiece throughout the machining process. There have been many researchers in the
past who have attempted to optimise the location of the clamping positions off-line and
optimise the clamping forces online. It can be noted that non-linear programming is used
for the optimisation of the clamping positions and linear programming used for
optimisation of the clamping force. However, real time optimisation and control of
clamping forces is still seen only in a laboratory environment due to its complexity, high
associated costs and expertise required. This chapter presents a technique developed to
simplify the process of optimisation and provide a methodology to easily obtain an
estimate of the minimum clamping force through an iterative procedure. The method is
developed with cutting force measurements performed with instrumented locators as
shown in Chapter 3. This effectively reduces the cost involved in using the dynamometer.
Windows-based optimisation software TORA [Hamdy 2003] is used for the purpose of
linear programming.

6.2 Algorithm for Optimisation
The optimisation follows an iterative procedure as illustrated in Figure 6.1. The
first machining operation is performed applying sufficient clamping force to ensure that the
workpiece remains stable. The machining process is repeated with the same cutting
parameters and the clamping force is progressively optimised for each subsequent
machining operation to reach the final optimal clamping force.
Initial clamping done with sufficient clamping force.
Measure Cutting, Clamping and Locator forces during

machining.
Optimisation of the clamping forces with the measured

force data.
Does the optimal value differ significantly from the No

applied clamping force?
Yes
Repeat machining with the new optimal clamping

force.
Optimal clamping reached
Figure 6.1 Optimisation Scheme

6.3 Experimental Set-up
The fixturing set-up follows the 3-2-1 locating principle. The clamping forces are
provided by the electro-mechanical clamps with the rack and pinion mechanism, with
direct-torque control, which was developed as mentioned in Chapter 5. All forces from the
locators are measured during each machining process. The set-up is shown in Figures
6.2(a) and 6.2(b).
Figure 6.2(a) Plan view of the set-up

Figure 6.2(b) Isometric view of the set-up
6.4 Optimisation Technique using Linear Programming
Initially, the workpiece was clamped with a pre-determined sufficient securing
force and the machining operation was performed. The locator forces and clamping forces
were recorded for the operation. Equations (3.2) to (3.7) establish the relationship to
determine the cutting forces using the measured values of the clamping forces and locator
forces. With the data recorded, the cutting force for the entire machining operation can be
determined. With the same cutting parameters, the machining operation was repeated. The
clamping forces can be optimised for this operation, as the cutting forces are already
known.

Linear Optimisation is done using TORA [Hamdy 2003]. TORA optimisation is a
Windows-based software that offers various modules such as linear programming. It is a
simple-to-use and user-friendly software, which can be used in automated mode to directly
obtain the final solution of the problem or in tutorial mode to study each iteration leading
to the optimal solution. The components of the cutting forces are known from the data of
the first cut. For the workpiece to remain stable there must be no loss of contact between
any of the locators and the workpiece. So, all the locator forces must be maintained at
positive values. As a linear programming methodology is used, the clamping forces have to
be optimised one at a time, first FAA can be optimised by using the data for FBB from the
first cut and vice versa. With these conditions and assumptions, the linear programming
model is given below, where the notation follows figure 3.4
Minimise FAA subject to equations (3.2) to (3.7) and the constraints
-µAA (FAA) < (FAA)fx < µAA (FAA) (6.1)
-µAA (FAA) < (FAA)fy < µAA (FAA) (6.2)
-µBB (FBB) < (FBB)fz < µBB (FBB) (6.3)
-µBB (FBB) < (FBB)fy < µBB (FBB) (6.4)
α1 < FBB < α2, (6.5)
β1 < Ft < β2, (6.6)
χ1 < Fa < χ2, (6.7)
δ1 < Ff < δ2 (6.8)
FA > 0 (6.9)

FB > 0 (6.10)
FC > 0 (6.11)
FD > 0 (6.12)
FE > 0 (6.13)
FF > 0 (6.14)
µAA and µBB refer to the co-efficient of friction associated with the clamping forces FAA
and FBB respectively and µAA = µBB = 0.5
Constraints (6.1) to (6.4) are obtained by applying the Coulomb’s law of static
friction, which is usually used for analysis of workholding devices [Mishra 1989]. All
possible contact forces are bounded by a convex friction cone [Tao 1998a]. The limiting
values of the cone are given by the product of the co-efficient of static friction and the
normal force.
In constraints (6.5) to (6.8), α1, α2, β1, β2, χ1,χ2, δ1and δ2 are the values obtained
from the data of the first cut. These values correspond to the region of maximum cutting
force, which are used to determine the minimum clamping force. Constraints (6.9) to
(6.14) are included to ensure that the workpiece does not lose contact with the locators.
To illustrate the optimisation technique, the following example is shown for a
particular end-milling operation. The forces recorded from the instrumented locators and
the clamps are used to tabulate the cutting forces for the first operation. Figures 6.3 (a), 6.3
(b) and 6.3 (c) show the components of the cutting force. Figure 6.4 is the force applied by
clamp FBB.

Component of Cutting force Ft

800
Force (Newtons)
600
400
200
0
-200 1 250 499 748 997 1246 1495 1744 1993 2242
-400
Sample
Figure 6.3 (a) Component of Cutting force Ft
Component of cutting force, Ff

Force (Newtons)
1000
500
0
1 272 543 814 1085 1356 1627 1898 2169
-500
Sample
Figure 6.3 (b) Component of Cutting force Ff
Component of cutting force, Fa
300
Force (Newtons)
200
100
0
1 263 525 787 1049 1311 1573 1835 2097 2359
-100
Sample
Figure 6.3 (c) Component of Cutting force Fa

Force applied by clamp FBB
Force (Newtons)
900
850
800
750
700
1 130 259 388 517 646 775 904 1033 1162
Sample
Figure 6.4 Force applied by clamp FBB
The force values that are shown in the Figures 6.3 (a), 6.3 (b), 6.3 (c) and 6.4 are
used to determine the values of α1, α2, β1, β2, χ1,χ2, δ1and δ2. By applying the results of the
first cut to the constraints, the optimisation model is solved using TORA linear
programming to minimise the clamping force FAA. The output of the solver is given in
Figure 6.6. The optimal minimum clamping force, FAA, is found to be 593N. The
corresponding values of the other variables are also shown for this minimum clamping
force. The negative force shown for friction indicates that the direction of force is opposite
to the initial assumption of direction. The force recorded in FAA during the first cut is
shown in Figure 6.5.
Force applied by clamp FAA

Force (Newtons)
1800
1700
1600
1500
1400
1 137 273 409 545 681 817 953 1089
Sample
Figure 6.5 Force applied by clamp FAA

It can be noted that the optimal value of force obtained is much lower than the force with
which it was clamped during the first cut. This clearly shows that workpieces are heavily
overclamped and the clamping force can be reduced considerably. One has to note that the
value obtained through optimisation as 593 N is under very ideal conditions and under the
estimation of various factors. This can be considered as the absolute least clamping force
required. Hence an estimate can be made between the calculated optimal value and the
measured value of the clamping force. This will efficiently reduce the clamping force and
repetitive measurements will lead to a convergence in the minimal optimal clamping force
that is required to keep the workpiece stable. Similarly, FBB can be optimised by using the
data obtained for FAA.

Figure 6.6 Output from the optimisation solver
α1, α2, β1, β2, χ1,χ2, δ1and δ2 are obtained from Figures 6.3 (a), 6.3 (b), 6.3 (c) and 6.4
corresponding to the region of maximum cutting forces from the data of the first cut. This
is done as the maximum clamping force requirement will be when the cutting forces are
maximum. The optimisation of the clamping force is performed using these values. A
second machining operation is performed with the determined optimal value. New force
data will be obtained for Ft, Ff, Fa and FBB. This force data, in turn will be used to obtain a

new set of values of α1, α2, β1, β2, χ1,χ2, δ1and δ2. In this manner, iteratively the final
optimal clamping force will be achieved when there is no significant difference in the
value of the clamping force applied and the optimal value obtained for the subsequent
operation.
6.5 Overall System Integration
The integrated system is schematically shown in Figure 6.6. A main PC is used to
perform the operations of control and optimisation. The clamping force value is output
through the DAC port. The analogue force values from the locators are fed back to the PC
through the ADC port. From the data of the force values collected, the parameters for the
constraints of the optimisation are determined. Linear programming is performed to
determine the optimal clamping value and the new clamping force value is sent to the DAC
port to change the clamping force value for the subsequent operation. The process is
repeated till the final optimal minimum clamping force is achieved.

Power converter
and control
Clamp
Ia -
+
Reference
Ia
Current Ref
Locator force ADC
DAC
Data Analysis
Optimisation F to Ia
PC
Figure 6.6 Schematic representation of the system integration

Chapter 7 Conclusions and Future Work
CHAPTER 7
CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK
7.1 Conclusions
Comparing the advantages and the disadvantages of the developed force measurement
system with a standard force dynamometer, it can be seen that in spite of the longer set-up
time and lesser accuracy as compared to a laboratory type piezo-electric dynamometer, the
devised system can be an effective solution towards the realization of intelligent fixturing
and other force measurement applications beyond the laboratory environment. From the
static loading tests performed on the dynamometer, it can be seen clearly that the
dynamometer has a limited workspace and the calibrated sensitivity is not applicable
outside the workspace envelope. However, the developed system does not have any
constraint on the allowable machining envelope and is universally applicable for
workpieces of any size. This is a significant advantage of the developed system with
instrumented locators over a dynamometer. The developed system also eliminates the
concern of high costs associated with a dynamometer.
Control of clamping force is achieved with an electro-mechanical clamping device
based on direct-torque control. The control scheme is achieved by controlling the current
reference to the motor controller. The motion of the motor is converted to linear motion of
the clamp through a rack and pinion mechanism. The torque is controlled in the region of
zero speed of the motor, which keeps wear and tear to a minimum. The prototype
developed can provide a maximum clamping force of 150 N, with a resolution of +/- 0.2 N.
The calibration factor between the current reference and force output was found to be
0.5N/ mA. It does not require a spring and the motor is always stationary as stall torque is

used for application of the force. There is no force feedback, hence there is no need for a
force sensor.
For the application of minimum optimal clamping force during an end-milling
operation, an optimisation technique is developed based on spatial stability analysis. The
optimisation is simple technique achieved with linear programming and improved through
a series of iterations. The optimisation gives a good estimate for the minimal allowable
clamping force by using the data obtained from the first machining operation. This process
is repeated progressively, till there is convergence of the clamping force values. Although
the developed scheme does not vary and control the clamping forces during the machining
process real-time, it gives a low cost and easily achievable methodology to decide the
initial clamping force to ensure workpiece stability during machining.
7.2 Contributions
The contributions from this work can be summarised as follows
• Development of a force measurement system with instrumented locators in a
fixturing set-up according to the 3-2-1 locating principle
• Experimental demonstration of the validity of the fixturing set-up and its
competency and advantages over the dynamometer, especially with regard to the
constraint on the volume of operation
• Development of an electromechanical clamping element based on the principle of
direct torque control
• Development of a minimum clamping force optimisation technique with linear
programming
7.3 Scope for Future Work
There exists tremendous scope for future research to enhance the systems
developed and to contribute more towards research in Flexible Manufacturing Systems in
the field of cutting force measurements, control of clamping forces and optimisation of
clamping forces. Some of the areas that have promising scope for further research are as
follows
• System integration with automation
The system developed to measure the cutting forces in a fixturing set-up with
instrumented locators requires the operator to measure the geometric configuration
of the fixture and the relative position of the various fixturing elements for each
configuration. Integrating the system with Computer Aided Drawing (CAD) system
can relieve this task. A system can be developed where the fixture-workpiece
model can be designed and the location of the fixturing points on the drawing will
automatically generate the geometric parameters for calculating the cutting forces.
• System integration with automated optimised fixturing points
A number of researches have been concluded and a great deal of research is
continuing to optimise the clamping locations and developing expert fixturing
systems. If the optimisation of the clamping positions can be interfaced with the
aforementioned CAD system, then the entire system will be a robust automated
force measuring system where the optimisation system decides the best points for
the fixture-workpiece contact and the CAD system can simultaneously generate the
parameters for calculating the cutting forces. Another possible development would

be the on-line optimisation of the clamping positions interfaced to the system and
an automated mechanism to clamp according to the optimisation performed.
Concurrently, the parameters for cutting force measurement can be generated for
each optimal set-up.
• More advanced motion conversion system
The clamping element designed and developed based on direct torque control can
be improved by using a rack and pinion of a higher module or using another
mechanical or electro-mechanical system to convert the rotary motion to linear
motion that will overcome the inherent drawbacks in geared systems. There exist
possible alternatives such as linear actuators and plunger solenoids but they add
significant cost to the system. There is scope to develop an alternate motion
conversion mechanism for this purpose.
• Real time optimisation
Though the developed optimisation scheme gives a low cost and easily achievable
methodology to decide the initial clamping force to ensure workpiece stability
during machining, it does not vary and control the clamping forces during the
machining process in real-time. This is a possible area to extend the developed
system to an integrated system where the optimisation can take place in real-time
and the clamping forces controlled likewise.

References
REFERENCES
[Altintas 1991] Altintas Y and Spence A. End Milling Force Algorithms for CAD
Systems, Annals of the CIRP, 40(l), pp. 31-34, 1991.
[Altintas 2000] Altintas Y. Manufacturing Automation, Cambridge University Press, 1st
edition, 2000.
[Armarego 1969] Armarego E and Brown J. The Machining of Metals, Prentice-Hall, New
Jersey, 1969.
[Armarego 1994] Armarego E.J.A and Deshpande N.P. Force Prediction Models and
CAD/CAM Software for Helical Tooth Milling Processes, End-milling and Slotting
Operations, International Journal of Production Research, 32 (7). pp. 1715-1738, 1994
[Asada 1985] Asada H and By A.B. Kinematic Analysis of Workpart Fixturing for
Flexible Assembly with Automatically Reconfigurable Fixtures, IEEE Journal of Robotics
and Automation, 1(2), pp. 86-94, 1985.
[Beer 1997] Beer F.P and Johnston E. R. Vector Mechanics for Engineers: Statics and
Dynamics, McGraw-Hill. New York, 1997.
[Ber 1988] Ber A, Rotberg J and Zombach A. Method for Cutting Forces in End Milling,
Annals of CIRP, 37(1). pp. 37-40, 1988.

References
[Boerma 1989] Boerma J.R and Kals H.J.J. Fixture Design with FIXES: the Automated
Selection of Positioning. Clamping and Support Features for Prismatic Parts, Annals of
the CIRP, 38. pp. 399-402. 1989.
[Carr lane 1995] Carr Lane Manufacturing Co. Modular Fixturing Handbook 2nd Edition,
1995.
[Cecil 1996] Cecil J, Mayer R and Hari U. An Integrated Methodology for Fixture Design,
Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 7, pp. 95-106, 1996.
[Chan 1991] Chan K.C. A Reconfigurable Fixturing System for Robotic Assembly,
Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 9 (3), pp. 206-221, 1991.
[Chan 1999] Chan W.Y, Chue C.C, Kho C.S, Ng S.L, Tan P.K and Teo H.M. An electro-
mechanical system for clamping force control, ME4102 Systems design project, NUS,
1999.
[Chou 1989] Chou Y.C, Chandru V and Barash M.M. A Mathematical Approach to
Automatic Configuration of Machining Fixtures: Analysis and Synthesis, Journal of
Engineering for Industries, 111(4). pp. 579-584, 1989.
[Cutkosky 1982] Cutkosky M.R. Kurokawa E and Wright P.K. Programmable
Conformable Clamping. AUTOFACT 4 Conference Proceedings, Society of
Manufacturing Engineers (SME), 11, pp 51-58, 1982.

References
[De Meter 1992] De Meter E.C. Restraint Analysis of Machining Fixtures, Transactions of
NAMRI/SME, 20, pp. 39-345, 1992.
[De Meter 1994] De Meter E.C. Restraint Analysis of Fixtures which Rely on Surface
Contact, Journal of Engineering for Industry, 116, pp. 500-507, 1994.
[Du 1998] Du H and Lin G.C.I. Development of an Automated Flexible Fixture for Planar
Objects, Robotics and Computer-integrated Manufacturing 14 (3), pp. 173-183, 1998.
[Engin 2001] Engin S and Altintas Y. Mechanics and Dynamics of General Milling
Cutters. Part I: Helical End mills, International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture,
41 (15). pp. 2195-2212, 2001.
[Ferriera 1985] Ferreira P.M, Kochar B, Liu C.R and Chandru V. AIFIX: An Expert
System Approach to Fixture Design, ASME, Proceedings of Symposium on Computer-
aided/ Intelligent Process Planning. pp. 73 – 82, 1985.
[Finegold 1994] Finegold D, Brendley K.W, Lempert R, Cannon P, Boultinghouse B and
Nelson M. The Decline of US Machine Tools Industry and Prospects for Recovery, Office
of Science and Technology Policy, RAND, Critical Technologies Institute, 1994.
[Fuh 1994] Fuh J.Y.H and Nee A.Y.C. Verification and Optimization of Workholding
Schemes for Fixture Design, Journal of Design and Manufacturing, 4, pp. 307-318. 1994.

References
[Grippo 1988] Grippo P.M. Thompson B.S and Gandhi M.V. A review of Flexible
Fixturing Systems for Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 1(2), pp. 124-135, 1988.
[Gui 1996] Gui X, Fuh J.Y.H and Nee A.Y.C. Modelling of Frictional Elastic Fixture-
Workpiece System for Improving Location Accuracy, IIE Transactions, 28, pp. S21-827,
1996.
[Gupta 1988] Gupta S, Bagchi A and Lewis R. Sensor Based Fixturing System. In Recent
Developments in Production Research. pp 11-16. Elsevier, 1988.
[Hou 2001] Hou J.L and Trappey A.J.C. Computer-aided Fixture Design System for
Comprehensive Modular Fixtures, International journal of production research 39 (16), pp.
3703-3725, 2001.
[Hoffman 1980] Hoffman E.G. Jig and Fixture Design, Delmar Publishers Inc., Albany,
New York, 1980.
[Hockenberger 1996] Hockenberger M.J and De Meter E.C. The applications of Meta-
Functions to the Quasi-static Analysis of Workpiece Displacement within a Machining
Fixture, Transactions of ASME, Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering, 118,
pp. 325-331, 1996
[Jeng 1995] Jeng S.L, Chen L.G and Chieng W.H. Analysis of Minimum Clamping Force,
lnternational Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacturing, 35, pp.1213-1224, 1995.

References
[Johnson 1985] Johnson K.L. Contact Mechanics, Cambridge University Press, U.K, 1985
[Kerr 1986J Kerr J and Roth B. Analysis of Multi-fingered Hands, International Journal
for Robotics Research, 4(4), pp. 3-17, 1986.
[Kim 1997] Kim J.D and Kim D.S. Development of a Combined-Type Tool
Dynamometer with a Piezo-Film Accelerometer for an Ultra-Precision Lathe, Journal of
Materials Processing Technology, 71 (3), pp. 360-366, 1997.
[Kim 1999] Kim T.Y, Woo J, Shin D and Kim J. Indirect Cutting Force Measurement in
Multi-axis Simultaneous-NC Milling Processes, International Journal of Machine Tools &
Manufacture, 39 (11), pp. 1717-1731, 1999.
[Kline 1982a] Kline W, DeVor R and Lindberg J. The Prediction of Cutting Forces in End
Milling, International Journal of Machine Tool Design and Research, 22(1), pp. 7-22,
1982.
[Kline 1982b] Kline W.A, DeVor R.E and Lindberg R. The prediction of cutting forces in
end milling with application to cornering cuts, International Journal of Machine Tool
Design and Research, 22(1), pp. 7-22, 1982.
[Kline 1983] Kline W.A and DeVor R.E. The Effect of Runout on Cutting Geometry and
Forces in End Milling, International Journal of Machine Tool Design and Research, 23,
pp. 123-140, 1983.

References
[Koenigsberger 1961] Koenigsberger F and Sabberwal A.J.P. An Investigation into the
Cutting Force Pulsations During Milling Operations, International Journal of Machine
Tool Design and Research, 1, pp. 15-33, 1961.
[Kreyszig 1999] Kreyszig E. Advanced Engineering Mathematics, John Wiley, New
York, 1999.
[Laxminarayana 1978] Laxminarayana K. Mechanics of Form Closure. Technical report
78 – DET – 31, ASME. pp 1-8, 1978.
[Lee 1987] Lee J.D and Haynes L.S. Finite Element Analysis of Flexible Fixturing
System, Journal of Engineering for industry, 109, pp. 134-139 1987.
[Lee 1991] Lee S.H and Cutkosky M.R. Fixturing Planning with Friction, ASME Journal
of Engineering for Industry, 113, pp. 320-327, 1991.
[Lee 1996] Altintas U and Lee P. A General Mechanics and Dynamics Model for Helical
End Mills, Annals of CIRP, 45 (1), pp. 59-64, 1996.
[Lee 1999] Lee T, Yong X, Tan J.K, Yue W.K, Paul R.M, Alfian S and Ivan K. Analysis
of Clamping with Minimum Deformation, ME4102 Systems design project, NUS, 1999.
[Li 1999] Li B and Melkote S.N. An Elastic Contact Model for the Prediction of
Workpiece-Fixture Contact Forces in Clamping, Journal of Manufacturing Science and
Engineering-transactions of the ASME, 121 (3), pp. 485-493, 1999.

References
[Li 2000] Li X.L, Djordjevich A and Venuvinod P.K. Current-sensor-based Feed Cutting
Force Intelligent Estimation and Tool Wear Condition Monitoring, IEEE Transactions on
Industrial Electronics, 47 (3), pp. 697-702, 2000.
[Li 2001] Li B and Melkote S.N. Optimal Fixture Design Accounting for the Effect of
Workpiece Dynamics, International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 18
(10), pp. 701-707, 2001.
[Lin 1997] Lin L, Zhang Y.F and Nee A.Y.C. An Integrated Set-up Planning and Fixture
Design System for Prismatic parts, International Journal of Computer Applications in
Technology. 10 (3), pp. 198-212, 1997.
[Liu 1994] Liu C.L. A systematic conceptual design of modular fixtures, International
Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 9 (4), pp. 217-224, 1994.
[Markus 1984] Markus A, Markusek E, Farkas J and Filemon J. Fixture Design using
Prolog: an Expert System, Robotics and Computer aided Manufacturing Systems, 1(2),
pp.167-172. 1984.
[Martelloti 1945] Martelloti M.E. An analysis of the milling process, part 1: Down
milling. Transactions of the ASME, 67, pp. 233-251, 1945.
[Mason 1988] Mason M.T and Wang Y. On the inconsistency of Rigid-body Frictional
Planar Mechanics, Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Robotics and
Automation. 1988.

References
[Mishra 1989] Mishra B and Silver N. Some Discussion of Static Gripping and its
Stability, IEEE Systems, Man and Cybernet, 19(4), pp. 783-796, 1989.
[Mittal 1991] Mittal R.O. Cohen P.H and Gilmore B.J, Dynamic Modelling of the Fixture-
Workpiece System, Robotics and Computer-integrated Manufacturing, 8, pp. 201-217,
1991.
[Nee 1991] Nee A.Y.C and Senthil Kumar A. A Framework for an Object/Rule-based
Automated Fixture Design System, Annals of CIRP, 40, pp. 147-151, 1991.
[Nee 1995] Nee A.Y.C, Whybrew K and Senthil Kumar A. Advanced Fixture Design for
FMS. London: Springer-Uerlag, 1995.
[Nnaji 1988] Nnaji B.O, Alladin S and Lyu P. A Framework for a Rule-based Expert
Fixturing System for Face Milling Planar Surface on CAD System Using Flexible
Fixtures, Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 7, pp.193-207, 1988.
[Ozel 2000] Ozel T and Altan T. Process Simulation using Finite Element Method -
Prediction of Cutting Forces, Tool Stresses and Temperatures in High-Speed Flat End
Milling, International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture, 40 (5), pp. 713-738,
2000.
[Raibert 1981] Raibert M and Craig J. Hybrid Position/Force Control of Manipulators,
ASME Journal of Dynamic System Measurement and Control, Vol 112, pp 126-133,
1981.

References
[Sakurai 1991] Sakurai H and Gossard D.C. Geometric Planning in Set-up Planning and
Fixture Design, In product Modelling for Computer-aided Design and Manufacturing,
Elsevier Science Publishers, 1991.
[Salisbury 1982] Salisbury J.K and Roth B. Kinematics and Force Analysis of Articulated
Hands, Journal of Mechanisms, Transmissions, and Automation in Design, 105, pp. 33-41,
1982.
[Seker 2002] Seker U, Kurt A and Ciftci I. Design and Construction of a Dynamometer
for Measurement of Cutting Forces during Machining with Linear Motion, Materials &
Design, 23 (4), pp. 355-360, 2002.
[Shawki 1965] Shawki G.S.A and Abdel-Aal M.M. Effect of Fixture Rigidity and Wear
on Dimensional Accuracy. International Journal of Machine Tool Design and Research, 5,
pp. 182-202, 1965.
[Shirinzadeh 1993] Shirinzadeh B. Issues in the Design of the Reconfigurable Fixture
Modules for Robotic Assembly. Journal of Manufacturing systems, 12(1), pp. 1-14, 1993.
[Sinha 1990] Sinha P.R and Abel J. A Contact Stress Model for Multifingered Grasps of
Rough Objects. Proceedings of IEEE Conference on Robotics and Automation, pp. 1040-
1045, 1990.
[Sollie 1997] Sollie J.P and Mannan M.A. A Force Controlled Clamping Element for
Intelligent Fixturing. Annals of the CIRP, 46(1), pp. 265-268, 1997.

References
[Tao 1998a) Tao Z.J, Senthil Kumar A and Nee A.Y.C. A Computational Geometry
Approach to Optimal Clamping Synthesis of Machining Fixtures, International Journal of
Production Research, 37(15) pp. 3495-3517, 1998.
[Tao 1998b] Tao Z.J. Senthil Kumar A and Nee A.Y.C. Automatic Generation of
Clamping Forces for Machining Fixtures, International Journal of Production Research, 37
(12), pp. 2755-2776, 1998
[Tlusty 1975] Tlusty J and MacNeil P. Dynamics of Cutting in End Milling, Annals of the
CIRP, 24(1), pp. 213-221. 1975.
[Tounsi 2002] Tounsi N and Otho A. Dynamometer Performance Modelling and
Experimental Assessment, Journal of Dynamic Systems Measurement and Control-
Transactions of the ASME, 122 (3), pp. 477-482, 2000.
[Trappey 1990] Trappey A.J.C and Liu C.R. A Literature Survey of Fixture Design
Automation, lnternational Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 5(3), pp. 240-
255, 1990.
[Trappey 1995] Trappey A.J.C, Su C.S and Hou J.L. Computer-Aided Fixture Analysis
Using Finite Element Analysis and Mathematical Optimisation Modelling, ASME.
Manufacturing Science and Engineering, 3(1), pp. 777-787, 1995.
[Tuffentsammer 1981] Tuffentsammer K. Automatic Loading of Machining Systems and
Automatic Clamping of Workpieces, Annals of the CIRP, 30(2), pp. 553-558, 1981.

References
[Whitney 1987] Whitney D. Historical Perspective and State of the Art in Robot Force
Control, International Journal of Robotics, 6(1) pp. 3-14, 1987.
[Wu 1995] Wu N.H, Chan K.C and Leong S.S. Verification Based on the Analysis of
Multi- discipline Frictional Contacts, ASME, Manufacturing Science and Engineering,
3(1), pp. 735-745, 1995.
[Xiao 1998] Xiao T. Optimal Clamping Force Analysis and Software Implementation for
NC Intelligent Fixturing, M.Eng Thesis, The National University of Singapore, 1998.
[Yun 2001] Yus W.S and Cho D.W. Accurate 3-D Cutting Force Prediction using Cutting
Condition Independent Co-efficients in End Milling, International Journal of Machine
Tools & Manufacture, 41, pp.463-478, 2001.

Control and Measurement of Clamping and Machining Forces in Intelligent Fixturing

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Control and Measurement of Clamping and Machining Forces in Intelligent Fixturing

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.

uk brought to you by CORE

CONTROL AND MEASUREMENT OF CLAMPING AND

MACHINING FORCES IN INTELLIGENT FIXTURING

RAWTHER ASHIQUL HAMEED

A THESIS SUBMITTED FOR

THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ENGINEERING

DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisors Associate Professor M.A.

experience to have worked under them.

I would express my appreciation and gratitude to Mr SC Lim, Mr CS Lee and Mr CH Tan

List of Tables viii

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTI ON .........................................................................................1

1.1 RESEARCH M OTIVATION ..............................................................................................2

1.3 ORGANISATION OF THE THESIS ....................................................................................4

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW.............................................................................5

2.1 BASIC FIXTURE D ESIGN ...............................................................................................5

2.2 LOCATING PRINCIPLE ..................................................................................................5

2.3 REQUIREMENTS OF A FIX TURE.....................................................................................6

2.4 BASIC CLAMPING FORCE CONTROL ............................................................................8

2.5 FIXTURE HARDWARE DEVELOPMENT .........................................................................9

2.6 CUTTING FORCE M ODELS AND CUTTING FORCE M EASUREMENT ...........................10

2.7 DYNAMIC FORCE M EASUREMENT .............................................................................12

2.8 FIXTURE M ODELS AND D EVELOPMENTS ...................................................................13

2.9 EFFECT OF FRICTION IN FIXTURING..........................................................................15

INSTRUMENTED LOCATORS ......................................................................................17

3.1 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................17

3.2 STABILITY ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................21

3.3 FORCE DISTRIBUTION IN END - MILLING ....................................................................22

3.4 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CUTTING, CLAMPING, LOCATOR AND FRICTIONAL FORCES

3.5 DETERMINATION OF THE CUTTING FORCES .............................................................26

3.6 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE .....................................................................................27

3.6.1 Instrumented Locators........................................................................................27

3.6.2 Experimental Set -up ...........................................................................................29

3.7 RESULTS AND ANALYSIS .............................................................................................30

3.7.1 Analysis of Engagement time .............................................................................34

3.8 PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS ..........................................................................................43

3.9 ADVANTAGES WITH THE D EVELOPED M EASURING S YSTEM ....................................44

3.10 DISADVANTAGES OF THE D EVELOPED S YSTEM.......................................................45

CHAPTER 4 FORCE MEASUREMENT IN A DYNAMOMETER OUTSIDE

ASSOCIATED WORKSPACE ENVELOPE ..................................................................47

4.1 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................47

4.2 STATIC LOADING TEST FOR THE D YNAMOMETER ....................................................47

TORQUE CONTROL ........................................................................................................52

5.1 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................52

5.2 DIRECT TORQUE CONTROL OF DC M OTOR ..............................................................53

5.3 CONTROL M ECHANISM ..............................................................................................54

5.4 M ECHANICAL S YSTEM ...............................................................................................56

CHAPTER 6 OPTIMISATION OF MINIMUM CLAMPING FORCE.......................59

6.1 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................59

6.2 ALGORITHM FOR OPTIMISATION ...............................................................................60

6.3 EXPERIMENTAL S ET- UP ..............................................................................................61

6.3 OPTIMISATION TECHNIQUE USING LINEAR PROGRAMMING....................................62

6.4 OVERALL S YSTEM INTEGRATION ..............................................................................69

CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK ................................................71

7.1 CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................................................72

7.2 CONTRIBUTIONS .........................................................................................................72

7.3 SCOPE FOR FUTURE WORK........................................................................................73

FIGURE 1.1 TYPICAL FIXTURE ASSEMBLY [CARR LANE 1995]..............................................1

FIGURE 2.1 THE 3-2-1 LOCATING PRINCIPLE [X IAO 1998] ...................................................6

FIGURE 3.1 FORCE PLATE (K ISTLER, 9253A) .....................................................................19

FIGURE 3.2 AN ILLUSTRATION OF LOADING OUTSIDE ENVELOPE......................................20