Advanced Fixture Design Method and Its Application (2021)

Guohua Qin
Advanced Fixture
Design Method and
Its Application
Advanced Fixture Design Method and Its
Application
Guohua Qin
Advanced Fixture Design

Method and Its Application
Guohua Qin
Nanchang Hangkong University
Nanchang, Jiangxi, China
ISBN 978-981-33-4492-1 ISBN 978-981-33-4493-8 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-33-4493-8
Jointly published with Shanghai Jiao Tong University Press.

The print edition is not for sale in China Mainland. Customers from China Mainland please order the
print book from: Shanghai Jiao Tong University Press.
© Shanghai Jiao Tong University Press 2021

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether
the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse
of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and
transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar
or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publishers, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publishers nor the authors or
the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any
errors or omissions that may have been made. The publishers remain neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East, Singapore 189721,
Singapore
Preface
Manufacturing technology is the foundation and key to the development of all indus-
tries. But in the manufacturing technology, fixtures are one kind of indispensable
technical equipment that can directly influence the machining accuracy, production
efficiency and manufacturing cost. Therefore, fixture design plays an important role
in production technology preparation as well as product design and manufacturing.
Fixture design is an important and complex technical work. In the traditional
fixture design method, the determination of fixturing layout, the selection of fixture
elements and the assembly of fixture elements are all completed by fixture designers.
The traditional design method not only requires more manpower and a longer design
cycle, but also relies on the rich experience of designers. With the wide application
of computer technology in the manufacturing field, a new fixture design method
is formed by using the integration of the computer with advanced manufacturing
technologies including the feature technology, group technology and artificial intel-
ligence. This is the so-called computer-aided fixture design technology. In the past,
the key to develop the computer-aided fixture design system is to collect and express
the knowledge from the experience of the fixture designers. However, it is either
impossible or unrealistic to fully express all fixture design knowledge.
Combined with kinematics, contact mechanics, elastic mechanics, mathemat-
ical modeling technology and optimization technology, the advanced fixture design
method is systematically proposed. The essence of the proposed design method is
to iteratively analyze the fixturing performance for the new fixturing layout until
it is satisfied. The established analysis model of fixturing performance includes the
locating determination, the workpiece stability, the clamping reasonability, the work-
piece attachment/detachment, and the locating accuracy. By discretizing the value
range of design variables, some planning algorithms are suggested including the
selection algorithm of locating datum, the planning algorithm of clamping force,
and so forth.
In the proposed advanced fixture design method, the continuous fixture design
problem is transformed into a discrete problem so that it can be easily realized by
programming. Accordingly, it can enrich and develop the basic theory of computer-
aided fixture design and change the empirical method of fixture design. The combi-
nation of theoretical analysis and mathematical modeling technology can resolve
v
vi Preface
the key problems in the process of fixture design, which will play a certain role in
promoting the progress of manufacturing technology, improving the precision and
level of product manufacturing, and meeting the higher and higher requirements of
the mechanical manufacturing industry.
The contents covered in this book include major research outcomes of numerous
research projects sponsored by the National Natural Science Foundation of China
(51765047; 51465045; 51165039), Major Discipline Academic and Technical
Leader Training Plan Project of Jiangxi Province (20172BCB22013), Aeronautical
Science Foundation of China (2006ZE56006; 2010ZE56014), Natural Science Foun-
dation of Jiangxi Province (2009GZC0104), Key Project of Science and Technology
Support Plan of Jiangxi Province (2010BGB00300), and China Postdoctoral Science
Foundation (20070411142). Moreover, several postgraduate students participated
in relevant research work, including Haichao Ye, Huaping Huang, Meidan Zhou,
Xiyuan Guo, Yue Cui, Huamin Wang, Zikun Wang, Shuo Sun, Xuiang Zhao, Yuanjun
Hou, Zhe Huang, Jiamei Li, Xiuping Dai, Weida Lou, Feng Lin, Jianpeng Qiu, etc.
I hereby express my sincere gratitude to them.
Nanchang, China Guohua Qin

September 2020
Contents
1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1 Fixturing Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1.1 Alignment Fixturing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1.2 Fixture Fixturing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2 Fixture Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2.1 Types of Fixtures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2.2 Configuration of Fixtures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.3 Fixture Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2 Analysis of Locating Determination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.1 Model of Theoretical DOF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.1.1 Relationship Between Machining Requirements
and DOFs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.1.2 Establishment of Theoretical DOF Model . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.1.3 Undetermined Coefficient Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.1.4 Solving Rank Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2.2 DOF Level Model of Position Sizes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
2.2.1 Position Size of Plane Relative to Plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
2.2.2 Position Size of Line Relative to Plane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
2.2.3 Position Size of Plane Relative to Line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
2.2.4 Position Size of Line Relative to Line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
2.3 DOF Level Model of Orientations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
2.3.1 Relation Between Parallelism Tolerance and DOFs . . . . 36
2.3.2 Relation Between Perpendicularity/Inclination
Tolerance and DOFs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
2.4 DOF Level Model of Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
2.4.1 Relation Between Coaxiality Tolerance and DOFs . . . . . 52
2.4.2 Relation Between Symmetry Tolerance and DOFs . . . . . 53
2.4.3 Relation Between Position Tolerance and DOFs . . . . . . . 57
2.4.4 Relation Between Runout Tolerance and DOFs . . . . . . . . 61
2.5 Model of Locating Point Layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
vii
viii Contents
2.5.1 Establishment of Locating Point Layout Model . . . . . . . 64

2.5.2 Solution of Locating Point Layout Model . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
2.6 Judgment Criteria of Locating Determination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
2.6.1 Theoretical Condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
2.6.2 Process Condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
2.6.3 Corollary and Flowchart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
2.7 Application and Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
2.7.1 Verification of Locating Point’s Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
2.7.2 Verification of the Layout of Locating Points . . . . . . . . . 77
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
3 Analysis of Workpiece Stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
3.1 Modeling of Workpiece Stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
3.1.1 Static Equilibrium Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
3.1.2 Friction Cone Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
3.1.3 Analysis Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
3.2 Solution Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
3.2.1 Linear Programming Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
3.2.2 Solution to the Model of Form-Closure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
3.2.3 Solution to the Model of Force-Closure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
3.3 Numerical Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
3.3.1 Analysis of Force Existence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
3.3.2 Analysis of Force Feasibility Without Friction . . . . . . . . 104
3.3.3 Analysis of Force Feasibility with Friction . . . . . . . . . . . 106
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
4 Analysis of Clamping Reasonability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
4.1 Local Deformation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
4.1.1 Contact Deformation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
4.1.2 Fixel Deformation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
4.1.3 Local Deformation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
4.2 Workpiece Position Error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
4.2.1 Static Equilibrium Equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
4.2.2 Friction Cone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
4.2.3 Relationship Between Local Deformation
and Contact Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
4.2.4 Relationship Between Workpiece Position Error
and Local Deformation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
4.2.5 Solution Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
4.3 Workpiece Deformation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
4.4 Modeling of Clamping Reasonability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
4.5 Application and Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
4.5.1 Analysis of the Clamping Error Due to the Weak
Stiffness Workpiece . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
4.5.2 Evaluation of the Clamping Error of High
Stiffness Workpiece . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
Contents ix
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
5 Analysis of Workpiece Attachment/Detachment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
5.1 Attachment and Detachment Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
5.2 Judgment Method of the Attachment and Detachment . . . . . . . . . 142
5.3 Analysis Algorithm of the Attachment and Detachment
Direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
5.3.1 Calculation Algorithm of the Generator Matrix
of the Non-Positive Dual Matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
5.3.2 Classification Method of Coefficient Matrix . . . . . . . . . . 148
5.3.3 Application of Pivot Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
5.4 Analysis and Application of Attachment and Detachment . . . . . . 159
5.4.1 Three Dimensional Workpiece . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
5.4.2 Two Dimensional Workpiece . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
6 Analysis of Locating Accuracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
6.1 Analysis Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
6.1.1 Locating Source Error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
6.1.2 Workpiece Position Error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
6.1.3 Locating Error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
6.2 Position Error Model of Contact Point . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
6.2.1 Directional Dimension Path . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
6.2.2 Directional Dimension Chain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
6.3 Examples and Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
6.3.1 One Vee Bloke-One Supporting Pin Locating
Scheme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
6.3.2 Two Cylindrical Pins Locating Scheme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
6.3.3 One Plane-Two Holes Locating Scheme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
6.3.4 Experimental Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
7 Selection Algorithm of Locating Datum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209
7.1 Hierarchical Structure Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209
7.1.1 Surface Roughness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210
7.1.2 Surface Feature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
7.1.3 Valid Locating Domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
7.1.4 Dimension Error . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212
7.2 Judgement Matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212
7.3 Layer Weight Vector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214
7.4 Combination Weight Vector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
7.5 Reconstruction of Judgment Matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
7.6 Algorithm and Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218
7.6.1 Algorithm and Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218
7.6.2 Practical Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228
x Contents
8 Planning Algorithm of Locating Point Layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229

8.1 Locating Point Layout Scheme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
8.2 Causes of Locating Non-determination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
8.3 Generative Planning Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237
8.4 Application and Design Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243
9 Planning Algorithm of Clamping Forces for Rigid Workpieces . . . . 245
9.1 Mechanical Model of Fixturing Scheme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245
9.1.1 Workpiece Static Equilibrium Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . 246
9.1.2 Direction Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247
9.2 Analysis of Force Existence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247
9.3 Analysis of Force Feasibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248
9.4 Planning Algorithm of 1-clamping Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250
9.5 Planning Algorithm of n-clamping Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253
9.6 Calculation of Clamping Forces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257
9.6.1 Single Clamping Force of 2D Workpiece . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257
9.6.2 Single Clamping Force of 3D Workpiece . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261
9.6.3 Double Clamping Forces of 2D Workpiece . . . . . . . . . . . 263
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270
10 Determination Method of Clamping Point Layout for Rigid
Workpieces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271
10.1 Workpiece Stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271
10.1.1 Stability Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271
10.1.2 Stability Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275
10.2 Planning Algorithm of Application Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276
10.3 Planning Method of Fixturing Layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280
10.4 Numerical Tests of Application Region Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283
10.4.1 Planning of Application Region for One Clamping
Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283
10.4.2 Calculation of Stable Region in Dynamic
Machining Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286
10.4.3 Planning of Application Region for Multiple
Clamping Forces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 290
10.5 Examples of Fixturing Layout Optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 294
10.5.1 Fixturing Layout Optimization of 2D Workpiece . . . . . . 294
10.5.2 Fixturing Layout Optimization of 3D Workpiece . . . . . . 297
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301
11 Fixturing Layout Optimization of Thin-Walled Workpieces . . . . . . . 303
11.1 Finite Element Analysis of Fixturing Deformation . . . . . . . . . . . . 303
11.1.1 Static Equilibrium Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303
11.1.2 Friction Cone Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 304
11.1.3 Unilateral Contact Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305
11.2 Prediction Method for Fixturing Deformation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305
Contents xi
11.2.1 Structure of Neural Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305

11.2.2 Selection of Training Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 306
11.2.3 Update of Weight Coefficients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 306
11.3 Optimization Technology of Fixturing Layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307
11.3.1 Optimal Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 308
11.3.2 Solution Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 308
11.4 Numerical Tests and Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311
11.4.1 Prediction of Workpiece Deformation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 312
11.4.2 Optimization of Fixturing Layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 324
12 Matching Method of Fixture Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325
12.1 Analytical Hierarchy Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325
12.2 Construction of Hierarchical Structure Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327
12.2.1 Structural Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 328
12.2.2 Selection Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 328
12.3 Determination of Layer Weight Vector for Criterion Layer . . . . . 331
12.3.1 Construction of Judgement Matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331
12.3.2 Check of Consistency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332
12.4 Determination of Layer Weight Vector for Scheme Layer . . . . . . 333
12.4.1 Construction of Judgment Matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333
12.4.2 Check of Consistency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 335
12.4.3 Decision Index of Locators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 336
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 337
Chapter 1
Introduction
Whether in traditional manufacturing industry or modern flexible manufacturing

system, workpiece fixturing is the first faced key problem during the machining
process (Cai et al. 2002; Chen et al. 2008; Shi et al. 2020). The size, shape and relative
position of the workpiece surfaces depend on the position relationship between the
workpiece and the cutting tool in the process of cutting movement. The position
between the workpiece and the cutting tool is achieved by the workpiece fixturing.
The workpiece fixturing is to locate and clamp the workpiece in a fixture/jig on
the machine tool (Cai et al. 2010). The workpiece locating is to make the workpiece
occupy an accurate position with respect to the cutting tool and its cutting movement.
It is worth mentioning that the cutting movement is usually provided by the machine
tools. Only in this way, it is possible to ensure that the machined surface satisfied
the specified machining requirements. And, the workpiece clamping is to hold the
workpiece in a position which has been determined in the stage of workpiece locating.
The workpiece clamping can prevent the workpiece, which is subjected to the external
forces including the gravity force and the machining load during the machining
process, from the position variation to upset the workpiece locating.
1.1 Fixturing Method
When the workpiece is machined on a machine tool, either the alignment fixturing or
the fixture fixturing can ordinarily use to located and hold it according to machining
requirements and machining batch of the workpiece (Bai 1997).
© Shanghai Jiao Tong University Press 2021 1

G. Qin, Advanced Fixture Design Method and Its Application,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-33-4493-8_1
2 1 Introduction
1.1.1 Alignment Fixturing
The alignment fixturing is to use the indicator (e.g. micrometer, dial indicator, etc.)
or the scriber to determine the correct position of the workpiece according to the
relevant surface or line of the workpiece. And then, the workpiece is hold to be
machining.
As shown in Fig. 1.1, a radial hole with a diameter of d will be drilled on the shaft
sleeve workpiece. If the number of workpieces is not large, the alignment fixturing
can be adopted. The extension line of L can be firstly drawn for the radial hole on
the workpiece. Secondly, it is placed in the vice to fasten. Thirdly, the vice along
with the workpiece is moved against the drilling bit on the drilling machine to find
the highest point on the dimension line of the radial hole. Finally, the machine can
be started for drilling the radial hole.
The alignment fixturing can better adapt to the variation of the machining process
or the machining objects. The used fixture is of simple structure. However, this
fixturing method has low productivity, high labor intensity and low machining accu-
racy. In Fig. 1.1, the error of size L is large, and the position accuracy of axis of the
radial hole d relative to the shaft sleeve is poor. Therefore, the alignment fixturing is
mostly used for single piece and small batch production.
With the development of production, the requirement of product quantity and
quality is increasing, which promotes the development of fixture structure. People
have created a new technological device and fixturing method. Thus, the workpiece
can directly be clamped without the need for alignment. This novel technological
device and the corresponding fixturing method is the machine fixture and fixture
fixturing.
Fig. 1.1 Alignment fixturing on the vice according to the line

1.1 Fixturing Method 3
1.1.2 Fixture Fixturing
Fixture fixturing is to place the workpiece in a fixture to obtain the correct position
by the contact of the locating reference surface with the fixture locators. And then,
fixture clamps are used to press the workpiece firmly.
Figure 1.2 is a drilling fixture for machining the radial hole with the diameter of
d on the shaft sleeve workpiece. The inner hole and the end plane of the workpiece
5 are selected as the locating references to keep in contact with locator 4. Thus, the
workpiece is located for the deterministic position. The through hole at the right of
the locating pin 4 can be used for drilling bit crossing and chip removal. The opening
washer 2 is employed to clamp the workpiece by tightening the nut 3. The drilling
sleeve 1 is used to guide the drilling bit in case that the drilling bit will deviate.
Dimension L between the axis of the drill sleeve and the shoulder end plane of the
locating pin is determined to obtain the correct position between the workpiece and
the bit.
Because the movement of the fixture relative to the machine tool can be adjusted
in advance as well as the position of the fixture relative to the cutting tool, it is not
necessary to align a batch of workpieces one by one when they are machined by
Fig. 1.2 Drilling fixture of 1

shaft sleeve workpiece
2
3
4
L 5
4 1 Introduction
the fixture fixturing method. Therefore, it is time-saving and convenient. It can not
only have a high repeat precision, but also ensure the machining requirements of
the workpiece. Because the fixture needs a certain production cost and preparation
cycle, fixture is widely used in batch production and mass production.
1.2 Fixture Structure
Fixture is the main component of technological equipment. Fixture design plays an

important role in manufacturing system, which can directly influence the machining
quality, production efficiency and manufacturing cost of workpieces. Consequently,
fixture is considered to be one of the most active factors in the technological process
(Wang 2005). And the manufacturing industry attaches great importance to the
research on fixture.
1.2.1 Types of Fixtures
With the difference of structure and dimension, machining accuracy and production
mode of the workpiece, the structure, type and generalization degree of the fixture
are different.
1.2.1.1 General Fixture
When the alignment fixturing is selected for the workpiece, the technological equip-
ment, such as vice, three jaw chuck, four jaw chuck, is frequently used, as shown in
Fig. 1.3. Such technological equipment has generally been standardized and supplied
to users as accessories to machine tools. Because they are used to hold the workpiece,
it belongs to the category of fixture, and called general fixture.
The general fixture is mainly used for the single piece and small batch production.
The use of this kind of fixture to hold the workpiece is frequently time-consuming,
(a) Vice (b) Three jaw chuck (c) Four jaw chuck
Fig. 1.3 General fixture

1.2 Fixture Structure 5
complex operation, and low production efficiency, especially for the workpiece with
complex shape or high machining precision. For the mass production, it is not
economically feasible to use a general fixture to hold the workpiece.
1.2.1.2 Dedicated Fixture
According to the characteristics of mass production, the machining process is divided

into many simple processes carried out on different machine tools. And then, a
continuous workpiece transmission line is adopted to connect these simple processes.
This is the process dispersion principle—based machining process. The dedicated
fixture is designed and manufactured for each process of a workpiece. Figure 1.4 is
the drill jig for machining three radial holes on a fan-shaped workpiece. The fan-
shaped workpiece is located on the rotation shaft 4 and the stop pin 11 based on its
inner hole, bottom surface and side surface. The nut 2 and the open washer 3 are
sued to press the workpiece on the dividing dial 8. If a radial hole has been drilled on
the dividing dial 8, the operation position should be changed. Therefore, the dividing
dial 8 must firstly be released and the dividing pin 1 must secondly be pulled out.
Thus, the next operation position can be achieved by turning the dividing dial 8.
When the dividing pin 1 is plugged in and the dividing dial 8 is locked, the drill
operation for the next radial hole can be carried out. Moreover, the open washer 3 is
used to quickly load and unload the workpiece.
Fig. 1.4 Drill jig

6 1 Introduction
As seen from above, without consideration of generality, the dedicated fixture can
be designed with compact structure or easy operation. Again, the design of the dedi-
cated fixture can be assisted by selecting the labor-saving mechanism or the power
device. Therefore, the dedicated fixture can ensure high machining accuracy and
production efficiency. However, the long cycle of design and manufacturing will be
expended for a dedicated fixture. According to the statistics, the production prepara-
tion cycle of the product generally accounts for 50–70% of the whole development
cycle of the product on the basis of the current level of China’s machinery industry.
The design and manufacturing cycle of process equipment accounts for 50–70% of
the product production preparation period. And fixture design and manufacturing
accounted for 70–80% of the process equipment design and manufacturing period
(Geng and Liu 2002; Zhang and Su 2015). Accordingly, the dedicated fixture design
and manufacturing cycle greatly affects the development cycle of a new product. On
the other hand, if the product is changed, the special fixture can not be re-used to be
a waste. Consequently, this kind of fixture is suitable for large and mass production
of fixed products.
With the progress of science and technology and the development of production,
the departments of national economy require modern manufacturing industries to
continuously provide good product quality and develop new product varieties, in
order to meet the needs of the sustainable development of the national economy
and the continuous improvement of people’s life. It has led to significant changes
of the production mode in the manufacturing industry. Thus, there are more and
more multi—variety and small batch production between mass production and single
piece production. Especially in recent years, with the application of advanced manu-
facturing technologies, such as computer numerical control machine tool (CNC),
machining center (MC), and flexible manufacturing system (FMS), the dedicated
fixture and the general fixture can no longer meet the needs of production (Zhu
and Rong 2000; Yan and Liu 1996). Thus, a series of innovative fixtures appeared
between the general fixture and the dedicated fixture.
1.2.1.3 Adjustable Fixture
Adjustable fixtures are a new kind of fixture developed for the defects of general
fixture and dedicated fixture. The fixture can be used for different types and sizes of
workpieces by only adjusting or replacing several locators and clamps. Adjustable
fixtures are generally divided into general adjustable fixture and group fixture. The
former has the larger use range than that of the general fixture. The latter is a special
adjustable fixture which is designed for a family of workpiece with similar structures
according to the group principle. Therefore, the group fixture has good economic
benefit in multi—variety and small batch production.
Figure 1.5a shows a general adjustable three-jaw chuck. The screw 1 is connected
with the pneumatic device. The spring brake pin 3 in the nut 2 can prevent the screw
1 from loosening. The screw 1 can centering fasten the workpiece by the sleeve 4,
the lever 5, the jaw seat 6 and the jaw 7. When the piston returns, the jaw 7 exits
5 6 7
3
2
(a) Chuck (b) Adjustable jaw 1
(c) Adjustable jaw 2 (d) Adjustable jaw 3
Fig. 1.5 General adjustable three-jaw chuck
along the inclined surface of the sleeve 4 through the jaw seat 6 so that the workpiece
can be loosed. The jaws shown in Fig. 1.5b, c, d are used for the outer circle of step,
small diameter workpiece and large diameter workpiece, respectively.
Group fixture is composed of the base part and the adjustment part in structure.
The base part is the general part of the group fixture, which is fixed in use. But the
components in the adjustment part must be adjusted or replaced for the machining
of a new workpiece. Figure 1.6a shows an adjustable drill fixture which is used to
8 1 Introduction
1 2 3
(a) Adjustable drill fixture (b) Workpiece family
Fig. 1.6 Sleeve-shaped workpiece and its adjustable drill fixture
machine a radial hole on a family of sleeved-shaped workpiece shown in Fig. 1.6b.

The inner hole and the end face of the workpiece 3 is located on the locator 2. Three
fixture components including the handle 1, the open washer 4 and the nut 5 are used
to hold the workpiece 3. Here, the locator 2 belongs to the adjustment part of the
fixture whereas the other elements are the base part of the fixture.
1.2.1.4 Modular Fixture
Modular fixtures are a kind of fixture with high standardization, serialization and
generalization. They are assembled by a set of pre-manufactured standard compo-
nents and their units with different shapes, different specifications, different sizes
and complete interchangeability, high wear resistance and high precision according
to the machining requirements of different workpieces (Wang et al. 2003). After the
fixture is used, it can be disassembled, cleaned and sealed for re-assembly and reuse.
Modular fixtures change the dedicated fixture from the one-way process of “design,
manufacture, use and waste” to the cycle process of “assembly, use, disassembly, re-
assembly, reuse and re-disassembly” (Rong et al. 1997, 2002). However, compared
with dedicated fixture, modular fixtures have larger volume, heavier weight and
weaker rigidity.
Fig. 1.7 Modular fixture with hole-based system
Modular fixturing systems can be generally classified into slot-based system and
hole-based system. Hole-based systems have accurately positioned holes on the base-
plates which are adopted to locate and fasten fixture components, as shown in Fig. 1.7.
Slot-based system have parallel and perpendicular tee-slots on the baseplates. Func-
tionally both hole- and slot-based modular systems serve the same purpose i.e., to
provide configurability. However in slot-based systems, the order of assembly of
modular elements has to be considered carefully, especially when the elements are
fastened in the same row of slots. A comparison between the slot and hole-based
system is given in Table 1.1.
1.2.1.5 Phase-Change Fixture
Phase-change fixtures use the the concept of a material phase change. This technique
makes use of certain class of materials such as a low melting point alloy which is
capable of rapidly converting its phase from liquid to solid and vice versa. Typically,
a fixture of this kind consists of a container filled with this material and a mechanism
to initiate the phase change. The fixturing procedure is initiated when the bi-phase
material is in the liquid or semi-liquid state. A workpiece is immersed and placed in a
desirable orientation in the container. The material is then subjected to some external
influence (catalysts or cooling) which solidifies the material and firmly secure the
10 1 Introduction
Table. 1.1 Characteristic of

Items Slot-based Hole-based modular
modular fixturing systems
modular element element systems
systems
Cost of fabrication High Low
Ease of assembly Good Relatively restricted
and flexibility
Requirement of High Relatively low
skill and assembly
Adjustment of Convenient and Not convenient and
relative position of adjustment is not adjustment is limited
locators limited
Accessories for More Relatively few
mounting the
elements
workpiece in the desired position for the machining operations. When the machining
operations are completed, the material is once again subjected to catalyst actions to
return to its liquid form and the workpiece is easily removed from the fixture (Nee
et al. 1995, 2005).
This type of flexible fixturing is appropriate for irregular workpieces which are
very difficult to hold. However, the phase-change fixtures still have some disadvan-
tages. These fixtures provide supporting but not locating and some additional mech-
anism is needed to align the workpiece when it is immersed in the liquid medium.
The locating function is therefore transferred to a separate alignment jig or a robot to
hold the workpiece until the material becomes solid and strong enough to hold and
maintain the position of the workpiece. The cost and difficulty of reconfiguring the
separate locating mechanism remains.
Most available systems of phase-change fixtures work by the direct encapsulation.
It has been developed specifically for machining the roots of turbine and compressor
blades. The sequence of operations is demonstrated in Fig. 1.8. The blade is contained
in a diecasting mould and precisely located with respect to the mould by an external
alignment jig. Liquid low melting point alloy is injected into the mould and allowed
to cool and solidify. The blade encapsulation block has standardised location features
so that it can be held in a standard fixture on the machine tool. When machining is
complete the block is cracked open to release the blade and the block material is
re-cycled.
Obviously, the system works very well in this application which would be very
difficult to fixture in any other way. There are drawbacks to the system. The external
alignment jigs are a restricting factor for reconfigurability and the encapsulation
material is not as stiff as conventional materials employed in fixture construction.
The process can only be used for small workpiece, 300 mm or less. The mass of the
block material is a limiting factor if robot handling is required.
(a) Positioned and solidified in die (b) Encapsulated
(c) Held and Machined (d) Released
Fig. 1.8 Encapsulation phase-change fixture
1.2.1.6 Conformable Fixture
Conformable fixtures are fixtures with clamping elements that automatically conform
to the shape of the workpiece. They are passive device, which can change shape and
reach a stable configuration when the clamping force is applied or they may be
programmable to change shape under active control.
Figure 1.9 is a vice with multiple leaves (Nee et al. 1995). The multi-leaf vice has
a solid movable jaw and a fixed jaw made up from multiple leaves pivoted on a rod.
The leaves are free to pivot about the rod but all other movements are constrained.
The leaves are spring-loaded to a neutral position. This device is able to clamp long
uneven cross-sectioned components.
1.2.2 Configuration of Fixtures
As stated above, although fixtures are various and different from each ohter, the
common structural components of a fixture can be summarized from different fixture
types (Nee et al. 2005; Hoffman 1991). Thus, fixture design method can be further
concluded.
12 1 Introduction
Torsional spring Movable jaw

(Fixed jaw)
Workpiece
Fig. 1.9 Multi-leaf conformable vice
(1) Locator
The purpose of locator is to determine the position of the workpiece in the fixture.
Components 4 and 11 shown in Fig. 1.4 belong to locator. A theoretical locator will
prevent movement of the workpiece in one direction of one DOF.
(2) Clamp
The function of clamp is to provide a holding force. The holding force may hold
the workpiece being fixtured against a locator by preventing motion in the opposite
direction or provide a moment preventing rotation about some instantaneous centers.
For example, components 2 and 3 illustrated in Fig. 1.4 are clamps.
(3) Fixture body
Fixture body is generally a rigid structure, the purpose of which is to provide a base
for mounting the locators, clamps and other fixture components. Fixture bodies are
made in three general forms: cast, forge, and welded. As a rule, the size and shape
of the fixture body is determined by the size of the workpiece and the operation to
be performed. Component 9 in Fig. 1.4 is the fixture body.
1.3 Fixture Design 13
1.3 Fixture Design
In the manufacturing industry, especially in the mechanical manufacturing industry,

no matter how the production scale of workpieces is, a variety of technological equip-
ment are needed. Widely used in manufacturing, fixtures have a direct impact upon
product quality, productivity and cost. Generally, the costs associated with fixture
design and manufacturing can account for 10–20% of the total cost of a manufac-
turing system (Bi and Zhang 2001). Approximately 40% of rejected workpieces are
due to dimensioning errors that are attributed to poor fixturing design (Wang et al.
2003; Hashemi et al. 2014). Fixture design work is also tedious and time-consuming.
It often heavily relies on fixture design engineers’ experience and knowledge and
frequently requires over 10 years manufacturing practice to design quality fixtures.
Traditionally, the design and manufacture of a fixture can take several days or even
longer to complete when human experience in fixture design is utilized. And a good
fixture design is often based on the designer’s experience, his understanding of the
products, and a try-and-error process.
Therefore, with the increasingly intense global competition which pushes every
manufacturing in industry to make the best efforts to sharpen its competitiveness by
enhancing the product’s quality, squeezing the production costs and reducing the lead
time to bring new products to the market, there is an strong desire for the upgrading
of fixture design methodology with the hope of making sound fixture design more
efficiently and at a lower cost.
With the development of computer technology, computer aided technologies
(CAx) for all stages of engineering, including CAD, CAPP, CAM, CAE and CAT,
play an important role in mechanical manufacturing system. Since the 1980s, the
application of computer technology to fixture design has been one of the research
topics in the mechanical field. Recently in various industrial developed countries
in the world, various CAFD (Computer Aided Fixture Design) systems have been
developed based on the traditional fixture design theory and advanced manufacturing
technology to be a new fixture design method (Liu and Shen 2004). This is of great
significance to the development of fixture design and manufacturing.
CAFD is a new idea of fixture design by fixture designers through computer-aided
technology and scientific methods. It is not only the extension and development of
traditional fixture design method, but also the need of the rapid development of flex-
ible manufacturing system (FMS) and computer integrated manufacturing system
(CIMS). The process of CAFD can be divided into four stages (Zhang and Su 2015;
Duan et al. 2004; Chou et al. 1994; Rong and Huang 2005): fixture requirement anal-
ysis, fixturing layout planning, fixture configuration design and fixturing performance
evaluation, as shown in Fig. 1.10.
(1) Fixture requirement analysis
The task of fixture requirement analysis stage is mainly to determine the number of
fixturing required to perform all the manufacturing processes, the machining surface
14 1 Introduction
Fig. 1.10 The process of

fixture design
and its machining requirements for each fixturing. A fixturing represents the combi-
nation of processes that can be performed on the workpiece by a single machine tool
without having to change the position and orientation of the workpiece.
The data of fixture requirement analysis comes from the process. Therefore,
it is generally regarded as a subset of CAPP. Obviously, the function of fixture
requirement analysis is the interactive interface of CAFD and CAPP integration.
Because this stage is more closely related to CAPP, most of the researches in
CAFD field focus on three stages: fixturing layout planning, fixture configuration
design and fixturing performance evaluation.
(2) Fixturing layout planning
Fixturing layout planning is the initial and most creative stage in fixture design
process, the purpose of which is to ensure that the workpiece has locating determina-
tion, workpiece stability, clamping reasonability, and attachment/detachment. These
performances are achieved by reasonably planning the fixturing layout. Therefore,
1.3 Fixture Design 15
the core task of the fixturing layout planning stage is to determine the surface, upon
which the locating/clamping points and clamping forces must act, as well as the
actual positions of the locating and clamping points on the workpiece.
Fixturing layout planning is a complex and abstract conceptual design at the
highest level. It is the most critical technology to realize the automation and flexibility
of fixture design, and it is also a bottleneck problem. Therefore, the fixturing layout
planning is the key stage to identify the technical and economic benefits in the whole
process of fixture design. Its development will promote the automatic design of fixture
structure scheme, and even the whole fixture design to the direction of automation,
intelligence and flexibility.
(3) Fixture configuration design
The main work of this stage is to select fixture elements (i.e., determine the structural
shape and dimensions of fixture elements). Finally, the fixture structure scheme is
achieved by assembling the selected fixture elements.
(4) Fixturing performance evaluation
During the performance evaluation stage, the design is tested to ensure that all manu-
facturing requirements of the workpiece can be satisfied which include the locating
determination, workpiece stability, clamping reasonability, and so on. The design
also has to be verified to ensure that it meets other design considerations that may
include fixture cost, fixture weight, assembly time, and loading/unloading time of
both the workpiece and fixture components/units.
As stated above, fixture design essentially includes three stages of fixturing
layout planning, fixture configuration design and fixturing performance evaluation.
However, after the work in the fixture configuration design stage is in-depth studied, it
will be found that the work in the fixturing layout planning stage is often intertwined
with the work in the fixture configuration design stage.
Thus, fixture design process can be further summarized into two aspects: structure
design and performance analysis. The structure design includes the fixturing layout
planning and the fixture configuration design. When the fixture structure is drawn up
or designed, the performance that can be achieved should be analyzed and evaluated
to measure whether it can guarantee the machining requirements of the workpiece, so
as to determine the rationality of the fixture structure. More importantly, the perfor-
mance analysis can guide the structure design, and make the fixture structure obtain
more reasonable design results. Therefore, the structure design and the performance
analysis are two complementary aspects. The performance analysis is the means of
structure design, and the structure design is the purpose of performance analysis.
16 1 Introduction
References
Bai CX. New principles of fixture design method [M]. China Machine Press, 1997. (in Chinese).
Bi ZM, Zhang WJ. Flexible fixture design and automation: review, issues and future direction [J].
Int J Prod Res. 2001;39(13):2867–94.
Cai J, Duan GL, Li CY, Li DH. Summary on the development of fixture designing technology [J].
J Hebei Univ Technol. 2002;31(5):35–40 (in Chinese).
Cai J, Duan GL, Yao T, Xu HJ. Summary on the review and development trend of computer aided
fixture designing technology [J]. J Mach Des. 2010;27(2):1–6 (in Chinese).
Chen H, Chen WF, Zheng HL. FEM simulation for optimization fixture scheme of thin-walled
workpiece [J]. Modul Mach Tool Automat Manufact Techn. 2008;3:63–7 (in Chinese).
Chou YC, Srinivas RA, Saraf S. Automatic design of machining fixtures: conceptual design [J]. Int
J Adv Manuf Technol. 1994;9(1):3–12.
Duan GL, Lin JP, Zhang MD, Qi HW. The system of computer aided 3d modular fixture configuration
design with intelligence [J]. J Hebei Univer Technol. 2004;33(2):104–9 (in Chinese).
Geng YX, Liu X. Function analyzing in fixture conceptual design [J]. J Beijing Ins Light Ind.
2002;20(1):44–8 (in Chinese).
Hashemi H, Shaharoun AM, Izman S, Kurniawan D. Recent Developments on computer aided
fixture design: case based reasoning approaches [J]. Adv Mechan Engin; 2014:484928–1–15.
Hoffman EG. Jig and fixture design [M]. New York: Delmar Publishers; 1991.
Liu J, Shen XH. Application of advanced manufacturing technology in computer-aided fixture
design [J]. J Beijing Technol Busin Uni. 2004;22(2):38–41 (in Chinese).
Nee AYC, Whybrew K, Senthil KA. Advanced fixture design for FMS [M]. London: Springer-
Verlag; 1995.
Nee AYC, Tao ZJ, Kumar AS. An Advanced treatise on fixture design and planning [M]. Singapore:
World Scientific; 2005.
Rong YM, Huang S. Advanced computer aided fixture design [M]. Boston (MA): Elsevier Academic
Press; 2005.
Rong Y, Liu X, Zhou J, Wen A. Computer aided step-up planning and fixture design [J]. Intell Auto
Soft Comput. 1997;3(3):191–206.
Rong Y, Zhu Y, Luo Z. Computer-Aided Fixture Design [M]. China Machine Press, 2002. (in
Chinese).
Shi C, Lu YM, Ye W, Liu Y. Research on multi-method fusion fixture based on orthogonal design
[J]. Manufact Technol Mach Tool. 2020;10:67–74.
Wang YM. The tongs production preparation in CIMS [J]. Mechan Res Applic. 2005;18(3):47–8.
Wang FQ, Xu HJ, Guo W. Overview of computer-aided fixture design [J]. Aeronaut Manufact
Technol. 2003;11:38–40 (in Chinese).
Wang H, Rong Y, Li H, Shaun P. Computer aided fixture design: recent research and trends [J].
Comput Aided Des. 2010;42(12):1085–94.
Yan ZZ, Liu XM. Computer aided fixture design [J]. J Inner Mong Fores College. 1996;18(3):69–74
(in Chinese).
Zhang SW, Su YH. Overview of computer-aided fixture design [J]. Manufact Technol Mach Tool.
2015;4:50–5 (in Chinese).
Zhao HX, Xiong LS. The studies and development of computer-aided fixture deign [J]. Modul Mach
Tool Auto Manufact Techn. 2007;2:1–4 (in Chinese).
Zhu Y, Rong Y. The Development of flexible fixtures and computer-aided fixture designing
technology [J]. Manufact Technol Machine Tool. 2000;8:5–8 (in Chinese).
Chapter 2
Analysis of Locating Determination
Locating determination is the precondition to design of locating point layout scheme.

if the workpiece locating is unreasonable and non-deterministic, it is not significant
to design the locating point layout scheme. According to the condition that the abso-
lute velocity of the workpiece in the direction of machining requirement is zero, a
machining requirement model is established which describes the theoretical DOFs
(DOF, Degree of Freedom) as a function of machining requirements in this chapter.
And then, in combination with rigid body kinematics, Taylor expansion is used to
deduce the locating point layout model in which the practical DOFs are expressed
as a function of the positions and the corresponding unit normal vectors of locating
points. Finally, in light of the inclusion relationship between the theoretical DOFs
and the practical DOFs, the theoretical DOFs can be equivalent to the solution of the
locating point layout model. With consideration of the practical technological condi-
tions of the locating point layout, the quantitative criterion of locating determination
is proposed based on the existence of the solutions of homogeneous linear equations.
2.1 Model of Theoretical DOF
In the locating theory during the machining process, the workpiece is generally
regarded as a rigid body. According to the free rigid body motion theory of theoretical
mechanics, the position of a free rigid body in a space rectangular coordinate system
can be determined by six independent coordinate parameters, as shown in Fig. 2.1.
The position variations of these independent coordinates are called DOFs. Here,
denote Ow -X w Y w Z w to be the moving coordinate system that is consolidated with the
rigid body whereas O-XYZ be the fixed Coordinate System. So the moving coordinate
system is also called the WCS (WCS, Workpiece Coordinate System) whereas the
fixed coordinate system is called the GCS (GCS, Global Coordinate System). Thus,
the position coordinate of the origin of the WCS in the GCS is δrw = [δx w , δyw , δzw ]T .
In addition, arbitrary direction of the rigid body can be achieved by first rotating the

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-33-4493-8_2
18 2 Analysis of Locating Determination
Fig. 2.1 Diagram of the

position of a rigid body in a
rectangular coordinate
system
angle δα w around the axis X w , then rotating the angle δβ w around the new axis Y w ,
and finally rotating the angle δγ w around the new axis Z w . δΘ w = [δα w , δβ w , δγ w ]T
is the cardan angle.
When the position coordinates δrw and the cardan angle δΘ w are known, the
position of the rigid body is completely determined. According to this principle, six
DOFs of the free rigid body in GCS are selected as three translation DOFs T x , T y ,
T z and three rotation DOFs Rx , Ry , Rz . Obviously, the six DOFs correspond to six
position parameters of the rigid body, i.e., δx w , δyw , δzw , δα w , δβ w and δγ w .
2.1.1 Relationship Between Machining Requirements

and DOFs
A plane with process dimension h ± Δh will be milled on the top of the workpiece.
The design dimension h ± Δh is in the Y direction, as shown in Fig. 2.2. However,
in the free state, the workpiece has 6 DOFs including 3 translation DOFs along the
coordinate axis and 3 rotation DOFs around the coordinate axis. These DOFs will
certainly affect the machining accuracy of the workpiece (Qin et al. 2010).
If the workpiece has the translation DOF δx w in the X direction, the procedure
dimension h1 can be obtained after milling the top surface. Because DOF δx w does
not affect the dimension h in the Y direction between the bottom surface and the
milling tool, there exist h1 = h. In other words, δx w has no effect on the design
dimension, as shown in Fig. 2.3a.
2.1 Model of Theoretical DOF 19
Fig. 2.2 Machining surface and its machining requirement
If the workpiece has the translation DOF δyw in the Y direction, the process dimen-
sion obtained after milling the top surface is h2 . Obviously, the process dimension
h2 is not equal to the process dimension h. Therefore, there is the machining error δh
= h2 -h so that the process dimension h can not be satisfied, as shown in Fig. 2.3b.
By analogy, DOFs δzw and δβ w can impact the the process dimension h, as shown
in Fig. 2.3c, e. However, DOFs δzw and δβ w cannot guarantee the specification of
dimension h, as shown in Fig. 2.3d, f.
The position of a free workpiece is uncertain in space. In order to determine the
position of the workpiece in accordance with certain requirements (i.e., the machining
requirements for each process), it is necessary to constrain some or all DOFs of the
workpiece.
2.1.2 Establishment of Theoretical DOF Model
Assumed that vw = [vwx , vwy , vwz ]T and ωw = [ωwx , ωwy , ωwz ]T are respectively the
linear velocity and the angular velocity of the free workpiece in GCS, as shown in
Fig. 2.4. Denote the origin Ow of WCS to be the instantaneous center of workpiece,
the velocity of Ow is
v O W = vw (2.1)
Denote that rP = [x P , yP , zP ]T and r wP = [x w

P , y P , z P ] are respectively the position
w w T
of arbitrary point P on the workpiece in GCS and WCS. The velocity of P can be
obtained according to the principle of velocity synthesis of particles, that is
v P = vOW + v P O (2.2)
where vP is the absolute velocity, v O w is transport velocity, and vPO is the relative
velocity.
Fig. 2.3 Effect of DOFs on machining requirement
By substituting Eq. (2.1) into Eq. (2.2), the absolute velocity of point P can be
rewritten as
v P = vw + r P × (ωw ) (2.3)
The translation and rotation of the workpiece will vary the size or position of the
machined surface. According to Eq. (2.3), the position variation of point P in a very
short time δt can be obtained as
v P δt = (vw δt) + r P × (ωw δt) (2.4)

Fig. 2.4 Motion state of workpiece
where δrP = vP δt = [δx P , δyP , δzP ]T is the position variation of P.

Obviously, vw δt and ωw δt are the position variation and direction variation of the
workpiece which are resulted from the linear velocity vw and the angular velocity
ωw , respectively. They can be expressed as

δr w = vw δt
(2.5)
δΘ w = ωw δt
where δrw = [δx w , δyw , δzw ]T is the position variation of the workpiece which
includes three translation DOFs of the workpiece. δΘ w = [δα w , δβ w , δγ w ]T is the
direction variation of the workpiece which consists of three rotation DOFs of the
workpiece.
By substituting Eq. (2.5) into Eq. (2.4), the relationship between the DOFs of the
workpiece and the size variation (or location variation) in three machining directions
(namely, X, Y and Z) can be achieved as
δr P = Pδq w (2.6)
where δqw = [δrwT , δΘ Tw ]T is the 6 DOFs of the workpiece. δrP = [δx P , δyP , δzP ]T
is the size variation or location variation of the workpiece. P = [I, Ω] with the unit
matrix I and the skew symmetric matrix Ω whose expression is
⎡ ⎤
0 −z P y P
Ω=⎣ z P 0 −x P ⎦ (2.7)
−y P x P 0
On the other hand, the angle variation or orientation variation is not be caused by
the translation vw of the workpiece but the rotation ωw of the workpiece. It is known
from Fig. 2.3 that, the relative velocity of point P caused by ωw is
v P O = r P × ωw (2.8)
Thus, the relationship between the DOFs of the workpiece and the angle variation
or orientation variation in the three machining directions can be obtained as
δr P O = Dδq w (2.9)
where D = [O, Ω] with the zero matrix O. δrPO is the angle variation or orientation
variation.
In fact, the workpiece may not have machining requirements in all three directions
(that is, X, Y, and Z) at the same time. Denote e to be the directional vector of
machining requirement, the DOFs must be limited as follows according to Eqs. (2.6,
2.9)
eT Pδq w = 0 (2.10)
or
eT Dδq w = 0 (2.11)
where e = eX when the workpiece has the machining requirement in the X direction,
e = eY when the workpiece has the machining requirement in the Y direction, and
e = eZ when the workpiece has the machining requirement in the Z direction. e
= [eX , eY ]T when the workpiece has simultaneously the machining requirements
in the X and Y directions, e = [eY , eZ ]T when the workpiece has simultaneously
the machining requirements in the Y and Z directions, and e = [eX , eY ]T when the
workpiece has simultaneously the machining requirements in the X and Y directions.
If the workpiece has the machining requirements in the X, Y, Z directions, e = [eX ,
eY , eZ ]T with eX = [1, 0, 0]T , eY = [0, 1, 0]T and eZ = [0, 0, 1]T . (Qin et al. 2008)
Thus, if point P is on the process datum, the theoretical DOFs δq ∗w can be obtained
by either undetermined coefficient method or solving rank method according to
Eqs. (2.10, 2.12).
2.1.3 Undetermined Coefficient Method
As shown in Fig. 2.5a, now there are the upper and lower planes of the fork will be
machined on the shifting fork, and the size h is required to be guarantee. Since the
size h is in the Z direction, e = [0, 0, 1]T . The following equation can be obtained
according to Eq. (2.10)
δz w + δαw y P − δβw x P = 0 (2.12)
Here, both x P and yP are arbitrary values. To make Eq. (2.12) always hold, if and
only if
δz w =δαw +δβw = 0 (2.13)
That is to say, in order to guarantee the machining requirement of size h, the

first condition is that there should constrain the δzw , δα w and δβ w DOFs. So the
theoretical DOFs δq ∗w is
δq ∗w = ζ ∗ λ∗ = λx ζ x +λ y ζ y +λγ ζ γ (2.14)
where the constant vector λ* = [λx , λy , λγ ]T with the non-zero arbitrary numbers λx ,
λy , λz , λα , λβ and λγ . The base vector matrix ζ * = [ζ x ,ζ y ,ζ γ ] with the unit vectors
ζ x = [1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0]T , ζ y = [0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0]T , ζ z = [0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0]T , ζ α = [0, 0, 0, 1,
0, 0]T , ζ β = [0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0]T and ζ γ = [0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1]T (Qin et al. 2008).
Figure 2.5b is a oil pump shell. the lathe is used to bore holes 3 and 4 as well
as holes 5 and 6. On one hand, the machining requirements of holes 3 and 5 are
as follows: size 85 in the X and Y directions, and perpendicularity 0.02 in the Z
direction. On the other hand, the machining requirements of holes 4 and 6 include
size 70 in the X direction and size 85 in the Y direction. It follows that the workpiece
has the size requirements in the X and Y directions in addition to the directional-
position requirement. Thus, there is e = [ex , ey ]T . Therefore, in order to guarantee
the sizes in the X and Y directions, it is known from Eq. (2.10) that

δxw + δβw z P − δγw y P = 0
(2.15)
δyw + δγw x P − δαw z P = 0
Because x P , yP and zP are arbitrary numbers, the following condition must be

achieved to ensure Eq. (2.15) be true
δxw = δyw = δαw = δβw = δγw = 0 (2.16)
Therefore, five DOFs (δx w , δyw , δα w , δβ w and δγ w ) must be limited to ensure

the size requirements in both X and Y directions.
Fig. 2.5 Workpieces and these machining requirements

Moreover, to guarantee the perpendicularity requirement in the Z direction, the

directional vector of e = ez is substituted into Eq. (2.11) to obtain
y P δαw − x P δβw = 0 (2.17)
Here, x P and yP belong to arbitrary numbers. Therefore, in order for Eq. (2.17) to
be true, it must be
δαw = δβw (2.18)
According to Eq. (2.16) and Eq. (2.18), in order to satisfy all the machining
requirements of hole 3, hole 4, hole 5 and hole 6, the following conditions must be
met
In other words, only by limiting the five DOFs (δx w , δyw , δα w , δβ w and δγ w )
can the size requirements in the X and Y directions be guaranteed in addition to the
perpendicularity requirement in the Z direction.
Likewise, a key slot will be milled on the stepped shaft. The guaranteed dimensions
are not only sizes 22 and 42 in the X direction, but also sizes 35 and 12 in the Y and
Z directions. Therefore, e = [ex , ey , ez ]T . According to Eq. (2.10), there should be
⎧
⎨ δxw + δβw z P − δγw y P = 0
δy + δγw x P − δαw z P = 0 (2.20)
⎩ w
δz w + δαw y P − δβw x P = 0
Because x P , yP and zP can take arbitrary values, Eq. (2.20) is valid if and only if
As stated above, in order to ensure the size requirements in the X, Y, and Z

directions at the same time, the six DOFs, δx w , δyw , δzw , δα w , δβ w and δγ w , of the
workpiece must be constrained.
2.1.4 Solving Rank Method
In reality, the shafting fork shown in Fig. 2.5a has the machining requirement only
in the Z direction. Accordingly, it is necessary to meet Eq. (2.12), that is, δz w +
δαw y P − δβw x P = 0. Since x P and yP are arbitrary values, Eq. (2.12) can be further
described as the non-homogeneous linear equation about x P and yP , i.e.,
δαw y P − δβw x P = −δz w (2.22)
Obviously, the solution form of Eq. (2.22) can be written as
yP 1 0
= k1 + k2 + η∗ (2.23)
xP 0 1
with the arbitrary numbers k 1 and k 2 (Ma and Zhang 2013).

In order to clearly understand Eq. (2.23), it is described as the following matrix
form,
yP
δαw −δβw = −δz w (2.24)
xP
Thus, if and only if the following condition hold,
rank([ δαw −δβw ]) = rank([ δαw −δβw −δz w ]) = 0 (2.25)
x P and yP in Eq. (2.24) have infinite solutions.

It is known from Eq. (2.25), there is δz w = δαw = δβw = 0 which means that
DOFs δzw , δα w and δβ w are constrained. Only in this way can the size requirement
in the Z direction be guaranteed.
If the workpiece has the machining requirements in both directions, more DOFs
must be limited. As shown in Fig. 2.5b, the oil pump shell has machining requirements
in X and Y directions. Therefore, the following equation can be achieved
⎡ ⎤
xP
0 −δγw δβw ⎣ y P ⎦ = −δxw (2.26)
δγw 0 −δαw −δyw
zP
Since x P , yP , and zP are arbitrary numbers, then Eq. (2.26) has a solution of the
form
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
xP 1 0 0
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ∗
⎣ y P ⎦ = k 1 ⎣ 0 ⎦ + k 2 ⎣ 1⎦ + k 3 ⎣ 0 ⎦ + η (2.27)
zP 0 0 1
where k 1 , k 2 and k 3 are the arbitrary numbers.

It is clear that the rank of coefficient matrix of Eq. (2.26) is not only equal to the
rank of the augmented matrix, but also equal to zero, i.e.,

0 −δγw δβw 0 −δγw δβw −δxw
rank = rank =0 (2.28)
δγw 0 −δαw δγw 0 −δαw −δyw
Therefore,
In other words, in order to guarantee the size requirements in the X and Y

directions, it is necessary to constrain five DOFs, δx w , δyw , δα w , δβ w and δγ w .
Moreover, the workpiece has also the perpendicularity requirement in the Z direc-
tion which belongs to the directional-position tolerance. According to Eq. (2.11), it
can be obtained as
yP
δαw −δβw =0 (2.30)
xP
Because x P and yP is arbitrary numbers, the solution of Eq. (2.30) can be described
as
yP 1 0
= k1 + k2 (2.31)
xP 0 1
In order to make the solution of Eq. (2.30) be the form of Eqs. (2.30, 2.31) must
satisfy the following condition, i.e.,
rank([ δαw −δβw ]) = 0 (2.32)
It can obtained as δα w = 0 and δβ w = 0. In other words, only by constraining δα w

and δβ w DOFs can the directional-position requirement (i.e., the perpendicularity
requirement) in the Z direction be guaranteed.
As shown in Fig. 2.5c, in order to obtain the specified linear sizes in the X, Y and Z
directions for the key slot milled on the stepped shaft, the equation can be concluded
according to Eq. (2.10).
⎡ ⎤⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
0 −δγw δβw xP −δxw
⎣ δγw 0 −δαw ⎦⎣ y P ⎦ = ⎣ −δyw ⎦ (2.33)
−δβw δαw 0 zP −δz w
The fact that x P , yP and zP are the arbitrary values shows that the variables (i.e.,
x P , yP and zP ) in Eq. (2.33) have the infinite solution, therefore its solution form can
be expressed as
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
xP 1 0 0
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ∗
⎣ y P ⎦ = k 1 ⎣ 0 ⎦ + k 2 ⎣ 1⎦ + k 3 ⎣ 0 ⎦ + η (2.34)
zP 0 0 1
Accordingly, the following equation can be further be achieved.

⎛⎡ ⎤⎞ ⎛ ⎞
0 −δγw δβw 0 −δγw δβw −δxw
rank⎝⎣ δγw 0 −δαw ⎦⎠ = rank⎝ δγw 0 −δαw −δyw ⎠ = 0 (2.35)
−δβw δαw 0 −δβw δαw 0 −δyw
Thus, if and only if the following condition is true, Eq. (2.35) can be hold.
δxw = δyw = δz w = δαw = δβw = δγw = 0 (2.36)
As discussed above, only by limiting all DOFs of the workpiece (i.e., δx w , δyw ,
δα w , δβ w and δγ w ) can the machining requirements of the key slot be guaranteed.
2.2 DOF Level Model of Position Sizes
The linear sizes of the machined surface on the process drawing can be divided into
two categories. The first category represents the dimensions of the geometric features
of the machined surface itself, such as the diameter of the hole (or shaft), the width
of the key slot, and so on. It is called the self size. The second category represents the
position between the geometric features of the machined surface and other geometric
features, which is called the position size (Sun and Zhu 2006). In order to ensure
this kind of position dimension, the DOF to be limited must be analyzed before the
workpiece is clamped (Wu et al. 2007).
2.2.1 Position Size of Plane Relative to Plane
The known plane is taken as the datum feature whereas the plane to be machined is
taken as the measured feature (Li and Liu 2005). The workpiece has the machining
requirements in the Z direction. The machining requirements between the measured
feature and the datum feature is called the the position size requirements of the plane
relative to the plane.
As shown in Fig. 2.6a, with consideration of the machining requirement in the Z
direction, the following equation can obtained according to Eq. (2.10).
δz w + δαw yP − δβw xP = 0 (2.37)
x P and yP in Eq. (2.37) are arbitrary numbers. Thus, to make Eq. (2.38) always hold,
the following conditions must be met.
δz w = δαw = δβw = 0 (2.38)

2.2 DOF Level Model of Position Sizes 29
Z Z Z
Y Y Y
y y
z z z
X X X
(a) In the Z direction (b) In the Y and Z directions (c) In the X, Y and Z directions
Fig. 2.6 Machining requirements of plane to plane
Equation (2.38) indicates that the three DOFs (δzw , δα w and δβ w ) must be
constrained to ensure the dimension requirements in the Z direction. Similarly, it
can also be known that in order to ensure the machining requirements in the Y direc-
tion, the DOFs δyw , δγ w and δα w should be restricted. And, in order to ensure the
machining requirements in the X direction, the DOFs δx w , δβ w and δγ w should be
restricted.
If the workpiece has machining requirements in multiple directions, it muse be
constrained more DOFs. As illustrated in Fig. 2.6b, the workpiece has the machining
requirements in the X direction as well as the Z direction, the position variations in
the Y and Z directions must be zero, i.e.,

δyw +δγw xP − δαw z P = 0
(2.39)
δz w +δαw yP − δβw xP = 0
Because x P , yP and zP are the arbitrary values, the following conditions must be
satisfied to make Eq. (2.39) always hold.
δyw = δz w = δαw = δβw = δγw = 0 (2.40)
Therefore, if the five DOFs, δyw , δzw , δα w , δβ w and δγ w are limited, the specified
dimensions in the Y and Z directions can be achieved. Likewise, if the workpiece is
constrained its five DOFs, δx w , δyw , δα w , δβ w and δγ w , the specified dimensions in
the X and Y directions can be achieved. To obtain the specified dimensions in the X
and Z directions, the workpiece must be constrained its DOFs including δx w , δzw ,
δα w , δβ w and δγ w .
As show in Fig. 2.6c, when the key slot with the design sizes in the X, Y and Z
directions milled on the workpiece, the following equation can be written according
to Eq. (2.10).
⎧
⎨ δxw + δβw z P − δγw yP = 0
δy + δγw xP − δαw z P = 0 (2.41)
⎩ w
δz w + δαw yP − δβw xP = 0
In order to make Eq. (2.41) be true, the following conditions must be met, namely
δxw = δyw = δz w = δαw = δβw = δγw = 0 (2.42)
Therefore, only when all 6 DOFs are constrained, the machining dimensions in
three directions can be guaranteed.
2.2.2 Position Size of Line Relative to Plane
The known plane and the measured line are taken as the datum feature and the
measured feature, respectively. The position between the two features is required to
guarantee during the machining process. This position is called the position size of
the line with respect to the plane.
As shown in Fig. 2.7, the process datum of the machined through-hole is based on
the bottom surface (i.e., XOY plane). The size of the hole axis relative to the bottom
surface is required to be guaranteed. In other words, the workpiece has the machining
requirement in the Z direction. Therefore, it is easy to obtain the following equation
according to Eq. (2.10).
δz w + δαw y P − δβw x P = 0 (2.43)
Because the point P, whose coordinate is (x P , yP , zP ), is on the plane XOY, then

x P and yP are the arbitrary values and zP = 0. Thus, in order to make Eq. (2.43) be
true, the following conditions must be met.
δz w = δαw = δβw = 0 (2.44)
This means that only the three DOFs δzw , δα w and δβ w are constrained can the
size requirement in the Z direction be guaranteed.
Fig. 2.7 Machining requirement of line to plane in a single direction

Likewise, in order to ensure the machining requirement in the Y direction,

the DOFs δyw , δα w and δγ w must be limited. In order to ensure the machining
requirement in the X direction, it is necessary to limit the DOFs δx w , δβ w and δγ w .
The above deduces the constrained DOFs under the condition that the machining
requirement of the measured line with respect to the datum plane is in a single
direction. If the machining requirements of the measured line relative to the datum
plane is in two or three directions, the conclusions are given as follows:
If the position size requirements of the measured line relative to the datum plane
are in the X and Y directions, the workpiece must be constrained its DOFs δx w , δyw ,
are in the Y and Z directions, the workpiece must be constrained its DOFs δyw , δzw ,
are in the Z and X directions, the workpiece must be constrained its DOFs δzw , δx w ,
are in arbitrary directions, the measured line belongs to a spatial line. Therefore, six
DOFs δx w , δzw , δα w , δβ w and δγ w of the workpiece must be constrained to obtain
the specified dimensions in three directions.
2.2.3 Position Size of Plane Relative to Line
The known line is taken as the datum feature whereas the measured plane is taken as
the measured feature. This is so-called the plane relative to line, such as the position
size z shown in Fig. 2.8.
Now, take the datum feature as the X axis for example. The measured feature (i.e.,
the machined plane) is parallel to the XOY plane. Because the machining size z is in
the Z direction, the following condition can be obtained according to Eq. (2.10).
δz w + δαw y P − δβw x P = 0 (2.45)
Z Z
z
X Y
Fig. 2.8 One size of plane to line in the Z direction

Y Y
y
X Z
Fig. 2.9 One size of plane to line in the Y direction
Because the point P with coordinate of (x P , yP , zP ) is in the Y axis, there are yP

= 0, zP = 0, and x P is arbitrary number. Obviously, Eq. (2.45) can always be hold
under the condition of
δz w = δβw = 0 (2.46)
In other words, the size requirement in the Z direction can be guaranteed when
DOFs δzw and δβ w are constrained.
The X axis is still taken as the datum feature, but the measured feature is parallel
to the XOZ plane, as shown in Fig. 2.9. Therefore, the required size y is specified in
the Y direction. Thus, it is necessary to meet the following equation, that is
δyw + δγw x P − δαw z P = 0 (2.47)
Under the condition that yP = zP = 0 and x P is arbitrary number, for Eq. (2.47)
to be true, it must satisfy
δyw = δγw = 0 (2.48)
In conclusion, if the rotation axis of the workpiece is on the X axis, the corre-
sponding DOFs must be limited for the machined plane with different positions. If
the measured plane is in a position parallel to the XOY plane, DOFs δzw and δβ w
must be limited. If the measured plane is in a position parallel to the XOZ plane,
DOFs δyw and δγ w must be limited.
By analogy, if the Y axis is selected as the datum feature, DOFs δzw and δα w must
be constrained when the machined plane is parallel to the XOY plane. In case the
machined plane is parallel to the YOZ plane, DOFs δx w and δγ w should be limited.
Again, the Z axis is assumed to be the datum feature, DOFs δyw and δα w must
be constrained when the machined plane is parallel to the XOZ plane. But if the
machined plane is parallel to the plane YOZ, DOFs δx w and δβ w must be limited.
Provided that the workpiece has the machining requirements in two directions,
then more DOFs must be limited than in one direction. If the workpiece is assumed
to have the machining requirements in the X and Z directions, there is

δxw + δβw z P − δγw y P = 0
(2.49)
Because the Y axis is taken as the datum feature, yP is arbitrary value. Hence, if
and only if the following condition is hold can Eq. (2.49) be hold.
δxw = δz w = δαw = δγw = 0 (2.50)
Therefore, if DOFs δx w , δzw , δα w and δγ w are constrained, the size requirements

in the X and Z directions can be guaranteed. Likewise, in order to ensure size require-
ments in the X and Y directions, the four DOFs to be constrained are δx w , δyw , δα w
and δβ w . However, if the size requirements is in the Y and Z directions, the four
DOFs to be constrained are δyw , δzw , δβ w and δγ w.
Of course, if there are machining requirements in X, Y and Z directions and the
datum axis is the X axis, the DOFs should be limited to δx w , δyw , δzw , δβ w and δγ w .
If the datum axis is the Y axis, the workpiece must be limited DOFs δx w , δyw , δzw ,
δα w and δγ w . If the datum axis is the Z axis, the DOFs to be limited are δx w , δyw ,
δzw , δα w and δβ w.
2.2.4 Position Size of Line Relative to Line
This kind of size takes the line as the datum feature and the line to be machined as
the measured feature. It can be referred to as “line to line”.
As shown in Fig. 2.10, the center line of the cylinder workpiece is selected as
the X axis of the coordinate system. If a through hole will be bored on the cylinder
workpiece with the size y relative to the X axis in the Y direction (or the size z in the
Fig. 2.10 One size of line to

line in the Y direction
Z direction), the following equation can be obtained according to Eq. (2.10).
δyw + δγw x P − δαw z P = 0 (2.51)
or
δz w + δαw y P − δβw x P = 0 (2.52)
If the size y is required to guarantee for the through hole, yP = zP = 0 and x P

is arbitrary number in Eq. (2.51). But if the machining requirement of the through
hole is size z, Eq. (2.52) has also the same parameters as Eq. (2.51). Consequently,
Eq. (2.51) or Eq. (2.52) is valid if and only if
δyw = δγw = 0 (2.53)
or
δz w = δβw = 0 (2.54)
In other words, two DOFs, δyw and δγ w , must be constrained to ensure the size
requirement in the Y direction. Two DOFs, δzw and δβ w , must be constrained to
ensure the size requirement in the Z direction.
Similarly, if the size x of the center line of the machined hole to the Y axis is in
the X direction, DOFs δx w and δγ w must be constrained. If the size z of the center
line of the machined hole to the Y axis is in the Z axis, DOFs δzw and δα w must be
constrained. However, if the size x of the center line of the machined hole to the Z
axis is in the X axis, DOFs δx w and δβ w must be constrained. If the size y of the
center line of the machined hole to the Z axis is in the Y axis, DOFs δyw and δα w
must be constrained.
If the sizes of the center line of the through-hole to be machined relative to the
datum feature is required to change from one direction to two directions, then more
DOFs must be limited, as shown in Fig. 2.11. Because the specified machining
requirements include the size y in the Y direction and size z in the Z direction, the
following equation can easily be obtained

(2.55)
Since point P is in the X axis, yP = zP = 0 and x P is an arbitrary number. By

substituting them into Eq. (2.55), the DOFs to constrained can be obtained as
δyw = δz w = δβw = δγw = 0 (2.56)

Fig. 2.11 Two size of line to

line in both directions
Accordingly, in order to guarantee the linear sizes in the Y and Z directions,

DOFs, δyw , δzw , δβ w and δγ w must be constrained. Likewise, if the datum of the
machining sizes is in coincidence with the Y axis, DOFs, δx w , δzw , δα w and δγ w
must be constrained to satisfy the linear sizes in the X and Z directions. If the datum
of the machining size is in coincidence with the Z axis, DOFs, δx w , δyw , δα w and
δβ w must be constrained to satisfy the linear sizes in the X and Y directions.
If the machined surface in Fig. 2.12 is not a through hole but a blind hole, its
machining requirements have three linear sizes including the size x in the X direction,
size y in the Y direction and size z in the Z direction. It is worth mentioning that the
diameter d of the blind hole which belongs to the self size is nothing to do with fixture
because it is determined by the selected drilling bit. Thus, the following equation
can be achieved according to Eq. (2.10).
Fig. 2.12 Size requirements of line to line in three directions

⎧
⎨ δxw + δβw z P − δγw y P = 0
δy + δγw x P − δαw z P = 0 (2.57)
⎩ w
Because yP = zP = 0 and x P is arbitrary number, it is easy to get δxw = δyw =

δz w = δβw = δγw = 0. Therefore, five DOFs, δx w , δyw , δzw , δβ w and δγ w must be
constrained.
Similarly, if the process datum is in the Y axis, the constrained DOFs are δx w ,
δyw , δzw , δα w and δγ w . If the process datum is in the Z axis, the constrained DOFs
are δx w , δyw , δzw , δα w and δβ w .
In order to understand clearly the relationship between the size and the theoretical
DOFs, the level model (Wu 2003) can be established, as listed in Table 2.1.
2.3 DOF Level Model of Orientations
Usually, the form and position tolerance requirements of the machined surface are
marked on the process drawing. The form tolerance is to control the form accu-
racy of the geometric features of the machined surface, which is guaranteed by the
geometric accuracy of the cutting forming movement. The position tolerance is the
accuracy requirement for controlling the orientation and location (here, the run-out
tolerance is grouped into the location tolerance) and between the geometric features
of the machined surface and other geometric features of the workpiece. According to
the working conditions of the workpiece, some features on the workpiece will have
directional accuracy requirements relative to the datum. At this time, the orientation
tolerance is used to limit the direction with respect to the associated features. The
orientation tolerance refers to the total amount of allowable variation in the direc-
tion of the associated feature relative to the datum. The direction of the orientation
tolerance zone is fixed, and determined by the datum. The position of the the orienta-
tion tolerance zone can float within the dimensional tolerance zone. The orientation
tolerance includes parallelism, perpendicularity and inclination.
2.3.1 Relation Between Parallelism Tolerance and DOFs
2.3.1.1 Parallelism of Plane Relative to Plane
If the required parallelism tolerance is that the plane to be machined is relative to

the datum plane, such a parallelism tolerance is called “plane to plane” parallelism
tolerance requirement.
2.3 DOF Level Model of Orientations 37
Table 2.1 DOF level model of position size

Type Directions of Datum Theoretical Theoretical DOF δq ∗w Base
machining constrains vector
requirements ζ*
“plane X YOZ δx w , δβ w , λy ζ y + λz ζ z + λα ζ α [ζ y , ζ z ,
to δγ w ζ α]
plane” Y ZOX δyw , δα w , λx ζ x + λz ζ z + λβ ζ β [ζ x , ζ z ,
or “line δγ w ζβ]
to
plane” Z XOY δzw , δα w , λx ζ x + λy ζ y + λγ ζ γ [ζ x , ζ y ,
δβ w ζγ ]
X, Z YOZ, XOY δx w , δzw , λy ζ y ζy
δα w , δβ w ,
δγ w
X, Y YOZ, ZOX δx w , δyw , λz ζ z ζz
δα w , δβ w ,
δγ w
Y, Z ZOX, XOY δyw , δzw , λx ζ x ζx
δα w , δβ w ,
δγ w
X, Y, Z XOY, YOZ, ZOX δx w , δyw , 0 0
δzw , δα w ,
δβ w , δγ w
“line to X Y δx w , δγ w λy ζ y + λz ζ z + λα ζ α + λβ ζ β [ζ y , ζ z ,
line” ζ α, ζ β]
Z δx w , δβ w λy ζ y + λz ζ z + λα ζ α + λγ ζ γ [ζ y , ζ z ,
ζ α, ζ γ ]
Y X δyw , δγ w λz ζ z + λx ζ x + λα ζ α + λβ ζ β [ζ z , ζ x ,
ζ α, ζ β]
Z δyw , δα w λz ζ z + λx ζ x + λα ζ α + λγ ζ γ [ζ z , ζ x ,
ζ α, ζ γ ]
Z X δzw , δβ w λx ζ x + λy ζ y + λα ζ α + λγ ζ γ [ζ x , ζ y ,
ζ α, ζ γ ]
Y δzw , δα w λx ζ x + λy ζ y + λβ ζ β + λγ ζ γ [ζ x , ζ y ,
ζβ, ζγ ]
X, Z Y δx w , δzw , λy ζ y + λβ ζ β [ζ y , ζ β ]
δα w , δγ w
X, Y Z δx w , δyw , λz ζ z + λγ ζ γ [ζ z , ζ γ ]
δα w , δβ w
Y, Z X δyw , δzw , λx ζ x + λα ζ α [ζ x , ζ α ]
δβ w , δγ w
X, Y, Z X δx w , δyw , λα ζ α ζα
δzw , δβ w ,
δγ w
(continued)
Table 2.1 (continued)

requirements ζ*
X, Y, Z Y δx w , δyw , λβ ζ β ζβ
δzw , δα w ,
δγ w
X, Y, Z Z δx w , δyw , λγ ζ γ ζγ
δzw , δα w ,
δβ w
“plane X Y δx w , δγ w λy ζ y + λz ζ z + λα ζ α + λβ ζ β [ζ y , ζ z ,
to line” ζ α, ζ β]
Z δx w , δβ w λy ζ y + λz ζ z + λα ζ α + λγ ζ γ [ζ y , ζ z ,
ζ α,
γ ζγ ]
Y X δyw , δγ w λz ζ z + λx ζ x + λα ζ α + λβ ζ β [ζ z , ζ x ,
ζ α, ζ β]
Z δyw , δα w λz ζ z + λx ζ x + λβ ζ β + λγ ζ γ [ζ z , ζ x ,
ζβ, ζγ ]
Z X δzw , δβ w λx ζ x + λy ζ y + λα ζ α + λγ ζ γ [ζ x , ζ y ,
ζ α, ζ γ ]
Y δzw , δα w λx ζ x + λy ζ y + λβ ζ β + λγ ζ γ [ζ x , ζ y ,
ζβ, ζγ ]
X, Z Y δx w , δzw , λy ζ y + λβ ζ β [ζ y , ζ β ]
δα w , δγ w
X, Y Z δx w , δyw , λz ζ z + λγ ζ γ [ζ z , ζ γ ]
δα w , δβ w
Y, Z X δyw , δzw , λx ζ x + λα ζ α [ζ x , ζ α ]
δβ w , δγ w
X, Y, Z X δx w , δyw , λα ζ α ζα
δzw , δβ w ,
δγ w
X, Y, Z Y δx w , δyw , λβ ζ β ζβ
δzw , δα w ,
δγ w
X, Y, Z Z δx w , δyw , λγ ζ γ ζγ
δzw , δα w ,
δβ w
Fig. 2.13 Parallelism of

plane to plane in the Z
direction
As shown in Fig. 2.13, the bottom plane of the block workpiece is the datum
whereas its top plane is the plane to be machined. The parallelism tolerance 0.05
between them is required to satisfy during the machining process.
The coordinate system XYZ is established based on the bottom plane, as shown in
Fig. 2.13. Thus, the parallelism between the top plane to be machined and the XOY
plane is easily known to be in the Z direction. In order to guarantee the parallelism
between them, the position variation of the plane to be machined along the Z direction
must be limited. Therefore, the following equation can be obtained according to
Eq. (2.11).
δαw y P − δβw x P = 0 (2.58)
Because point P is any point on the process datum, that is, point P is on the XOY
plane, x P and yP are arbitrary values except that zP = 0. In order to ensure that the
Eq. (2.58) is always true for any point P, δα w = δβ w = 0 must be satisfied, that is,
DOFs δα w and δβ w should be limited.
Similarly, it can be known that when the datum plane is the YOZ plane, the DOFs
should be restricted to δβ w and δγ w . When the datum plane is the ZOX plane, the
DOFs should be restricted to δα w and δγ w .
2.3.1.2 Parallelism of Line Relative to Plane
If the required parallelism tolerance is that the line to be machined is relative to

the datum plane, such a parallelism tolerance is called “line to plane” parallelism
tolerance requirement. As shown in Fig. 2.14, a through hole is machined to obtain
the parallelism of the hole axis to the bottom plane. Obviously, the bottom plane is
the process datum of the through hole with the parallelism requirement.
According to the requirement of the parallelism tolerance, the hole axis must be
in the area between two planes which are 0.05 mm apart and parallel to the datum
plane. Because the parallelism tolerance is in the Z direction and its datum is the
XOY plane, thus the equation can easily obtained as
δαw y P − δβw x P = 0 (2.59)
Fig. 2.14 Parallelism of line

to plane in the Z direction
Because point P is on the XOY plane, thus zP = 0, x P and yP are arbitrary values.
In order to ensure that the above equation is always true for any point P, there must
be δα w = δβ w = 0. In other words, if and only if DOFs δα w and δβ w must be
constrained can the parallelism tolerance in the Z direction be guaranteed.
By analogy, it can be known that when the datum plane is the YOZ plane, the
DOFs should be restricted to δβ w and δγ w to ensure the parallelism tolerance in the
X direction. When the datum plane is the ZOX plane, the DOFs should be restricted
to δα w and δγ w to ensure the parallelism tolerance in the Y direction.
It can be seen from Sects. 2.3.1.1 and 2.3.1.2, the parallelism tolerance with plane
as datum feature requires the same DOFs to be limited. Therefore, the parallelism
tolerance of “plane to plane” and “line to plane” can be summarized together when
building the level model.
2.3.1.3 Parallelism of Plane to Line
The parallelism requirement of the surface to be machined is based on the straight

line where the surface to be machined is the plane. If this so called “plane to line”
parallelism requirement is based on the different datum in the different direction, the
DOFs to be restricted are different.
Now the axis of the hole is taken as the datum of the plane to be machined for
specifying a parallelism tolerance of 0.05 mm. Therefore, the X axis of the coordinate
system is established based on the hole axis, as shown in Fig. 2.15. Thus, the plane is
parallel to the XOY plane and the specified parallelism tolerance is in the Z direction.
In order to ensure the parallelism of the plane to be machined to the datum, it is
necessary to limit the variation of the plane to be machined to the datum in the Z
direction, namely,
δαw y P − δβw x P = 0 (2.60)
Because point P is on the X axis, thus yP = zP = 0 and x P is an arbitrary value.

By substituting them into Eq. (2.60), if and only if δβ w = 0 can Eq. (2.60) be always
hold. This means that the DOF δβ w must be limited.
The X axis is still used as the datum whereas the plane to be machined is required
to parallel to the XOZ plane, as shown in Fig. 2.16.

plane to line in the Z
direction

plane to line in the Y
direction
Obviously, the machining requirement is in the Y direction. In order to ensure the

parallelism tolerance of the plane to be machined to the datum in the Y direction, it
must meet the requirement of
δγw x P − δαw z P = 0 (2.61)
Because point P is on the X axis, thus yP = zP = 0 and x P is an arbitrary value.

By substituting them into Eq. (2.61), it can easily be conclude δγ w = 0 which means
the DOF δγ w to be limited.
It can be seen from the above that, if the rotation axis of the workpiece is on the X
axis, the DOFs to be limited, corresponding to the different position of the plane to
be machined, are different. If the plane to be machined is parallel to the XOY plane,
δβ w should be limited. If the plane to be machined is parallel to the XOZ plane, δγ w
should be limited.
Likewise, if the Y axis is taken as the datum, δα w must be limited when the plane
to be machined is required to be parallel to the XOY plane whereas δγ w must be
limited when the plane to be machined is required to be parallel to the YOZ plane.
However, if the Z axis is taken as the datum, δα w must be limited when the plane to
be machined is required to be parallel to the XOZ plane whereas δβ w must be limited
when the plane to be machined is required to be parallel to the YOZ plane.
2.3.1.4 Parallelism of Line to Line
The parallelism of “line to line” refers to the case where the existed straight line is
taken as a datum of a straight line to be machined.
As shown in Fig. 2.17, on the connecting rod workpiece, the axis of the lower
through hole is taken as the process datum to drill the upper through hole. Here, the
axis of the upper through hole has the parallelism requirement of 0.05 mm to the
process datum. Obviously, the parallelism requirement is in the Z direction, so it
must satisfy
δαw y P − δβw x P = 0 (2.62)

Fig. 2.17 Parallelism

requirement in the single
direction
Again, point P is on the X axis, as shown in Fig. 2.17. Therefore, yP = zP = 0

and x P is an arbitrary value. They are substituted into Eq. (2.62) to obtain δβ w = 0.
That is, δβ w should be limited.
The line to be machined is still based on the X axis. If the parallelism requirement
of the line to be machined to the X axis is in the Y direction, there exists
δγw x P − δαw z P = 0 (2.63)
Because point P is on the X axis, yP = zP = 0 and x P is an arbitrary value. In

order to make Eq. (2.63) always hold, it is necessary to make δγ w = 0, that is to say,
δγ w should be limited.
Under the condition that the process datum is in coincidence with the Y axis,
if the parallelism requirement is in the X direction, δγ w should be limited. If the
parallelism requirement is in the Z direction, δα w should be limited. If the Z axis is
taken as the datum, δβ w must be limited when the parallelism requirement is in the
X direction whereas δα w must be limited when the parallelism requirement is in the
Y direction.
If the parallelism of the axis of the through hole to be machined to the datum is
required in two directions. As shown in Fig. 2.18, the axis of the hole to be machined
is required to locate in a square prism parallel to the Y axis and with a cross section
of 0.05 mm × 0.05 mm. Because the parallelism requirements are in the X and Z
directions, the following equation can be obtained.

δβw z P − δγw y P = 0
(2.64)
δαw y P − δβw x P = 0
Because point P is on the Y axis, x P = zP = 0 and yP is an arbitrary value. Thus,

they are substituted into Eq. (2.64) to solve δα w = δγ w = 0. Accordingly, DOFs δα w
and δγ w must be limited to ensure the parallelism tolerances in the in the X and Z
directions.
Equally, if the X axis is established on the process datum, DOFs δβ w and δγ w
should be constrained when the parallelism requirements are in the Y and Z directions.

requirements in two
directions
But if the Z axis is established on the process datum, DOFs δα w and δβ w should be
constrained when the parallelism requirements are in the X and Y directions.
If the axis of the hole to be machined is specified to have the parallelism tolerance
with respect to the axis of the known hole in any direction, the axis of the known
hole can be taken as arbitrary coordinate axis to establish a coordinate system.
As shown in Fig. 2.19, the axis of the hole to be machined must be located in a
cylinder with a diameter of 0.05 and parallel to the datum. Here, the datum is the axis
of the hole with a diameter of ΦD. The coordinate system XYZ is established with the
datum as the Y axis. In fact, a line in any direction in a plane can be represented by
two directed segments perpendicular to each other. If there is a deviation between the
practical axis and the theoretical requirement, the practical axis can be projected into
the XOZ plane perpendicular to the direction of the datum (i.e., Y axis). According
to the above theory, the parallelism requirement in any direction of “line to line” can
be changed to the parallelism requirement in two directions perpendicular to each

tolerance in any direction
other. Therefore, the parallelism requirement in any direction with the Y axis as the
datum is same as the case that parallelism requirement in the X and Z directions, the
following equation can be obtained according to Eq. (2.11).

δβw z P − δγw y P = 0
(2.65)
Because point P is on the Y axis, x P = zP = 0 and yP is an arbitrary value. Thus,

they are substituted into Eq. (2.65) to obtain δα w = δγ w = 0. Accordingly, DOFs
δα w and δγ w must be limited.
By analogy, if the X axis is established on the process datum, DOFs δβ w and δγ w
must be constrained. If the Z axis is established on the process datum, DOFs δα w
and δβ w must be constrained.
In order to understand clearly the relationship between the parallelism tolerance
and the theoretical DOFs, the level model can be established, as listed in Table 2.2.
2.3.2 Relation Between Perpendicularity/Inclination

Tolerance and DOFs
The relationship between the parallelism tolerance and the theoretical DOFs is
analyzed, and then the other two kinds of orientation tolerances are analyzed. Because
the perpendicularity can be regarded as a special case of inclination (the included
angle between the measured feature and the datum feature is 90°), we can only
analyze the relationship between the more general inclination and the theoretical
DOFs by studying them together.
2.3.2.1 Perpendicularity/Inclination of Plane to Plane
In the inclination tolerance with the plane as the datum feature and the plane to be
machined as the measured feature (i.e., the inclination of plane to plane), its corre-
sponding machining requirement is measured in the direction with perpendicular the
datum plane.
As shown in Fig. 2.20, an inclined plane with the angle of 60° to the bottom plane
is milled on the workpiece. The plane to be machined has inclination requirement
of 0.1 mm to the bottom plane. Therefore, the bottom plane is taken as the datum to
establish the coordinate system, as shown in Fig. 2.20.
Thus, the inclination requirement can be measured in the Z direction. The XOY
plane is datum feature. Therefore, in order to guarantee the specified inclination
tolerance, the following equation can be obtained according to Eq. (2.11).
δαw y P − δβw x P = 0 (2.66)

Table 2.2 Level model between parallelism tolerance and theoretical DOFs
requirements ζ*
Plane X YOZ δβ w , δγ w λx ζ x + λy ζ y + λz ζ z + λα ζ α [ζ x , ζ y ,
to ζ z, ζ α]
plane Y ZOX δα w , δγ w λx ζ x + λy ζ y + λz ζ z + λβ ζ β [ζ x , ζ y ,
ζ z, ζ β ]
Z XOY δα w , δβ w λx ζ x + λy ζ y + λz ζ z + λγ ζ γ [ζ x , ζ y ,
ζ z, ζ γ ]
Plane X Y δγ w λx ζ x + λy ζ y + λz ζ z + λα ζ α + λβ ζ β [ζ x , ζ y ,
to line ζ z, ζ α,
ζβ]
Z δβ w λx ζ x + λy ζ y + λz ζ z + λα ζ α + λγ ζ γ [ζ x , ζ y ,
ζ z, ζ α,
ζγ ]
Y X δγ w λx ζ x + λy ζ y + λz ζ z + λα ζ α + λβ ζ β [ζ x , ζ y ,
ζ z, ζ α,
ζβ]
Z δα w λx ζ x + λy ζ y + λz ζ z + λβ ζ β + λγ ζ γ [ζ x , ζ y ,
ζ z, ζ β ,
ζγ ]
Z X δβ w λx ζ x + λy ζ y + λz ζ z + λα ζ α + λγ ζ γ [ζ x , ζ y ,
ζ z, ζ α,
ζγ ]
Y δα w λx ζ x + λy ζ y + λz ζ z + λβ ζ β + λγ ζ γ [ζ x , ζ y ,
ζ z, ζ β ,
ζγ ]
Line X Y δγ w λx ζ x + λy ζ y + λz ζ z + λα ζ α + λβ ζ β [ζ x , ζ y ,
to line ζ z, ζ α,
ζβ]
Z δβ w λx ζ x + λy ζ y + λz ζ z + λα ζ α + λγ ζ γ [ζ x , ζ y ,
ζ z, ζ α,
ζγ ]
Y X δγ w λx ζ x + λy ζ y + λz ζ z + λα ζ α + λβ ζ β [ζ x , ζ y ,
ζ z, ζ α,
ζβ]
ζ z, ζ β ,
ζγ ]
Z X δβ w λx ζ x + λy ζ y + λz ζ z + λα ζ α + λγ ζ γ [ζ x , ζ y ,
ζ z, ζ α,
ζγ ]
ζ z, ζ β ,
ζγ ]
(continued)

requirements ζ*
X, Z Y δα w , δγ w λx ζ x + λy ζ y + λz ζ z + λβ ζ β [ζ x , ζ y ,
ζ z, ζ β ]
X, Y Z δα w , δβ w λx ζ x + λy ζ y + λz ζ z + λγ ζ γ [ζ x , ζ y ,
ζ z, ζ γ ]
Y, Z X δβ w , δγ w λx ζ x + λy ζ y + λz ζ z + λα ζ α [ζ x , ζ y ,
ζ z, ζ α]
Line X YOZ δβ w , δγ w λx ζ x + λy ζ y + λz ζ z + λα ζ α [ζ x , ζ y ,
to ζ z, ζ α]
plane Y ZOX δα w , δγ w λx ζ x + λy ζ y + λz ζ z + λβ ζ β [ζ x , ζ y ,
ζ z, ζ β ]
ζ z, ζ γ ]
Fig. 2.20 Machining of the

inclined plane
Because point P is on the process datum which is in coincident with the XOY
plane, x P and yP are arbitrary values besides zP = 0. In order to ensure that Eq. (2.66)
is always true for any point P, it must satisfy δα w = δβ w = 0. In other words, it is
necessary for the parallelism tolerance of 0.1 mm to constrain DOFs δα w and δβ w .
Similarly, if the process datum is the XOZ plane, the DOFs to be limited are δα w
and δγ w . If the process datum is taken as the YOZ plane to establish the coordinate
system XYZ, the DOFs to be limited are δβ w and δγ w .
2.3.2.2 Perpendicularity/Inclination of Plane to Line
The perpendicularity/inclination of plane to line is a case where the surface to be

machined is a plane whereas its process datum is a line.

inclined plane to axis line
As shown in Fig. 2.21, an inclined plane with the angle of 60° to the axis line is
milled on the stepped shaft workpiece. Moreover, an inclination tolerance of 0.05 mm
is specified for the plane to be milled.
According to the definition of inclination, the inclined plane must be located
between two parallel planes with a distance of 0.05 mm and an angle of 60° from the
axis line. If the datum line of the stepped shaft is taken as the X axis to established the
coordinate system XYZ, the specified inclination tolerance is in the Y and Z direc-
tions. In order to ensure the inclination of the plane to be machined, the machining
requirement model of Eq. (2.11) can be used to obtain

δγw x P − δαw z P = 0
(2.67)
Because point P is on the X axis, yP = zP = 0 except that x P is arbitrary value. By

substituting them into Eq. (2.67), we can conclude δβ w = δγ w = 0. In other words,
only by restricting DOFs δβ w and δγ w can the inclination tolerance of 0.05 mm be
guaranteed.
Likewise, if the process datum is the Y axis, the DOFs to be limited are δα w and
δγ w . If the process datum is taken as the Z axis to establish the coordinate system
XYZ, the DOFs to be limited are δα w and δβ w .
2.3.2.3 Perpendicularity/Inclination of Line to Line
If the corresponding line of the surface to be machined is required to locate between

two parallel planes with a distance and an angle from the axis of the known hole, the
distance is called as the perpendicularity/inclination of line to line.
As shown in Fig. 2.22, a hole whose axis is at an angle of 60° from the hole with
a diameter of D is bored on the cylinder workpiece. Again, the axis of the hole to be
machined is required to have an inclination of 0.05 mm to the axis of the hole with
a diameter of D.
Therefore, the axis of the hole with a diameter of D is taken as the X axis to establish
the coordinate system XYZ, as shown in Fig. 2.22. Thus, the inclination requirement
Fig. 2.22 A inclined hole

bored on the cylinder
workpiece
of 0.05 mm is in the Z direction. In order to obtain the specified inclination of the plane
to be machined, the following equation can be concluded in light of the machining
requirement model of Eq. (2.11).
δαw y P − δβw x P = 0 (2.68)
Because point P is on the X axis, yP = zP = 0 except that x P is an arbitrary value.

In order for any point P Eq. (2.68) to be true, δβ w must be zero. In other words, only
by restricting the DOF δβ w can the inclination tolerance of 0.05 mm be guaranteed.
Next, the process datum is still taken as the X axis. But the inclination of the
axis of the surface to be machined is in the Y direction. To ensure the machining
requirements in the Z direction, it is necessary to
δγw x P − δαw z P = 0 (2.69)
Because point P is on the X axis, yP = zP = 0 except that x P is arbitrary value. In

order for any point P Eq. (2.69) to be true, δγ w must be zero. Therefore, the limit of
the DOF δγ w is the prerequisite to guarantee the inclination tolerance of 0.05 mm
relative to the X axis in the Y direction.
As can be seen from the above example that, even though the datum is the same,
but if the direction of machining requirements is different, the DOFs to be limited are
also different. Thus, if the Y axis is taken as the datum, δγ w must be limited when the
machining requirement is in the X direction whereas δα w must be limited when the
machining requirement is in the Z direction. Of course, if the Z axis is taken as the
datum, δβ w must be limited when the machining requirement is in the X direction
whereas δα w must be limited when the machining requirement is in the Y direction.
2.3.2.4 Perpendicularity/Inclination of Line to Plane
The variation of the measured feature of the inclined hole to be machined with
respect to the datum plane can be in one direction, two directions and any direction.
Generally, the measured feature is the axis of the hole to be machined. Therefore,
this kind of the variation is referred to as the perpendicularity/inclination of line to
plane.
First of all, we will discuss the theoretical DOFS for the perpendicu-
larity/inclination of line to plane in one direction. As shown in Fig. 2.23, the inclined
hole will be drilled on the cuboid workpiece, which requires the inclination of the
hole to be machined to the bottom plane.
Thus, the axis of hole with a diameter of d is located between two parallel planes
with a distance of 0.05 mm and an angle of 60° from the datum plane. Except that
the datum plane is chosen as the XOY coordinate plane, the projected line of the
axis of hole to be machined on the XOY plane is taken as the X axis to establish the
coordinate system. The machining requirement in the Z direction can be used as a
basis to derive the following equation
δαw y P − δβw x P = 0 (2.70)
Because the point P is on the XOY plane, x P and yP are arbitrary value. In order
for any point P Eq. (2.70) to be true, δα w and δβ w must be zero. Therefore, the limit
of the DOFs δα w and δβ w is the prerequisite to guarantee the inclination tolerance
of 0.05 mm relative to the XOY plane in the Z direction.
Therefore, if the datum plane is the XOZ plane, δα w and δγ w must be limited.
But if the datum plane is the YOZ plane, δβ w and δγ w must be limited.
When the measured line of the surface to be machined has inclination requirements
relative to the datum plane in two directions, for example, the center line of the hole to
be processed has the inclination requirement with the A plane, as shown in Fig. 2.24.
Fig. 2.23 An inclined hole

drilled on the cuboid
workpiece
Fig. 2.24 An inclined hole drilled on the cuboid workpiece
Thus, the A plane is taken as the XOY plane to establish the coordinate system.
Therefore, the inclination requirements are in the Z direction and the following
condition must be satisfied.

δβw z P − δγw yP = 0
(2.71)
δαw yP − δβw xP = 0
Because the inclination in the X direction is based on the YOZ plane, yP and zP
in δβ w zP -δγ w yP = 0 are arbitrary numbers. Again, the inclination in the Z direction
is based on the XOY plane, x P and yP in δα w yP -δβ w x P = 0 are arbitrary numbers.
Therefore, there is
δαw = δβw = δγw = 0 (2.72)
Likewise, if the inclination requirements are respectively relative to the YOZ and
ZOX planes, it should be in the X and Y directions. Thus the the DOFs to be limited
should be δα w , δβ w and δγ w . If the inclination requirement are based on the ZOX
and YOZ planes, it should be in the Y and X directions. Thus the the DOFs to
be limited should be δα w , δβ w and δγ w . Therefore, the level model between the
perpendicularity/inclination and the theoretical DOFs can be concluded to list in
Table 2.3.
Table 2.3 Level model between the perpendicularity/inclination and the theoretical DOFs
requirements ζ*
Plane X YOZ δβ w, δγ w λx ζ x + λy ζ y + λz ζ z + λα ζ α [ζ x , ζ y ,
to ζ z, ζ α]
plane Y ZOX δα w, δγ w λx ζ x + λy ζ y + λz ζ z + λβ ζ β [ζ x , ζ y ,
ζ z, ζ β ]
Z XOY δα w, δβ w λx ζ x + λy ζ y + λz ζ z + λγ ζ γ [ζ x , ζ y ,
ζ z, ζ γ ]
Plane X X δβ w, δγ w λx ζ x + λy ζ y + λz ζ z + λα ζ α [ζ x , ζ y ,
to line ζ z, ζ α]
Y Y δα w, δγ w λx ζ x + λy ζ y + λz ζ z + λβ ζ β [ζ x , ζ y ,
ζ z, ζ β ]
Z Z δα w, δβ w λx ζ x + λy ζ y + λz ζ z + λγ ζ γ [ζ x , ζ y ,
ζ z, ζ γ ]
Line X Y δγ w λx ζ x + λy ζ y + λz ζ z + λα ζ α + λβ ζ β [ζ x ,
to line ζ y, ζ z,
ζ α, ζ β]
Z δβ w λx ζ x + λy ζ y + λz ζ z + λγ ζ γ + λα ζ α [ζ x , ζ y ,
ζ z, ζ γ ,
ζ α]
Y X δγ w λx ζ x + λy ζ y + λz ζ z + λα ζ α + λβ ζ β [ζ x ,
ζ y, ζ z,
ζ α, ζ β]
ζ z, ζ β ,
ζγ ]
Z X δβ w λx ζ x + λy ζ y + λz ζ z + λγ ζ γ + λα ζ α [ζ x , ζ y ,
ζ z, ζ γ ,
ζ α]
ζ z, ζ β ,
ζγ ]
Line X YOZ δβ w , δγ w λx ζ x + λy ζ y + λz ζ z + λα ζ α [ζ x , ζ y ,
to ζ z, ζ α]
plane Y ZOX δγ w , δα w λx ζ x + λy ζ y + λz ζ z + λβ ζ β [ζ x , ζ y ,
ζ z, ζ β ]
ζ z, ζ γ ]
Z、X XOY, YOZ δα w , δβ w , λx ζ x + λy ζ y + λz ζ z [ζ x ,
δγ w ζ y, ζ z]
X、Y YOZ, ZOX δα w , δβ w , λx ζ x + λy ζ y + λz ζ z [ζ x ,
δγ w ζ y, ζ z]
(continued)

requirements ζ*
Y, Z ZOX, XOY δα w , δβ w , λx ζ x + λy ζ y + λz ζ z [ζ x ,
δγ w ζ y, ζ z]
2.4 DOF Level Model of Locations
The location tolerance refers to the total amount of allowable variation in the position
of the associated feature relative to the datum. The position of the location tolerance
zone is fixed with respect to the datum. The location tolerance zone not only controls
the position error of the measured feature, but also controls the direction error and
form error of the measured feature. The orientation tolerance zone not only controls
the direction error of the measured feature, but also controls its form error. The form
tolerance zone can only control the form error of the measured feature. The location
tolerance includes the coaxiality, the symmetry and the position.
2.4.1 Relation Between Coaxiality Tolerance and DOFs
The coaxiality is used to control the coaxiality error between the measured axis and
the datum axis of shaft workpieces. The coaxiality tolerance zone is the area within
a cylinder whose diameter is the tolerance value t and is coaxial to the datum axis.
Figure 2.25 is the coaxiality based on the X axis. The coaxiality error based on the
X axis means that there is an error in the Y and Z directions, so

(2.73)
Fig. 2.25 Stepped shaft with

the requirement of coaxiality
2.4 DOF Level Model of Locations 53
Table 2.4 Level model of coaxiality and theoretical DOFs

Type Directions of Datum Theoretical Theoretical DOF Base vector ζ *
machining constrains δq ∗w
requirements
Line to line Y 、Z X δyw , δzw , λx ζ x +λα ζ α [ζ x , ζ α ]
δβ w , δγ w
Z、X Y δx w , δzw , λy ζ y + λβ ζ β [ζ y , ζ β ]
δα w , δγ w
X、Y Z δx w , δyw , λz ζ z + λγ ζ γ [ζ z , ζ γ ]
δα w , δβ w
Because point P is on the X axis, yP = zP = 0 and x P is arbitrary value. By

substituting them into Eq. (2.73), we can obtain
δβw = δyw = δz w = δγw = 0 (2.74)
In other words, in order to ensure the requirement of the coaxiality error based
on the X axis, the DOFs δzw , δyw , δβ w and δγ w must be restricted. By analogy,
in order to ensure the requirement of the coaxiality error based on the Y axis, the
DOFs δzw , δyw , δβ w and δγ w must be restricted. In order to ensure the requirement
of the coaxiality error based on the Z axis, the DOFs δx w , δyw , δα w and δβ w must
be restricted, as listed in Table 2.4.
2.4.2 Relation Between Symmetry Tolerance and DOFs
The symmetry is used to control the coplanar (or collinear) error of the center plane
(or axis) of the measured feature. The symmetry tolerance zone is the area between
two parallel planes (or straight lines) that are symmetrically arranged relative to the
datum center plane (or center line, or axis) with a distance of tolerance value t.
2.4.2.1 Symmetry of Plane to Line and Line to Line
As shown in Fig. 2.26, line b is machined with the symmetry of 0.05 mm to the
center line of line a and line c. So the center line is taken as the Y axis to establish
the coordinate system XYZ. Thus, the symmetry requirement is in the X direction
and there is
δxw + δβw z P − δγw yP = 0 (2.75)
Because point P is on the Y axis, thus x P = zP = 0, yP is an arbitrary value. In

order to make Eq. (2.75) to be true, if and only if
Fig. 2.26 Three scale lines

with the symmetry
requirement
δxw =δγw =0 (2.76)
In other words, two DOFs, δx w and δγ w , must be limited for the symmetry require-
ment of the measured feature relative to the Y axis line in the X direction. Obviously,
two DOFs, δx w and δβ w , must be limited for the symmetry requirement of the
measured feature relative to the Z axis line in the X direction.
Likewise, two DOFs, δyw and δγ w , must be limited for the symmetry requirement
of the measured feature relative to the X axis line in the Y direction. two DOFs, δyw
and δβ w , must be limited for the symmetry requirement of the measured feature
relative to the Z axis line in the Y direction. Moreover, two DOFs, δzw and δγ w ,
must be limited for the symmetry requirement of the measured feature relative to
the X axis line in the Z direction. two DOFs, δzw and δβ w , must be limited for the
symmetry requirement of the measured feature relative to the Z axis line in the Z
direction.
2.4.2.2 Symmetry of Plane to Plane
As shown in 2.27, the key slot to be milled on the workpiece has the symmetry
requirement relative the plane A. So the plane A is chosen as the XOZ coordinate
plane to establish the coordinate system XYZ. Thus, the symmetry requirement is
in the Y direction. The following equation can be obtained according to Eq. (2.10).
(Fig. 2.27)
δyw +δγw xP − δαw z P = 0 (2.77)
Again, yP = 0, x P and zP are the arbitrary values. To make Eq. (2.77) hold, if and
only if
δyw = δαw = δγw = 0 (2.78)

Fig. 2.27 Workpiece with

symmetry requirement of
plane to plane
That is, three DOFs, δyw , δα w and δγ w , must be constrained, the symmetry
requirement relative to the XOZ plane can be guaranteed. By analogy, if the XOY and
YOZ based symmetry are required to achieve, the DOFs to be limited are respectively
δzw , δα w , δβ w and δx w , δβ w , δγ w .
2.4.2.3 Symmetry of Line to Plane
As shown in Fig. 2.28, a hole is bored on the workpiece for the symmetry of 0.1 mm
with respect to the datum plane A-B. Therefore, the plane A-B is select as the XOZ
coordinate plane to establish the coordinate system XYZ. Because the symmetry
requirement is in the Y direction, the following equation can be obtained according
to Eq. (2.10).
δyw + δγw xP − δαw z P = 0 (2.79)
According to the condition that the point P is on the XOZ plane, it is easily known
that x P and zP are arbitrary values except of yP = 0. Thus, Eq. (2.79) can be hold if
and only if

symmetry of line to plane in
one direction

symmetry of line to plane in
two directions
δyw = δαw = δγw = 0 (2.80)
Accordingly, three DOFs δyw , δα w and δγ w must be limited, the symmetry

requirement of the axis to the XOZ plane can be guaranteed. Likewise, in order
to ensure the XOY plane and YOZ plane based symmetries, the DOFs to be limited
are respectively δzw , δα w , δβ w and δx w , δβ w , δγ w .
As illustrated in Fig. 2.29, the hole will be drilled on the workpiece. The axis of
hole has the symmetry requirements relative to the XOZ plane and the XOY plane,
respectively. It is clear that the symmetry requirements are in the Y and Z directions.
Therefore,

δyw + δγw xP − δαw z P = 0
(2.81)
Because the symmetry in the Y direction is based on the XOZ plane, x P and
zP in δyw + δγ w x P -δα w zP = 0 are arbitrary numbers. Again, the symmetry in the
Z direction is based on the XOY plane, x P and yP in δzw + δα w yP -δβ w x P = 0 are
arbitrary numbers. Therefore, there is
δβw = δyw = δαw = δz w = δγw = 0 (2.82)
Consequently, five DOFs δyw , δzw , δα w , δβ w and δγ w must be limited, the

symmetry requirements of the axis to the XOZ plane and the XOY plane can be guar-
anteed. Likewise, in order to ensure the XOY plane and YOZ plane based symmetries,
the DOFs to be limited are δx w , δzw , δα w , δβ w and δγ w . But, in order to ensure the
symmetry requirements of the axis to the XOZ plane and the YOZ plane, DOFs δx w ,
δyw , δα w , δβ w and δγ w must be limited.
As stated above, the level model of the symmetry and the theoretical DOFs can
be conclude as listed in Table 2.5.
Table 2.5 Level model of the symmetry and the theoretical DOFs
Type Directions of Datum Theoretical Theoretical DOF Base
machining constrains δq ∗w vector ζ *
requirements
Plane to X YOZ Δx, δβ, δγ λy ζ y + λz ζ z + λα ζ α [ζ y , ζ z , ζ α ]
plane Y ZOX δy, δα, δγ λx ζ x + λz ζ z + λβ ζ β [ζ x , ζ z ,
ζβ]
Z XOZ δz, δα, δβ λx ζ x + λy ζ y +λγ ζ γ [ζ x , ζ y ,
ζγ ]
Plane to line X X δx, δβ, δγ λy ζ y + λz ζ z + λα ζ α [ζ y , ζ z , ζ α ]
or line to Y Y δy, δα, δγ λx ζ x + λz ζ z + λβ ζ β [ζ x , ζ z ,
line ζβ]
Z Z δz, δα, δβ λx ζ x + λy ζ y +λγ ζ γ [ζ x , ζ y ,
ζγ ]
Line to X X δx, δβ, δγ λy ζ y + λz ζ z + λα ζ α [ζ y , ζ z , ζ α ]
plane Y Y δy, δα, δγ λx ζ x + λz ζ z + λβ ζ β [ζ x , ζ z ,
ζβ]
Z Z δz, δα, δβ λx ζ x + λy ζ y +λγ ζ γ [ζ x , ζ y ,
ζγ ]
X, Y YOZ, ZOX δx, δy, δα, λz ζ z ζz
δβ, δγ
Y, Z ZOX, XOY δy, δz, δα, λx ζ x ζx
δβ, δγ
X, Z YOZ, XOY δx, δz, δα, λy ζ y ζy
δβ, δγ
2.4.3 Relation Between Position Tolerance and DOFs
The position is used to control the position error of the measured feature (point, line
and plane) to the datum. According to the functional requirements of the workpiece,
the position tolerance can be divided into three types: given one direction, given two
directions and arbitrary directions.
2.4.3.1 Position of Point
A hole will be drilled on the sheet workpiece. The axis of the hole has a position
relative to plane A and plane B. Therefore, the coordinate system XYZ can be estab-
lished as shown in Fig. 2.30. Obviously, the position requirements are in the X and
Z directions. Thus, we can be obtain

δxw + δβw z P − δγw γP = 0
(2.83)
Fig. 2.30 Position of the

point on the sheet workpiece
Because the position in the X direction is based on the YOZ plane, yP and zP in
δx w + δβ w zP -δγ w yP = 0 are arbitrary numbers. On the other hand, the position in
the Z direction is based on the XOY plane, x P and yP in δzw + δα w yP -δβ w x P = 0 are
arbitrary numbers. Equation (2.83) can always be hold, under the condition of
δxw = δz w = δαw = δβw = δγw = 0 (2.84)
That is, it is necessary for the position requirements of a point to the XOY and
YOZ planes to limit DOFs δx w , δα w , δβ w , δzw and δγ w . In the same way, only by
limiting DOFs δx w , δα w , δyw , δβ w and δγ w can the the position requirements of
a point to the YOZ and ZOX planes be guaranteed. In order to ensure the position
requirements of a point to the ZOX and XOY planes, DOFs δα w , δyw , δβ w , δzw and
δγ w must be limited.
If the point is in space, in order to determine the position of the point, the position
error of the point in the X, Y and Z directions must be limited, as shown in Fig. 2.31.
Therefore
⎧
δy + δγw xP − δαw z P = 0 (2.85)
⎩ w
It is seen from Fig. 2.31, the position in the Z direction is based on the XOY
plane, x P and yP in δzw + δα w yP -δβ w x P = 0 are arbitrary numbers. The position in
the X direction is based on the XOY plane, zP and yP in δx w + δβ w zP -δγ w yP = 0 are
arbitrary numbers. The position in the Y direction is based on the XOY plane, x P and
zP in δyw + δγ w x P -δα w zP = 0 are arbitrary numbers. Equation (2.83) can always be
hold, under the condition of
δxw = δβw = δγw = δαw = δz w = δγw = 0 (2.86)

Fig. 2.31 Position of point

in space
In other words, six DOFs, δx w , δα w , δyw , δβ w , δzw and δγ w , must be limited, the
position requirements of point in space can be guaranteed.
2.4.3.2 Position of Line
As shown in Fig. 2.32, four lines will be scaled on the sheet workpiece. Every scale
line has the position tolerance in the X direction. The plane A is the most important
datum of four sale lines. According to Eq. (2.10), the following equation can be
obtained
δxw + δβw z P − δγw γP = 0 (2.87)
Fig. 2.32 Position requirement of the line in single direction

Because point P is on the plane A, yP and zP in Eq. (2.87) are arbitrary values.
Thus, if and only if the following condition is satisfied can Eq. (2.87) be always hold.
δxw = δβw = δγw = 0 (2.88)
Therefore, if three DOFs δx w , δβ w and δγ w are constrained, the position of the

line to be machined in the X direction can be guaranteed. By analogy, if the line to be
machined has a position requirement in the Y direction or the Z direction, the DOFs
to be constrained are respectively δyw , δα w , δγ w or δzw , δα w , δβ w .
According to the union operation of DOF, the following conclusions can be
obtained. In order to ensure the positions of the line to the YOZ and ZOX planes
in the X and Y directions, it is requisite to constrain five DOFs δx w , δyw , δα w , δβ w
and δγ w . In order to ensure the positions of the line to the ZOX and XOY planes in
the Y and Z directions, it is requisite to constrain five DOFs δyw , δzw , δα w , δβ w and
δγ w . In order to ensure the positions of the line to the XOY and YOZ planes in the Z
and X directions, it is requisite to constrain five DOFs δzw , δx w , δα w , δβ w and δγ w .
Moreover, In order to ensure the positions of the line to the XOY, YOZ and ZOX
planes in the Z, X and Y directions, it is requisite to constrain six DOFs δx w , δyw ,
δzw , δα w , δβ w and δγ w .
2.4.3.3 Position of Plane
If a plane to be machined has the position requirement with the YOZ plane, the
machining requirement is in the X direction. Therefore, the following equation can
be achieved according to Eq. (2.10).
δxw + δβw z P − δγw γP = 0 (2.89)
Again, x P = 0, yP and zP are arbitrary numbers. In combination with Eq. (2.89),

the solution on DOFs can be obtained as
δxw = δβw = δγw = 0 (2.90)
As a result, it is essential to limit DOFs δx w , δβ w and δγ w for the position require-

ment of the plane to be machined with the YOZ plane. Likewise, in order to guarantee
the position of the plane to be machined with the XOY plane, DOFs δzw , δα w and
δβ w must be limited. If the plane to be machined is required a position with respect
to the XOZ plane, DOFs δyw , δα w and δγ w must be limited. In order to clarify the
relationship between the position requirement of the plane to be machined surface
and the theoretical DODs, the level model can be concluded as listed in Table 2.6.
Table 2.6 Level model of the position and the theoretical DOFs
machining constrains δq ∗w vector
requirements ζ*
Point Z, X XOY, YOZ δx, δz, δα, δβ, δγ λy ζ y ζy
X, Y YOZ, ZOX δx, δy, δα, δβ, δγ λz ζ z ζz
Y, Z ZOX, XOY δy, δz, δα, δβ, δγ λx ζ x ζx
X, Y, Z XOY, YOZ, ZOX δx, δy, δz, δα, δβ, δγ 0 0
Line X YOZ δx, δβ, δγ λy ζ y + λz ζ z + λα ζ α [ζ y ,
ζ z, ζ α]
Y ZOX δy, δα, δγ λx ζ x + λz ζ z + λβ ζ β [ζ x ,
ζ z, ζ β ]
Z XOY δz, δα, δβ λx ζ x + λy ζ y +λγ ζ γ [ζ x ,
ζ y,
ζγ ]
X、Z YOZ, XOY δx, δz, δα, δβ, δγ λy ζ y ζy
X、Y YOZ, ZOX δx, δy, δα, δβ, δγ λz ζ z ζz
Y 、Z ZOX, XOY δy, δz, δα, δβ, δγ λx ζ x ζx
X、Y 、Z XOY, YOZ, ZOX δx, δy, δz, δα, δβ, δγ 0 0
Plane X YOZ δx, δβ, δγ λy ζ y + λz ζ z + λα ζ α [ζ y ,
ζ z, ζ α]
Y ZOX δy, δα, δγ λx ζ x + λz ζ z + λβ ζ β [ζ x ,
ζ z, ζ β ]
Z XOY δz, δα, δβ λx ζ x + λy ζ y +λγ ζ γ [ζ x ,
ζ y,
ζγ ]
2.4.4 Relation Between Runout Tolerance and DOFs
The runout tolerance is a kind of tolerance set on the basis of a specific testing
method. The runout tolerance can be categorized into the circular runout and the
total runout. The circular runout is divided into the radial circular runout, the end
face circular runout and the oblique circular runout. The total runout is divided into
the radial total runout and the end face total runout.
The radial circle runout tolerance zone is the area between two concentric circles
in any plane perpendicular to the datum axis, where the difference in radius of two
concentric circles is the tolerance value t. The radial circle runout tolerance of the
cylinder to be machined is shown in Fig. 2.33. Obviously, the requirement of radial
circle runout tolerance based on X axis indicates that the workpiece cannot move in
Y and Z direction. Therefore

δyw + δγw xP − δαw z P = 0
(2.91)

the radial circular runout
tolerance
Because point P is on the X axis, yP = zP = 0, and x P is any number. In order to

make Eq. (2.91) to be hold, if and only if
δβw = δyw = δz w = δγw = 0 (2.92)
Consequently, if four DOFs including δzw , δyw , δβ w and δγ w are limited, the
radial circle runout tolerance based on the X axis can be guaranteed. By analogy,
in order to ensure the radial circle runout tolerance based on the Y axis, DOFs δx w ,
δα w , δzw and δγ w must be limited. If the radial circle runout tolerance is specified
for the surface machined based on the Z axis, it is necessary to limit DOFs δx w , δα w ,
δyw and δβ w .
The end face circular runout tolerance zone is a cylindrical area with a width of
tolerance value t along the direction of the generatrix on the measuring cylindrical
surface which is coaxial with the datum axis and at any diameter. As shown in
Fig. 2.34, an end face in the YOZ plane will be machined on the stepped shaft with
the the end face circular runout tolerance 0.05 mm relative to the X axis. Thus, the
machining requirement of the end face is in the X, Y and Z directions and in turn,
there is
⎧
δy + δγw xP − δαw z P = 0 (2.93)
⎩ w

the end face circular runout
tolerance
Table 2.7 Level model of the total/circular runout and the theoretical DOFs
machining constrains δq ∗w vector ζ *
requirements
Radial Y, Z X δx, δβ, δγ λy ζ y + λz ζ z + λα ζ α [ζ y , ζ z ,
circular ζ α]
runout or Z, X Y δy, δα, δγ λx ζ x + λz ζ z + λβ ζ β [ζ x , ζ z ,
total runout ζβ]
X, Y Z δz, δα, δβ λx ζ x + λy ζ y +λγ ζ γ [ζ x , ζ y ,
ζγ ]
End face X X δx, δy, δz, δβ, δγ λα ζ α ζα
circular Y Y δx, δy, δz, δα, δγ λβ ζ β ζβ
runout,
oblique Z Z δx, δy, δz, δα, δβ λγ ζ γ ζγ
circular
runout or
total runout
Because the measuring feature is the process datum, that is the X axis, thus x P =
0, yP and zP are arbitrary values. Equation (2.93) can always be hold, if and only if
δxw = δβw = δyw = δz w = δγw = 0 (2.94)
Accordingly, in order to ensure the end face circular runout based on the X axis,
the DOFs δx w , δyw , δβ w , δzw and δγ w must be limited. Likewise, in order to ensure
the end face circular runout based on the Y axis, the DOFs δx w , δα w , δyw , δzw and
δγ w must be limited. in order to ensure the end face circular runout based on the Z
axis, the DOFs δx w , δα w , δyw , δβ w and δzw must be limited.
Nevertheless, it can be concluded that the theoretical DOFs required for total
runout is consistent with that of circular runout, so it will not be repeated. It can be
seen from the above derivation that the level model of total/circular runout and DOFs
is shown in Table 2.7.
2.5 Model of Locating Point Layout
In the rectangular coordinate system of space, if the workpiece can translate along or
rotate around the X axis (or Y axis, Z axis), the position variation δx w and δα w (or δyw
and δβ w , δzw and δγ w ) caused by the translation or rotation of the workpiece is called
the theoretical DOF (Wu et al. 2007). Thus δx w = λx (or δyw = λy , δzw = λz ) and
δα w = λα (or δβ w = λβ , δγ w = λγ ). Otherwise, it is called the theoretical constraint
where δx w = 0 (or δyw = 0, δzw = 0) and δα w == 0 (or δβ w = 0, δγ w = 0). The
obtainment of the theoretical constraint depends on the determination of the values
of 6 position parameters x w , yw , zw , α w , β w , γ w or some position parameters of the
workpiece by reasonably laying out the locating points. In this way, the workpiece
has a correct position relative to the fixture. This process is the so-called locating.
2.5.1 Establishment of Locating Point Layout Model
In the process of workpiece locating, the DOF can be divided into theoretical DOF
and practical DOF. Accordingly, constraints are naturally divided into theoretical
constraints and practical constraints. As shown in Fig. 2.35a, in order to satisfy the
machining requirement l0+δl and h +δh 0 of the stepped surface, the workpiece can only
move in the Z direction during the process of locating. In other words, in order to
machine a qualified step surface, the theoretical DOF of workpiece is δzw whereas
δx w , δyw , δα w , δβ w and δγ w are theoretical constraints. Therefore, the DOFs to be
theoretically limited is δq ∗w = λz ζ z . the corresponding form of set can be represented
as {δq ∗w } = {δx w , δyw , δα w , δβ w , δγ w } which is called the theoretical constraint (Qin
et al. 2006, 2008).
The theoretical constraints of the workpiece are limited by the locating layout
scheme of the fixture. Figure 2.33b is a layout scheme of three locating points, all
of which are located on the bottom surface of the workpiece. Thus, the workpiece
can neither move in the Y direction nor rotate around the X and Z axes, that is to
say, the DOFs of the workpiece are δx w , δzw , δβ w , and the constraints are δy, δα w ,
δγ w . This is called the practical DOF and the practical constraint. If δq hw is denoted
as the practically limited DOF, its set form should be {δq hw } = {δy, δα w , δγ w } will
be named the practical constraint. By comparing Fig. 2.35b with Fig. 2.35a, δy, δα w
and δγ w in the theoretical DOF δq ∗w are limited by the locating layout scheme of
Fig. 2.35b.
As shown in Fig. 2.36, the locating layout scheme consists of k locating points.
Suppose that the workpiece is a rigid body with a surface represented by a piecewise
differentiable function in WCS.
f (r w ) = f (x w , y w , z w ) = 0 (2.95)
Fig. 2.35 DOFs and constraints

2.5 Model of Locating Point Layout 65
Fig. 2.36 Workpiece

locating
where r w = [x w , y w , z w ]T is the coordinate of any point on the workpiece with

respect to WCS.
rw = [x w , yw , zw ]T denotes the position of the origin of WCS in GCS. Θ w =
[α w , β w , γ w ]T is the orientation of WCS with respect to GCS. If the orientation and
position of the workpiece are known, the workpiece point rw can be mapped from
WCS to GCS following
r = T (Θ w )r w + r w (2.96)
⎡ ⎤
cβw cγw −cαw sγw + sαw sβw cγw sαw sγw + cαw sβw cγw
where T (Θ w ) = ⎣ cβw sγw cαw cγw + sαw sβw sγw −sαw cγw + cαw sβw sγw ⎦ is
−sβw sαw cβw cαw cβw
an orthogonal rotation matrix with c = cos and s = sin.
By substituting Eq. (2.96) into Eq. (2.95), the surface equation of the workpiece
in GCS can be obtained as
f (T (Θ w )T (r − r w ))= 0 (2.97)
where T (Θ w )T is the transpose matrix of T (Θ w ).

T T
If q w = r Tw , Θ Tw = xw , yw , z w , αw , βw , γw represents six position
parameters of the workpiece, Eq. (2.97) can be further rewritten as

f q w , r = f T (Θ w )T (r − r w ) = 0 (2.98)
It is well known, the coordinate ri = [x i , yi , zi ]T for the i-th locating point in GCS
T
has the following relationship with the corresponding coordinate r iw = xiw , yiw , z iw
defined in WCS
r i = T (Θ w )r iw +r w (2.99)
Since the i-th locating point is located on the workpiece surface, according to
Eq. (2.98), the relationship between every locating point and the workpiece is

f i q w = f q w , r i = f T(Θ w )T (r i − r w ) = 0, 1 ≤ i ≤ k (2.100)
Obviously, this is a simultaneous equation, i.e.,

⎧
⎪
⎪ f q w , r1 = 0
⎨
f (qw , r2 ) = 0
(2.101)
⎪
⎪ ···
⎩
f (qw , rk ) = 0
In the actual locating process, if the locating is not reasonable, the workpiece
must not be in the theoretical position q ∗w . Assume that the position of the workpiece
changes in the neighborhood δq hw of q ∗w . However, no matter how the position of
the workpiece changes, the locating point should theoretically always keep contact
with the surface of the workpiece. Otherwise, it will lose the practical significance
of locating. By substituting any position qw of the workpiece into Eq. (2.101), it can
further be rewritten as

f q w , r i = f q ∗w + δq hw , r i , 1 ≤ i ≤ k (2.102)
If the higher order terms are ignored, Taylor expansion of Eq. (2.102) at the
theoretical position q ∗w of the workpiece can be described as

f q ∗w + δq hw , r i = f q ∗w , r i + J i δq hw , 1 ≤ i ≤ k (2.103)

∂ fi
where J i = , ∂ fi , ∂ fi , ∂ fi , ∂ fi , ∂ fi
∂ xw ∂ yw ∂z w ∂αw ∂βw ∂γw
is the gradient vector, niw =
T T
∂ fi ∂ fi ∂ fi ∂ fi
n iwx , n iwy , n iwz = w =
∂ ri ∂ xiw, w,
∂ yi ∂z i
w = is the unit normal vector of workpiece
T
surface f (r ) = 0 at the i-th locating point
w
= xiw , yiw , z iw .
r iw
If all locating points are always in contact with the workpiece surface, and
J i δq hw = 0, 1 ≤ i ≤ k (2.104)
then the workpiece is in the theoretical position according to Eq. (2.101) and
Eq. (2.103).
The compact expression of Eq. (2.104) can be rewritten in matrix form as
Jδq hw = 0 (2.105)
where J is the locating Jacobian matrix and

⎡ ∂ f1 ∂ f1 ∂ f1 ∂ f1 ∂ f1 ∂ f1 ⎤
⎢ ∂ f2 ∂ f2 ⎥
∂ f2 ∂ f2 ∂ f2 ∂ f2
⎢ ∂ xw ∂ yw ⎥
∂z w ∂αw ∂βw ∂γw
J =⎢ ⎥ (2.106)
⎣ ··· ··· ··· ··· ··· ··· ⎦
∂ fk ∂ fk ∂ fk ∂ fk ∂ fk ∂ fk
In Eq. (2.105), the determination of Jacobian matrix J is the key to solve δq hw .
2.5.2 Solution of Locating Point Layout Model
Assumed that the 3D workpiece rotates α w , β w and γ w around the X axis, Y axis and
Z axis successively, then its coordinate transformation matrix should be respectively
⎡ ⎤
10 0
T (αw ) = ⎣ 0 cos αw − sin αw ⎦ (2.107)
0 sin αw cos αw
⎡ ⎤
cos βw 0 sin βw
T (βw ) = ⎣ 0 10 ⎦ (2.108)
− sin βw 0 cos βw
⎡ ⎤
cos γw − sin γw 0
T (γw ) = ⎣ sin γw cos γw 0 ⎦ (2.109)
0 0 1
In this way, the direction cosine matrix (i.e. transformation matrix T(Θ w )) of a
rigid body in any position and direction can be obtained by multiplying the direction
cosine matrix of three rotations
T (Θ w ) = T (γw )T (βw )T (αw )

⎡ ⎤⎡ ⎤⎡ ⎤
cγw −sγw 0 cβw 0 sβw 10 0
= ⎣ sγw cγw 0 ⎦⎣ 0 1 0 ⎦⎣ 0 cαw −sαw ⎦
0 0 1 −sβw 0 cβw 0 sαw cαw
⎡ ⎤
= ⎣ cβw sγw cαw cγw + sαw sβw sγw −sαw cγw + cαw sβw sγw ⎦ (2.110)
where c and s represent function cos and function sin, respectively.

Because Eq. (2.110) is a function of α w , β w and γ w , it is differentiated with respect
to α w , β w and γ w such that
⎡0 0 0
⎤
∂ T (Θ w )T
= ⎣ sαw sγw + cαw sβw cγw −sαw cγw + cαw sβw sγw cαw cβw ⎦
∂αw
cαw sγw − sαw sβw cγw −cαw cγw − sαw sβw sγw −sαw cβw
(2.111)
⎡ ⎤
∂ T (Θ w )T −sβw cγw −sβw sγw −cβw
= ⎣ sαw cβw cγw sαw cβw sγw −sαw sβw ⎦ (2.112)
∂βw
cαw cβw cγw cαw cβw sγw −cαw sβw
⎡ −cβw sγw cβw cγw 0
⎤
∂ T (Θ w )T
= ⎣ −cαw cγw − sαw sβw sγw −cαw sγw + sαw sβw cγw 0 ⎦ (2.113)
∂γw
sαw cγw − cαw sβw cγw −cαw cγw − sαw sβw sγw 0
For the 2D workpiece, its orthogonal coordinate transformation matrix is
cos γw sin γw
T (Θ w ) = T (γw ) = (2.114)
− sin γw cos γw
and there is

∂ T (Θ w )T − sin γw − cos γw
= (2.115)
∂γw cos γw − sin γw
By combining Eq. (2.110) with Eq. (2.108), it can be obtained as

∗
f i q w = f q ∗w , r i = 0
(2.116)
r i = T (Θ w )r iw + r w
By differentiating Eq. (2.116) with respect to x w , yw , zw , α w , β w and γ w , it is put in a

compact form as
⎧ T
⎪
⎪ ∂ fi
= − ∂ fi
T (Θ w )T ∂∂ xr ww
⎪
⎪ ∂ xw ∂riw
⎪
⎪
⎪ ∂ fi
⎪ ∂ fi
T
⎪
⎪ = − ∂r T (Θ w )T ∂∂ ryww
⎪
⎪ ∂ y w

w

⎪
i
⎪ T
⎨ ∂ fi = − ∂ fwi T (Θ w )T ∂ r w
∂z w ∂ri ∂z w
T (2.117)
⎪
⎪ ∂ ∂ ( ∂ T (Θ w )T ) w
⎪ ∂αw = ∂riw
f i f i
⎪ ∂αw
ri
⎪
⎪ T
⎪
⎪ ∂ fi ∂ fi (∂ T (Θ w ) ) r w
T
⎪
⎪ = ∂r
⎪
⎪
∂βw

w
i

∂βw i
⎪
⎪
⎩ ∂ fi = ∂ fwi (∂ T (Θ w ) ) r w
T T
∂γw ∂r i ∂γw i
T
∂ fi ∂ fi
where ∂ r iw
= , ∂ fi , ∂ fi
∂ xiw ∂ yiw ∂z iw
is the normal vector of workpiece surface f (r w ) = 0
T
at i-th locating point r iw = xiw , yiw , z iw .
If niw = [n iwx , n iwy , n iwz ]T is further denoted as the normal vector of the workpiece
at the i-th locating point r iw , then
⎧ w ∂ fi
⎨ ni x =
⎪ ∂ xiw
∂ fi
n iwy = ∂ yiw (2.118)
⎪
⎩ nw = ∂ fi
iz ∂z iw
Without loss of generality, WCS and GCS can be always assumed to have the
identical orientation (Song and Rong 2005; Rong et al. 2002), i.e., αw = βw = γw =
0. By substituting Eq. (2.111) and Eq. (2.112) into Eq. (2.117), there is
⎧ ∂ fi w T ∂ fi w T
⎨ ∂ xw = − ni ex , ∂ yw = − ni e y
⎪
∂ fi T ∂ fi T
= − niw ez , ∂α = niw I x r iw (2.119)
⎪ ∂z w
⎩ ∂ fi T w
∂ fi T
∂βw
= niw I y r iw , ∂γ w
= niw I z r iw
where I x , I y and I z are the skew symmetric matrixes. ex , ey , ez are the unit vectors
and
⎧ ⎡ ⎤
⎪
⎪ 0 0 0
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ Ix = ⎣0 0 1 ⎦
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ 0 −1 0
⎪
⎪ ⎡ ⎤
⎪
⎨ 0 0 −1
Iy = ⎣0 0 0 ⎦ (2.120)
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ 1 0 0
⎪
⎪ ⎡ ⎤
⎪
⎪ 0 10
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ I = ⎣ −1 0 0 ⎦
⎪
⎩ z
0 00
⎧
⎨ ex = [1, 0, 0]
T
⎪
e y = [0, 1, 0]T (2.121)
⎪
⎩
ez = [0, 0, 1] T
Thus, the locating Jacobian matrix can be obtained from Eq. (2.106) as
T
T
J i = − niw , − niw × r iw
= −n iwx , −n iwy , −n iwz , n iwz yiw − n iwy z iw , n iwx z iw − n iwz xiw , n iwy xiw − n iwx yiw (2.122)
For a 2D workpiece, Eq. (2.122) can be simplified as

J i = −n iwx , −n iwy , n iwy xiw − n iwx yiw (2.123)
According to Eq. (2.105), the position variation of the workpiece in the locating
layout scheme can be expressed as
δq hw = ker( J)λ (2.124)
where ker( J) is a matrix composed of the standard orthogonal basis for the null
space of J, rank(J) is the rank of matrix J, and λ is a vector of arbitrary constant.
In fact, according to the definition of δq hw , δq hw is the so-called pracitcal DOF. It
is known from Eq. (2.124), the value of δq hw can be solved by using the function null
in MATLAB.
2.6 Judgment Criteria of Locating Determination
Only the position parameters that affect the machining accuracy are generally deter-
mined, so it is not necessary to limit 6 DOFs in the process of workpiece locating.
According to the locating methods of complete locating, partial locating, over
locating and under locating, the following theorems can be derived as the quantitative
basis for judging the locating determination.
2.6.1 Theoretical Condition
On the basis of the machining requirements of the workpiece, the theoretical DOF
δq ∗w can be in advance calculated according to Eqs. (2.10,
⎡ 2.11) ⎤ and the corresponding
δxw
⎢ δy ⎥
⎢ w⎥
⎢ ⎥
∗ ⎢ δz ⎥
level model. For example, it is known from δq w = ⎢ w ⎥ = λx ζ x + λ y ζ y + λγ ζ γ
⎢ δαw ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎣ δβw ⎦
δγw
in Eq. (2.14) that, the solution space of δq ∗w is composed of basic solution system
ζ x , ζ y and ζ γ . Therefore, the rank of the solution space is rank(δq ∗w ) = rank(ζ * )
= rank([ζ x , ζ y , ζ γ ]) = 3. Or, the theoretical constraint {δq ∗w } = {δzw , δα w , δβ w }.
Obviously there is rank(δq ∗w ) = rank(ζ x , ζ y , ζ γ ) = 3. Comparatively, δq hw can be
calculated by Eq. (2.31) corresponding to the real displacement of the workpiece
after the locating setup.
Suppose {I } = {δx w , δyw , δzw , δα w , δβ w , δγ w } is the full set. Obviously, the
theoretical constaint set {δq ∗w } and the practical constaint set {δq hw } are the subset
of {I }. Thus, the logical relationship between {δq ∗w } and {δq hw } can be obtained by
2.6 Judgment Criteria of Locating Determination 71
Venn diagram and categorized into inclusion, intersection and difference, as shown
in Fig. 2.37. Again, the relation of {δq hw } ⊇ {δq ∗w } signifies that the theoretical
constraint is a subset of the practical constraint, whereas {δq hw } ⊂ {δq ∗w } denotes that
the practical constraint is a proper subset of the theoretical constraint. Thus, if and
only if {δq ∗w } is included in {δq hw }, i.e.,
{δq ∗w } ⊆ {δq hw } ⊆ {I} (2.125)
can the locating point layout scheme be correct (in other words, the locating point
layout scheme has the locating correctness). Otherwise, the locating point layout
scheme be incorrect.
In the logical relationship where δq ∗w is included in δq hw , there must be rank(δq hw )
= rank(δq ∗w )—rank ( Jδq ∗w ). According to Eq. (2.105), the rank of coefficient matrix
J in homogeneous linear equations is assumed to be rank(J). Then, the rank of the
solution vector of δq hw is rank of δq hw is equal to rank(δq hw ) = 6—rank (J) (Qin et al.
2008). Therefore, the theoretical condition of locating correctness can be described
as
rank( J) + rank(δq ∗w ) − rank( Jδq ∗w ) = 6 (2.126)
Simultaneously, it is easy to know the sufficient and necessary conditions for

incorrect locating
rank( J) + rank(δq ∗w ) − rank( Jδq ∗w ) < 6 (2.127)
Fig. 2.37 Logical relationship of {δq ∗w } and {δq hw }

2.6.2 Process Condition
It can be seen from Eq. (2.105) that for a locating scheme with k locating points, the
rank of the locating Jacobian matrix always has the following relationship with the
number of locating points
rank( J) ≤ k (2.128)
It is worthy to notice that the locating point layout scheme with rank( J) < k is
unreasonable. Though the application of the great number of locators can increase the
workpiece stiffness, the addition of a locator into a fixture may increase the workpiece
set-up time, fixture manufacturing cost and weight, the complexity of cutting tool
access to the workpiece. Therefore, from the point of view of manufacturing process,
if and only if
rank( J) = k (2.129)
is hold, can the locating point layout scheme be correct.
2.6.3 Corollary and Flowchart
According to the theoretical condition of Eq. (2.126) and the process condition of
Eq. (2.129), some corollaries can be used to verify the correctness of the locating
point layout scheme mathematically dominated by Eq. (2.105).
Definition 1 If rank( J) + rank(δq ∗w ) − rank( Jδq ∗w ) = 6 and rank( J) = k, then the

locating point layout scheme is called deterministic locating (Wu et al. 2002; Chou
et al. 1994; Cai et al. 1997).
Definition 2 If rank( J) + rank(δq ∗w ) − rank( Jδq ∗w ) < 6, then the locating point
layout scheme is called under locating.
Definition 3 If rank( J) < k, then the locating point layout scheme is called over
locating.
Corollary 1 If rank( J) + rank(δq ∗w ) − rank( Jδq ∗w ) = 6 and rank( J) = k = 6, then

this deterministic locating is called complete locating.
Corollary 2 If rank( J) + rank(δq ∗w ) − rank( Jδq ∗w ) = 6 and rank( J) = k < 6, then

this deterministic locating is called partial locating.
Corollary 3 If rank( J)+rank(δq ∗w )−rank( Jδq ∗w ) = 6, rank( J) < k and rank( J) <
6, then this over locating is called partial over locating.
2.6 Judgment Criteria of Locating Determination 73
Corollary 4 If rank( J) + rank(δq ∗w ) − rank( Jδq ∗w ) = 6 and rank( J) = 6 < k, then

this over locating is called complete over locating.
Corollary 5 If rank( J) + rank(δq ∗w ) − rank( Jδq ∗w ) < 6 and rank( J) < k, then this
under locating is called under over locating.
Corollary 6 If rank( J) + rank(δq ∗w ) − rank( Jδq ∗w ) < 6 and rank( J) = k, then this
under locating is called partial under locating.
According to the above definitions and corollaries, the logical relationship among
the locating point layout schemes can be shown in Fig. 2.38. It is worthy to notice that
both complete locating and partial locating belong to correct locating scheme whereas
neither under over locating nor partial under locating are viable. This two infeasible
locating should be avoided in the design of locating scheme. From the viewpoint
of engineering application, the locating scheme being complete over locating or
partial over locating is thought to be incorrect. The flowchart is given in Fig. 2.39 to
summarize judgement criteria for different locating scheme.
Fig. 2.38 Relationship between the locating point layout schemes

Fig. 2.39 Flowchart of verifying the locating determination
2.7 Application and Analysis
Generally speaking, a workable locating scheme is able to constrain the undesired

DOFs of the workpiece. The fixture designer must determine the layout of a given
number of locators so as to locate the workpiece in its desired position. In fact, a
variety of locating schemes will be obtained by changing the locator number and
locating datum, as shown in Fig. 2.40. However, not all the locating point layout
schemes are correct and reasonable (Qin et al. 2006).
To have a good understanding, Fig. 2.40a and b show a 2D workpiece constrained
by two locators represented by triangles. However, the difference is that two locating
points in Fig. 2.40a are distributed on the uniform locating datum, while two locating
points in Fig. 2.40b are respectively placed on different locating datum. Thus, the
workpiece is obviously free to either translate along the X direction or rotate about
point O. This means that the DOF to be limited of the workpiece in case (a) is different
with in case (b). On the contrary, the workpiece is determinately constrained in case
(c) where the locating datum is the same as case (b).
In this section, two typical examples are given to illustrate in detail the whole
process of analyzing and verifying the rationality of the number of locating points
and their layout by using the locating determination judgment method.
2.7 Application and Analysis 75
Fig. 2.40 Locating point layout scheme
2.7.1 Verification of Locating Point’s Number
Figure 2.41 shows the locating point layout schemes for machining the stepped
surface, which consists of 4 and 5 locating points respectively. The positions and
unit normal vectors of every locating point are shown in Table 2.8. The machining
requirements of workpiece are size b in the X direction and size h in the Y direction.
The first step is to determine the theoretical DOF. For the first locating point
layout scheme shown in Fig. 2.41a, it is assumed that {GCS} coincides with {WCS}.
Because there are size requirements in the X and Y directions, five DOFs δx w , δyw ,
Fig. 2.41 The locating schemes with different number of locating points
Table 2.8 Coordinates and unit normal vetors of locating points

The locating scheme with 4 locating points The locating scheme with 5 locating points
Locating point Coordinate ri Unit normal Locating point Coordinate ri Unit normal
vector ni vector ni
1 [x 1 , 0, z1 ]T [0, 0, 1]T 1 [x 1 , 0, z1 ]T [0, 0, 1]T
2 [x 2 , 0, z2 ]T [0, 0, 1]T 2 [x 2 , 0, z2 ]T [0, 0, 1]T
3 [x 3 , 0, z3 ]T [0, 0, 1]T 3 [x 3 , 0, z3 ]T [0, 0, 1]T
4 [0, y4 , z4 ]T [0, 1, 0]T 4 [0, y4 , z4 ]T [0, 1, 0]T
– – – 5 [0, y5 , z5 ]T [0, 1, 0]T
δα w , δβ w and δγ w must be limited according to Table 2.1. Therefore, the theoretical

DOF δq ∗w = [δx w , δyw , δzw , δα w , δβ w , δγ w ]T = λζ with ζ = ζ z . In other words,
the DOF that should be limited is {δq ∗w } = {δx w , δyw , δα w , δβ w , δγ w }.
The second step is to calculate the practical DOF. According to Eq. (2.122), the
⎡ ⎤
0 −1 0 −z 1 0 x1
⎢ 0 −1 0 −z 2 0 x2 ⎥
locating Jacobian matrix can be obtained as J = ⎢ ⎣ 0 −1 0 −z 3 0 x3 ⎦. The
⎥
−1 0 0 0 z 4 −y4
function rank in MATLAB can be used to calculate rank(J) = 4. The practical DOF
calculated by function null in MATLAB is
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
δxw 0 z4
⎢ δy ⎥ ⎢ 0 0⎥
⎢ w⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ δz ⎥ ⎢ 1 0 ⎥ λ1
δq hw = ⎢ w ⎥ = ⎢ ⎥ (2.130)
⎢ δαw ⎥ ⎢ 0 0 ⎥ λ2
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎣ δβw ⎦ ⎣ 0 1⎦
δλw 0 0
where w56 and w66 are arbitrary constants.

It is known from Eq. (2.130), I16 . Therefore, the practical DOF can be further
written as δq hw = λx ζ x + λz ζ z + λβ ζ β . In other words, the DOF limited practically by
the locating point layout scheme is {δq hw } = {δyw , δα w , δγ w }.
∗
The third step is to judge the locating determination. Because rank(δq
∗
w∗ ) =
Jδq w ) = 0 and rank(δq w ) = 3, then there are rank( J) + rank δq w −
h
1, rank(
rank Jδq ∗w = 4 + 1 − 0 = 5 and rank( J) = k = 4. According to the judgement
flowchart in Fig. 3-39, the locating scheme belongs to the partial under locating.
In the simular way, it can be obtained that the DOF limited by the locating point
layout scheme shown in Fig. 2.41b is δq hw = λz ζ z whose set form is {δq hw } = {δx w ,
δyw , δα w , δβ w , δγ w }. Because rank( J) = 5, rank(δq ∗w ) = 1, rank( Jδq ∗w ) = 0 and
rank(δq hw ) = 1, then rank(J) + rank(δq ∗w )–rank ( Jδq ∗w ) = 5+1–0 = 6 and rank(J)
= k = 5. In light of the judgement flowchart in Fig. 3.39, such a locating scheme is
identified to be a partial locating.
2.7.2 Verification of the Layout of Locating Points
Figure 2.42 shows a locating point layout scheme for milling a keyway on the top of
the workpiece. This locating scheme consists of six locating points including three
locating points laid out on the bottom surface, two locating points on the left side
surface and one locating point on the behind surface.
Assumed that the global coordinate system GCS coincides with the workpiece
coordinate system WCS, the position of each location point and the unit normal
vector are listed in Table 2.9.
Because the non-through has the machining requirements in all three directions,
the theoretical DOF is then δq ∗w = 0. Only when six DOFs are constrained, the
machining operation is correct. In other words, the theoretical constraint is {δq ∗w } =
{δx w , δyw , δzw , δα w , δβ w , δγ w }.
According to the information in Table 2.9, the Jacobian matrix J can be obtained
Fig. 2.42 Locating point

layout scheme of milling a
non-through slot
Table 2.9 Positions and

Locator Coordinate ri Unit normal vector ni
directions of locators
1 [x 1 , 0, z1 ]T [0, 0, 1]T
2 [x 2 , 0, z2 ]T [0, 0, 1]T
3 [x 3 , 0, z3 ]T [0, 0, 1]T
4 [0, y4 , z4 ]T [0, 1, 0]T
5 [0, y5 , z5 ]T [0, 1, 0]T
6 [x 6 , y6 , 0]T [0, 0, 1]T
⎡ ⎤
0 −1 0 −z 1 0 x1
⎢ 0 −1 −z 2 x2 ⎥
⎢ 0 0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 0 −1 0 −z 3 0 x3 ⎥
J =⎢ ⎥ (2.131)
⎢ −1 0 0 0 −z 4 −y4 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎣ −1 0 0 0 −z 5 −y5 ⎦
0 0 −1 y6 −x6 0
Therefore, the determinant of Jacobian matrix J can be described as
| J| = (z 4 − z 5 )(−x1 z 2 + z 1 x2 − z 1 x3 + x1 z 3 + z 2 x3 − z 3 x2 ) (2.132)
Obviously, if
z 4 − z 5 = 0 (2.133)
or
−x1 z 2 + z 1 x2 − z 1 x3 + x1 z 3 + z 2 x3 − z 3 x2 = 0 (2.134)
there exists
| J| = 0 (2.135)
Nevertheless, the rank of Jacobian matrix J is
rank( J) = 6 (2.136)
Again, the conditions described in Eqs. (2.133, 2.134), there is rank(J) +

rank(δq ∗w )—rank ( Jδq ∗w ) = 6 + 0-0 = 6. Therefore, the locating scheme belongs to
an applicable complete locating being to determine correctly the workpiece position.
However, if z 4 − z 5 = 0, locating point 4 and locating point 5 are arranged
in parallel with the Y axis, as shown in Fig. 2.43a. Thus, there is the following
relationship
⎡ ⎤⎡ ⎤
0 −1 0 −z 1 0 x1 δxw
⎢ 0 −1 −z 2 x2 ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ 0 0 ⎥⎢ δyw ⎥
⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥
⎢ 0 −1 0 −z 3 0 x3 ⎥⎢ δz w ⎥
⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥=0 (2.137)
⎢ −1 0 0 0 −z 4 −y4 ⎥⎢ δαw ⎥
⎢ ⎥⎢ ⎥
⎣ −1 0 0 0 −z 5 −y5 ⎦⎣ δβw ⎦
0 0 −1 y6 −x6 0 δλw
When the function null in MATLAB is used to solve Eq. (2.137), the practical
DOF can be achieved as
Fig. 2.43 The locating schemes with the same number of locating points
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
δxw z4
⎢ δy ⎥ ⎢ 0 ⎥
⎢ w⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ δz ⎥ ⎢ −x ⎥
δq hw = ⎢ w
⎥=⎢
6
⎥λ (2.138)
⎢ δαw ⎥ ⎢ 0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎣ δβw ⎦ ⎣ 1 ⎦
δγw 0
where λ is an arbitrary value.

It is known from Eq. (2.138), δyw = δαw = δγw = 0. Equation (2.138) can
further be described as δq hw = λx ζ x + λz ζ z + λβ ζ β . That is, the practical comstraint
is {δq hw } = {δyw , δα w , δγ w } which is also called the DOF limited practically by the
locating point layout scheme.
In reality, the rank of the Jacobian matrix J can be calculated by directly using
the function rank in MATLAB as
rank( J) = 5 (2.139)

Moreover, rank( J) + rank δq ∗w − rank Jδq ∗w = 5 + 0 − 0 = 5. Obviously,
the locating point layout scheme with locating point 4 and 5 parallel to the Y axis
belongs to under over locating. Therefore, the locating scheme is not correct and can
not guarantee the machining requirements of the workpiece.
If the locating points 1, 2 and 3 are collinear, as shown in Fig. 2.43b, it is known
that the triangle area formed by the locating points 1, 2 and 3 is

x z 1
1 1 1
S 123 = x2 z 2 1
2
x3 z 3 1
1
= (x1 z 2 − z 1 x2 + z 1 x3 − x1 z 3 − z 2 x3 + z 3 x2 ) (2.140)
2
Therefore, if −x1 z 2 + z 1 x2 − z 1 x3 + x1 z 3 + z 2 x3 − z 3 x2 = 0, S 123 = 0 which
indicates that the location points 1, 2 and 3 are collinear. Thus, the practical DOF is
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
δxw − z5 yz45 −y
−z 4
5 z4
⎢ δy ⎥ ⎢ z 3 x2 −z 2 x3 ⎥
⎢ w⎥ ⎢ z −z ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ x3 −x2 y 3− 2y5 −y4 x ⎥
⎢ δz ⎥ ⎢ 6 6 ⎥
δq hw = ⎢ ⎥ = ⎢ z3 −z2 x3 −x2z5 −z4 ⎥ λ
w
(2.141)
⎢ δαw ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ z 3 −z 2 ⎥
⎣ δβw ⎦ ⎣ y5 −y4
− z5 −z4 ⎦
δγw 1
with the arbitrary number λ.

In conclusion, δx w = 0, δyw = 0, δzw = 0, δα w = 0, δβ w = 0 and δγ w = 0.
Therefore, the practical DOF is an empty set, i.e., {δq hw } = {}.
In the case shown
in Fig.2.41b, the computing gives rise to rank( J) = 5 and
rank( J) + rank δq ∗w − rank Jδq ∗w = 5 + 0 − 0 = 5. This means that the locating
scheme is also an under over locating based on Corollary 5.
References
Cai W, Hu SJ, Yuan JX. A variational method of robust fixture configuration design for 3-D
workpieces [J]. Trans J Manuf Sci Eng. 1997;119:593–602.
Chou YC, Srinivas RA, Saraf S. Automatic design of machining fixtures: conceptual design [J]. Int
J Adv Manuf Technol. 1994;9(1):3–12.
References 81
He L. Independence comprehensiveness and relativity of freedom in location of work parts [J]. J

Sichuan Inst Technol. 1997;5:50–4 (in Chinese).
Kang YZ. Computer aided fixture design verification [D]. MA: Worcester Polytechnic Institute;
2001.
Liao NZ, Gu Y, Mo YS, Li SG, Yang XJ. Interchangeability and technical measurement [M]. China
Metrology Press, 2000. (in Chinese).
Li HG, Liu M. The fundamental concepts and terminology of shape and position tolerance [J].
Shangdong Agricult Mechan. 2005;4:20 (in Chinese).
Ma JJ, Zhang FR. Researching on the structure and properties of the solutions of system of linear
equations by geometric method [J]. J Sci Teach Coll Univ. 2013;33(6):25–7 (in Chinese).
Qin GH, Zhang WH, Wan M. A mathematical approach to analysis and optimal design of fixture
locating scheme [J]. Int J Adv Manuf Technol. 2006;29(3–4):349–59.
Qin GH, Wu ZX, Zhang WH. Modeling and optimal design of fixture locating scheme [J]. China
Mechan Eng. 2006;17(23):2425–2429. (in Chinese).
Qin GH, Zhang WH, Wan M. A machining-dimension-based approach to locating scheme design
[J]. Trans ASME J Manuf Sci Eng. 2008;130(5):05101–01–08.
Qin GH, Hong LH, Wu TJ. Analysis technology of degrees of freedom of workpiece based on
homogenous linear equations [J]. Comput Integ Manuf Syst. 2008;14(3):466–9 (in Chinese).
Qin GH, Zhang WH, Wan M, Sun SP, Wu TJ. Locating correctness analysis and modification for
fixture design [C]. Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Advanced Design And
Manufacture, Sanya, China, January 14–16, 2008, pp. 551–562.
Qin GH, Zhang WH, Wan M, Sun SP. A novel approach to fixture design based on locating
correctness [J]. Int J Manuf Res. 2010;5(4):429–48.
Rong YM, Zhu YX, Luo ZB. Computer-aided fixture design [M].China Machine Press, 2002. (in
Chinese).
Song H, Rong Y. Locating completeness evaluation and revision in fixture plan [J]. Robot Comput
Integ Manuf. 2005;21:368–78.
Sun ZL, Zhu FY. Mechanical engineering drawing and tolerance [M]. Chinese Forestry Press, 2006.
(in Chinese).
Wang H, Qian WW, Liu P. Right dimensions mark on symmetry structure of common aperture and
key slot in spares [J]. J Henan Mechan Elect Eng Coll. 2001;9(1):28–32 (in Chinese).
Wu YX. The research and designing of hierarchical module for working precision in connection with
restricting degrees of freedom [J]. Jiangsu Machine Build Autom. 2003;8(4):5–8 (in Chinese).
Wu YG, Gao SM, Chen ZC. Geometric theory on automated modular fixture planning [J]. Chinese
J Mechan Eng. 2002;38(1):117–22 (in Chinese).
Wu ZX, Wu TJ, Xiao J, Peng CM. Analysis method of workpiece degree-of-freedom based on rigid
kinematics [J]. Mod Machine Tool Autom Manuf Techn. 2007;12:7–11 (in Chinese).
Wu ZX, Xiao J, Wu TJ, Peng CM. Analysis model of constraint of degrees of freedom of a workpiece
based on fixture [J]. Machine Tool Hyd. 2007;35(12):19–22 + 63. (in Chinese).
Chapter 3
Analysis of Workpiece Stability
The fixturing of workpiece in a fixture is a unified process in which locating and

clamping are closely related to each other. After being located on a fixture or machine
bed, a workpiece will be subject to gravity and cutting forces during the machining
operation. In order to keep the locating precision as well as the production safety,
it is necessary to maintain the workpiece stability. Workpiece stability is an indis-
pensable part of fixture design. It is the main basis for determining or optimizing the
locating/clamping scheme of workpiece and judging its reliability.
3.1 Modeling of Workpiece Stability
The so-called workpiece stability refers to the ability to ensure that the position of
workpiece in the fixture, which is determined by the locating point layout, can still
stop vibration or movement from the action of cutting force/torque and other external
forces in the process of machining (Jiang et al. 2010; Liao and Roy 2002). Based on
the qualitative analysis of the stability of the above workpiece, it can be seen that
if and only if the workpiece satisfies the static equilibrium equation and the friction
constraint conditions in every clamping step, the workpiece is stable in the clamping
sequence scheme.
Figure 3.1 shows the multiple clamping scheme of a workpiece. Fmach is the
machining force, F1 and F2 are the clamping forces supplied by clamps C 1 and C 2 ,
respectively. This clamping scheme has two clamping sequence schemes in which
they can be decomposed into three clamping steps, as listed Table 3.1. In order to
explain the workpiece stability simply and clearly, gravity and friction are ignored.
Obviously, in steps 1 and 2 of clamping sequence scheme A, the workpiece can
always be in equilibrium to maintain its stability. In step 3, as long as the clamping
force provided by clamp C 1 and clamp C 2 is large enough, the workpiece can still
keep equilibrium.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-33-4493-8_3
84 3 Analysis of Workpiece Stability
Fig. 3.1 Multiple clamping
Table 3.1 Decomposition of clamping process

No Clamping sequence A Clamping sequence B
Clamping step 1 F1
L3
F2
L3
L1 L2
L1 L2
Clamping step 2 C1 F1
L3
F2 L3
C2
L1 L2
L1 L2
Clamping step 3 Fmach Fmach

C1 C1
L3 L3
C2 C2
L1 L2 L1 L2
3.1 Modeling of Workpiece Stability 85
Fig. 3.2 Unstable state of workpiece
Fig. 3.3 Mapping of the workpiece stability in a certain clamping sequence
However, in steps 1 of clamping sequence B, no matter how much clamping force

F 2 provided by clamp C 2 is, the workpiece will rotate δqwh clockwise which can
upset the equilibrium state of the workpiece. Thus, the workpiece is unstable so that
it cannot occupy an accurate position, as shown in Fig. 3.2.
Therefore, the purpose of stable clamping is to ensure the static equilibrium of
the workpiece in every clamping step by exerting the sufficient clamping forces at
the reasonably arranged clamps (i.e. clamping points). From a purely mathematical
point of view, workpiece stability is a kind of mapping relationship between clamping
layout scheme and workpiece equilibrium state, as shown in Fig. 3.3.
3.1.1 Static Equilibrium Conditions
Suppose that the fixturing layout scheme of a workpiece consists of k locators and
n clamps, as shown in Fig. 3.4. The workpiece is subjected to external loads such
as machining force wrench W mach , gravity wrench W grav , etc. (Chou et al. 1989).
Contacts between the workpiece and fixels (i.e., fixture elements) including locators
and clamps are considered as frictional contacts.
Fig. 3.4 Fixturing scheme of the workpiece
Denote ni , t i and bi to be the unit inner normal vector and two orthogonal unit
tangential vectors of the workpiece at contact point ri = [x i , yi , zi ]T of the i-th fixture
element. When the machining forces and moments vary with respect to machining
time t, the contact forces at all fixture elements will correspondingly change with
respect to the machining time. As shown in Fig. 3.4, for the i-th fixture element,
Fi = Fin + Fit + Fib denotes the i-th contact force resultant expressed in the
global coordinate system GCS with Fin , Fit and Fib being the three components of Fi
along ni = [n i x , n i y , n i z ]T , t i = [ti x , ti y , ti z ]T and bi = [bi x , bi y , bi z ]T , respectively.
Hence
⎧
⎨ Fin = Fin ni
⎪
Fit = Fit ti (3.1)
⎪
⎩
Fib = Fib bi
Thus, the contact force wrench produced by the contact force Fi on the workpiece
can be expressed as

Fi
Wi = = Gi Fi (3.2)
r i × Fi

ni
where G i = [G in , G it , G ib ] is a layout matrix of the i-th fixel with G i n = ,
r i × ni

ti bi
Gi t = and G i b = .
ri × ti r i × bi
However, every fixel has different effect on the workpiece in the process of
locating, clamping and machining. If a fixel can exert a force on the workpiece,
it is called an active element. If the fixel provides a motion constraint for the work-
piece to support clamping and external forces, it belongs to a passive element. At the
contact point with the workpiece, both the normal pressure and tangential friction
force exist. An active element, however, cannot generate frictional forces by itself.
So the contact force at the i-th active element characterized by layout matrices Gi
can be expressed as Fi = [F in , 0, 0]T , whereas the contact force at the i-th passive
element characterized by layout matrices Gi can be expressed as Fi = [F in , F ib , F it ]T .
Moreover, the contact force at the active element is defined as the active contact force
and the contact force at the passive element is called the passive contact force.
According to the practical operation process, the arbitrary clamping sequence
can be decomposed into n + 2 clamping steps and the workpiece must keep static
equilibrium in each clamping step (Qin and Zhang 2007; Qin et al. 2005).
In clamping step 1, only gravity force W grav is applied as the external load onto
the workpiece, as shown in Fig. 3.5. Locators 1, 2, …, k are passive elements (Qin
et al. 2008). Then, the static equilibrium system of equations of the workpiece is
dominated by
G 1,pas F 1,pas + W 1,ext = 0 (3.3)
Fig. 3.5 Clamping step 1

where G1,pas = [G1 , G2 , …, Gk ] is the layout matrix of passive elements in step 1.

F1,pas = [F T1 , F T2 , · · · , F Tk ]T = [F 1n , F 1t , F 1b , F 2n , F 2t , F 2b , …, F kn , F kt , F kb ]T is
the passive contact force vector in step 1. W 1,ext = W grav is the external wrench in
step 1.
In clamping step 2 shown in Fig. 3.6, the clamp k + 1 is now set up as an active
element with a prescribed clamping force F k+1 applied to the workpiece whereas
locators 1, 2, …, k are passive elements. Therefore, the current static equilibrium
equation system in step 2 can be obtained as
G 2,pas F 2,pas + G 2,act F 2,act + W 2,ext = 0 (3.4)
where the layout matrix of passive elements, G2,pas , in step 2 is identical to G1,pas .
F2,pas = [F T1 , F T2 , · · · , F Tk ]T = [F 1n , F 1t , F 1b , F 2n , F 2t , F 2b , …, F kn , F kt , F kb ]T is the
passive contact force vector in step 2. W 2,ext = W grav is the external wrench in step
2. G2,act = G(k+1)n and F2,act = F (k+1)n are the layout matrix of the active elements
and the corresponding clamping force vector in step 2, respectively.
In step 3, suppose the second active clamp numbered k + 2 is put in use to the
workpiece with a known clamping force of F k+2 . Note that clamp k + 1 used in Step
2 now becomes a passive element. Therefore, the current static equilibrium equation
system of the workpiece can be written as
G 3,pas F 3,pas + G 3,act F 3,act + W 3,ext = 0 (3.5)

where the layout matrix of passive elements, G3,pas , is an extension of G2,pas with
G3,pas = [G1 , G2 , …, Gk , Gk+1 ]. F3,pas = [F T1 , F T2 , …, F Tk , F Tk+1 ]T = [F 1n , F 1t , F 1b ,
F 2n , F 2t , F 2b , …, F (k+1)n , F (k+1)t , F (k+1)b ]T is the resultant contact force vector of total
passive elements in Step 3. W 3,ext = W grav is the external wrench in step 3. G3,act
= G(k+2)n and F3,act = F (k+2)n are the layout matrix of the active elements and the
corresponding clamping force vector in step 3, respectively. Fig. 3.7
It is worth noting that if the clamp k + 1 in step 2 is a hydraulic or rigid element,
the clamping force applied by the clamp k + 1 can be converted to preload in step 3.
Thus, the layout matrix of the passive elements in step 3 is G3,pas = [G1 , G2 , …, Gk ,
G(k+1)b , G(k+1)t ], the passive contact force vector in step 3 is F3,pas = [F T1 , F T2 , …, F Tk ,
F (k+1)t , F (k+1)b ]T = [F 1n , F 1t , F 1b , …, F kn , F kt , F kb , F (k+1)t , F (k+1)b ]T , the external
wrench in step 3 is W 3,ext = W grav , the layout matrix of the active elements in step
3 is G3,act = [G(k+1)n , G(k+2)n ] whereas the corresponding clamping force vector is
F3,act = [F (k+1)n , F (k+2)n ]T .
By analogy, in the clamping step j shown in Fig. 3.8, the clamp k + j-1 provides
a clamping force of F k+j-1 for the workpiece. The clamp k + j-1 is an active element
whereas the locators 1, 2, …, k and clamps k + 1, k + 1, …, k + j-2 are passive
elements. Therefore, the static equilibrium equation in Step j is generally stated as
G j,pas F j,pas + G j,act F j,act + W j,ext = 0 (3.6)
where Gj,pas = [G1 , G2 , …, Gk , …, Gk+j-2 ] is the layout matrix of the passive elements
in step j. Fj,pas = [F T1 , F T2 , …, F Tk , …, F Tk+ j−2 ]T = [F 1n , F 1t , F 1b , F 2n , F 2t , F 2b , …,
F (k+j-2)n , F (k+ j-2)t , F (k+ j-2)b ]T is the passive contact force vector at the passive element

Fig. 3.8 Clamping step j
W grav , 1 ≤ j ≤ n + 1
in step j. W j,ext = is the external wrench in step j.
W grav + W mach , j = n + 2
Gj,act = G(k+j-1)n and Fj,act = F (k+j-1)n are respectively the layout matrix of the active
element exerted in step j and the corresponding clamping force vector.
Here, if the clamps k + 1, k + 2, …, k + j-1 are the constant force elements in
step j, for example, the hydraulic elements, the layout matrix of the passive elements
in step j is Gj,pas = [G1 , G2 , …, Gk , G(k+1)b , G(k+1)t , …, G(k+j-2)b , G(k+j-2)t ], the passive
contact force vector in step j is Fj,pas = [F T1 , F T2 , …, F Tk , F (k+1)t , F (k+1)b , …, F (k+j-2)b ,
F (k+j-2)t ]T = [F 1n , F 1t , F 1b , F 2n , F 2t , F 2b , …, F (k+1)t , F (k+1)b , …, F (k+j-2)b , F (k+j-2)t ]T ,
W grav , 1 ≤ j ≤ n + 1
the external wrench in step 3 is W j,ext = , the layout
W grav + W mach , j = n + 2
matrix of the active elements in step j is Gj,act = [G(k+1)n , G(k+2)n , …, G(k+j-1)n ], the
clamping force vector is F3,act = [F (k+1)n , F (k+2)n , …, F (k+j-1)n ]T , respectively.
3.1.2 Friction Cone Constraints
As shown in Fig. 3.9, in order to prevent the workpiece detachment from the fixels in
the fixturing process, the normal forces at any contact point between the workpiece
and fixel must be in compression such that
Fig. 3.9 Friction cone
⎧
⎨ k, j = 1
⎪
Fin ≥ 0, 1 ≤ i ≤ k + j − 1, 2 ≤ j ≤ n + 1 (3.7)
⎪
⎩
k + n, j = n + 2
Furthermore, the resultant of normal and frictional forces at any contact point
must also lie within the friction cone to prevent the workpiece from slipping (Kang
2001; Kang et al. 2003). In view of Coulomb’s Friction Law shown in Fig. 3.9, it
follows
⎧
⎨ k, j = 1
⎪
(Fit ) + (Fib ) ≤ (μi Fin ) , 1 ≤ i ≤ k + j − 1, 2 ≤ j ≤ n + 1
2 2 2
(3.8)
⎪
⎩
k + n, j = n + 2
where μi is the friction coefficient between the workpiece and the i-th fixel.
3.1.3 Analysis Model
In the fixture design, stability analysis is concerned with the evaluation of the work-
piece static equilibrium and friction constraints under given fixturing conditions and
machining forces (Wang and Pelinescu 2003; Roy and Liao 2002). Thus, in clamping
sequence j + 1, the necessary and sufficient conditions for a workpiece to be stable
are obtained as
G j,pas F j,pas + G j,act F j,act + W j,ext = 0

s.t.
Fi n ≥ 0
(3.9)
(Fi t )2 + (Fi b )2 ≤ (μi Fi n )2
The workpiece stability without friction is a special case of the workpiece stability
with friction. In other words, if
ti = 0
(3.10)
bi = 0
Fi t = 0
(3.11)
Fi b = 0
By substituting Eqs. (3.10, 3.11) into Eq. (3.9), the workpiece stability model can
be simplified as
G j,pa F j,pa + G j,ac F j,ac + W j,ext = 0

s.t.
F j,pa ≥ 0, F j,ac ≥ 0 (3.12)
where G j,pa = [G1n , G2n , …, Gkn , …, G(k+j-2)n ], F j,pa = [F 1n , F 2n , …, F kn , …,

Wgrav , 1 ≤ j ≤ n + 1
F (k+j-2)n ]T , W j,ext = , and G j,ac = G(k+j-1)n , F j,ac =
Wgrav + Wmach , j = n + 2
F (k+j-1)n . Specially, if the clamp k + 1 in step j is a constant force element such as a
hydraulic element, then G j,pa = [G1n , G2n , …, Gkn ], F j,pa = [F 1n , F 2n , …, F kn ]T ,
Wgrav , 1 ≤ j ≤ n + 1
W j,ext = , G j,ac = [G(k+1)n , G(k+2)n , …, G(k+j-1)n ] and
Wgrav + Wmach , j = n + 2
F j,ac = [F (k+1)n , F (k+2)n , …, F (k+j-1)n ]T .
The stability analysis in fixture design is to evaluate and analyze the static equi-
librium of workpiece under certain fixturing and machining mode (Trappey and Liu
1992; Liu and Strong 2003). Therefore, if Eqs. (3.9) or (3.12) is satisfied, the work-
piece is said to be stable. In other words, this implies that at least a solution of
Eqs. (3.9) or (3.12) exists. From the mechanistic viewpoint, the workpiece stability
can be classified as locating, clamping and machining stability in detail. Such a
classification is as follows:
When j = 1, the workpiece is only affected by its own gravity. If Eqs. (3.9) or
(3.12) has solutions for j = 1, the workpiece is of locating stability.
When 2 ≤ j ≤ n + 1, the workpiece is affected by clamping force as well as
gravity. If Eqs. (3.9) or (3.12) has solutions for 2 ≤ j ≤ n + 1, the workpiece is of
clamping stability.
When j = n + 2, the workpiece is affected by both clamping force and machining

force as well as gravity. If Eqs. (3.9) or (3.12) has solutions for j = n + 2, the
workpiece is of machining stability.
3.2 Solution Techniques
In principle, as long as it is judged that there is a solution to the passive contact

force in the stability model, it can be shown that the workpiece is in a equilibrium
state without further solving the size of the passive contact force. In other words, the
analysis of workpiece stability can be transformed into the judgment of the solution
existence of the passive contact force (Kang et al. 2003; Hurtado and Melkote 2002;
Liang et al. 2019).
3.2.1 Linear Programming Techniques
A set of linear simultaneous equations with bj ≥ 0 (1 ≤ j ≤ s) is considered as follows

⎧
⎪
⎪ a x + a12 x2 + · · · + a1 j x j + · · · + a1r xr = b1
⎪ 11 1
⎪
⎪
⎪ a21 x1 + a22 x2 + · · · + a2 j x j + · · · + a2r xr = b2
⎪
⎨
······
⎪
⎪ a x 1 + ai2 x 2 + · · · + ai j x j + · · · + air xr = b j
⎪
⎪
i1
⎪
⎪ · ·····
⎪
⎩
as1 x1 + as2 x2 + · · · + as j x j + · · · + asr xr = bs
s.t.
x 1 , x 2 , · · · , xr ≥ 0 (3.13)
Mathematically, the solution existence of Eq. (3.13) can be examined equivalently

by solving the following linear programming problem
max w = c1 x1 + c2 x2 + · · · + c j x j + cr xr
s.t.
⎧
⎪
⎪ a x + a12 x2 + · · · + a1 j x j + · · · + a1r xr ≤ b1
⎪ 11 1
⎪
⎪
⎪ a x + a22 x2 + · · · + a2 j x j + · · · + a2r xr ≤ b2
⎪ 21 1
⎪
⎪
⎨ ······
ai1 x1 + ai2 x2 + · · · + ai j x j + · · · + air xr ≤ bi (3.14)
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ······
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ a s1 1 + as2 x 2 + · · · + as j x j + · · · + asr xr ≤ bs
x
⎪
⎩
x 1 , x 2 , · · · , xr ≥ 0
s
where c j = ai j (1 ≤ j ≤ r) is the sum of all elements in column j of coefficient
⎡
i=1 ⎤
a11 a12 · · · a1 j · · · a1r
⎢a a ··· a ··· a ⎥
⎢ 21 22 2j 2r ⎥
⎢ . . . . . . ⎥
⎢ . . . . . . ⎥
⎢ . . . . . . ⎥
matrix A = ⎢ ⎥.
⎢ ai1 ai2 · · · ai j · · · air ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ .. .. .. .. .. .. ⎥
⎣ . . . . . . ⎦
as1 as2 · · · as j · · · asr
It is important to note that equalities in Eq. (3.13) are all relaxed into inequalities
in Eq. (3.14). Theoretically, it proves that a solution satisfying Eq. (3.13) exists if
and only if

s
max(w) = bi (3.15)
i=1
where bi (1 ≤ i ≤ s) is the i-th element in the vector b = [b1 , b2 , …, bs ]T .
3.2.2 Solution to the Model of Form-Closure
If the positions and orientations of contact points on the workpiece are given in
addition to the external loads, the existence of the solution is determined for Eqs. (3.9)
or (3.12). This kind of workpiece stability belongs to form closure (Wu et al. 1997;
Asada and By 1985; Asada and Kitagawa 1989) which is called the force existence.
3.2.2.1 Form Closure Analysis Without Friction
Under the condition that the external loads such as gravity and cutting force are
known, the analysis model of force existence without friction can be obtained
according to Eq. (3.12), i.e.,
G j,pa F j,pa + G j,ac F j,ac = −W j,ext

s.t.
F j,pa ≥ 0, F j,ac ≥ 0 (3.16)
Because any element –W u (1 ≤ u ≤ 6) in –W j, ext can be positive or negative, it is

not in accordance with the constraint condition, –W u ≥ 0, of Eq. (3.13). If the sign
function of –W u is
3.2 Solution Techniques 95
1, −Wu ≥ 0
sgn( − Wu ) = ,1 ≤ u ≤ 6 (3.17)
−1, −Wu < 0
Then the matrix form of Eq. (3.17) can be described as
sgn( − W j,ext ) = [sgn( − W1 ), sgn( − W2 ), · · · , sgn( − W6 )]T (3.18)
Denote now a diagonal function of sgn (–W j,ext ) is

⎡ ⎤
sgn( − W1 ) 0 0 0 0 0
⎢ sgn( − W2 ) ⎥
⎢ 0 0 0 0 0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 0 0 sgn( − W3 ) 0 0 0 ⎥
diag(sgn( − W j,ext )) = ⎢ ⎥
⎢ 0 0 0 sgn( − W4 ) 0 0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎣ 0 0 0 0 sgn( − W5 ) 0 ⎦
0 0 0 0 0 sgn( − W6 )
(3.19)
If two members of Eq. (3.16) are simultaneously multiplied by diag(sgn( −

W j,ext )), then Eq. (3.16) can be transformed as
AX = Y
s.t.
X ≥0 (3.20)
where A = diag (sgn (–W j,ext )[Gj,pa , Gj,ac ], X = [F Tj,pa , F Tj,ac ]T and Y = [diag (sgn
(–W j,ext )] (–W j,ext ).
Now, a comparison between Eqs. (3.20) and (3.13) shows that both systems have
the same form. Therefore the following linear programming can be solved
max Q Nonf = C1 X 1 + C2 X 2 + · · · + Ck+ j−2 X k+ j−2

s.t.
⎧
⎪
⎪ A11 X 1 + A12 X 2 + · · · + A1(k+ j−2) X k+ j−2 ≤ Y1
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎨ A21 X 1 + A22 X 2 + · · · + A2(k+ j−2) X k+ j−2 ≤ Y2
······ (3.21)
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ A 61 X 1 + A62 X 2 + · · · + A6(k+ j−2) X k+ j−2 ≤ Y6
⎪
⎩ X 1 , X 2 , · · · , X k+ j−2 ≥ 0
where Y u (1 ≤ u ≤ 6) is the u-th element in vector Y, Auv (1 ≤ u ≤ 6, 1 ≤ v ≤ k + j-2)

6
is the element of the u-th row and the v-th column in matrix A, and Cv = Auv .
u=1
It turns out that Eq. (3.16) has solutions provided that the following criterion holds

6
max(Q Nonf ) = Yu (3.22)
u=1
Therefore, the contact forces supplied by clamps (i.e., clamping forces) have
solutions as well as the contact forces at the locators (i.e., supporting reaction forces).
It shows that the clamping forces can be applied on the workpiece at the given
clamping placements.
6
Here, max(QNonf ) and Yu are defined as the internal force measurement and
u=1
the external force measurement. Thus, if and only if the internal force measurement
is equal to the external force measurement, namely the existence index is I exist =
6
max(Q Nonf ) − Yu = 0, Eq. (3.16) has solutions.
u=1
3.2.2.2 Form Closure Analysis with Friction
By analogy, it is known from Eq. (3.9) that, if there exists friction between the
workpiece and the fixels, the analysis model of force existence can be described as
G j,pas F j,pas + G j,act F j,act = −W j,ext

s.t.
Fi n ≥ 0, (Fi b )2 + (Fi t )2 ≤ (μi Fi n )2 (3.23)
Obviously, Eq. (3.23) is quadratic in terms of contact forces, and both F ib and F it
may take positive or negative values, Eq. (3.23) cannot be solved directly by using
Eq. (3.14). To circumvent this difficulty, the quadratic inequality (F it )2 + (F ib )2 ≤
(μi F in )2 in Eq. (3.23) will be approximately linearized and tangential forces F ib and
F it will be substituted with non-negative variables.
As shown in Figs. (3.10 and 3.11), the friction cone is approximated by a polyhe-
dron whose approximation accuracy can be improved with the increase of the plane
number. Figure 3.11 is a projection of 4q (q is a natural number) sided polyhedral
cone, with α s being an inclination angle of the line perpendicular to side s. Thus
π π
αs = + (s − 1), 1 ≤ s ≤ 4q (3.24)
4 2q
with 0 ≤ αs ≤ 2π .
So, any plane of a 4q-sided polygon can be described by the equation
μi Fin − Fit cos αs − Fib sin αs = 0 (3.25)

Fig. 3.10 Friction cone linearized by inscribed polyhedron
Fig. 3.11 Friction cone linearized by circumscribed polyhedron
Consequently, the friction cone (F it )2 + (F ib )2 ≤ (μi F in )2 can be approximated

as
μi Fin − Fit cos αs − Fib sin αs ≥ 0 (3.26)
with 1 ≤ s ≤ 4q.
Equation (3.26) can be further described by matrix form as
H i Fi ≥ 0 (3.27)
with the i-th circumscribed polyhedron matrix being Fig. 3.10

⎡ ⎤
μi − cos α1 − sin α1
⎢ μi − cos α2 − sin α2 ⎥
Hi = ⎢
⎣···
⎥
⎦ (3.28)
··· ···
μi − cos α4q − sin α4q
Obviously, the more the tangent planes of the circumscribed polyhedron are,
the higher the approximation degree is. Thus, the relative error of the friction cone
linearized by a circumscribed polyhedron is

4q π
Er = tan −1 (3.29)
π 4q
If an inscribed regular polyhedron with 4q planes is used to approximate the

friction cone, the linear equation of the friction cone can be expressed as

π
μi Fin cos − Fit cos αs − Fib sin αs ≥ 0 (3.30)
4q
where 1 ≤ s ≤ 4q, and the i-th inscribed polyhedron matrix being

⎡ ⎤
π
μi cos − cos α1 − sin α1
⎢ 4q ⎥
⎢ π ⎥
⎢ μi cos 4q− cos α2 − sin α2 ⎥
Hi = ⎢ ⎥ (3.31)
⎢··· ⎥
⎣ ··· ··· ⎦
π
μi cos 4q − cos α4q − sin α4q
As done conventionally in linear programming, tangential force components of

F ib and F it will be represented as a difference between two non-negative variables
with
Fit = u1i − v1i

(3.32)
Fib = u2i − v2i
where u1i , u2i , v1i , v2i ≥ 0.

By substituting Eqs. (3.26, 3.30, 3.32) into Eq. (3.23), the workpiece stability
model with friction may be converted into the following equation

diag sgn −W j,ext G F = diag sgn −W j,ext −W j,ext
s.t.
F ≥ 0, h F ≥ 0 (3.33)
where

G = G1 , G2 , · · · , Gk+ j−1 (3.34)
is the extended layout matrix of passive elements,
G i = [G i n , G i t , −G i t , G i b , −G i b ], 1 ≤ i ≤ k + j − 1 (3.35)
is the layout matrix of the i-th fixel,

T T T
T
F = F 1 , F 2 , · · · , F k+ j−1 (3.36)
is the extended contact force vector in step j,
F i = [Fi n , u1i , v1i , u2i , v2i ]T (3.37)
is the extended contact force vector of the i-th fixel,

h = diag H 1 , H 2 , · · · , H k+ j−1 (3.38)
is the extended polyhedron matrix, and

⎧⎡ ⎤
⎪ μi − cos α1 cos α1 − sin α1 sin α1
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎢ μi − cos α2 cos α2 − sin α2 sin α2 ⎥
⎪
⎪ ⎢ ⎥, circumscribed polyhedron
⎪
⎪ ⎣··· ··· · · · · · · · · · ⎦
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎨ ⎡ μi − cos α4q cos α4q − sin α4q sin α4q ⎤
Hi = μ cos π
− cos α cos α − sin α sin α
⎪
⎪ ⎢
i
4q
1 1 1 1
⎥
⎪
⎪ ⎢ μ cos π − cos α cos α − sin α sin α ⎥
⎪
⎪ ⎢ 2 ⎥
⎪
⎪ ⎢
i 4q 2 2 2
⎥, inscribed polyhedron
⎪
⎪ ⎢ ··· ··· ··· ··· ··· ⎥
⎪
⎪ ⎣ ⎦
⎪
⎩ π
μi cos 4q − cos α4q cos α4q − sin α4q sin α4q
(3.39)
is the extended polyhedron matrix of the i-th polyhedron.

Let a = diag(sgn(−W j,ext ))G, y = diag(sgn(−W j,ext ))(−W j,ext ) and x = F,
the standard form of Eq. (3.33) can be obtained as
ax = y
s.t.
x ≥ 0, hx ≥ 0 (3.40)
Therefore, the force existence with friction can be verified by solving the following
linear programming problem with the same criterion.
max Q Frict = C TFrict x

s.t.
⎧
⎨ ax ≤ y
⎪
x≥0 (3.41)
⎪
⎩
hx ≥ 0
6
where C Fric = [C1 , C2 , · · · , C5(k+ j−1) ]T with C m = alm , alm is the l-th row and
l=1
the m-column element in matrix a.
Thus, if and only if the the internal force measurement max(QFrict ) is equal to the
6
external force measurement yu , namely the existence index is I exist = 0, Eq. (3.23)
u=1
has solutions.
3.2.3 Solution to the Model of Force-Closure
If the positions and orientations of contact points on the workpiece are given in
addition to the external loads and bounds of active clamping forces, the existence of
the solution is determined for Eqs. (3.9) or (3.12). This kind of workpiece stability
belongs to force closure which is called the force feasibility.
3.2.3.1 Force Closure Analysis Without Friction
If the friction between the workpiece and the fixels is ignored, the force closure
model can be deduced by Eqs. (3.12, 3.20), i.e.,
BX = Z
s.t. (3.42)
X ≥0
where B = diag(sgn(-W j,ext -Gj,ac Fj,ac )Gj,pa , Z = diag(sgn(-W j,ext -Gj,ac Fj,ac )(-W j,ext -
Gj,ac Fj,ac ) and X = Fj,pa .
If Fj,pa in Eq. (3.42) has solutions, the workpiece can resist the external load W j,ext
to be in equilibrium under the action of clamping force Fj,ac .
Thus, Eqs. (3.43, 3.44) can be used to analyze the feasibility of clamping forces
in Eq. (3.42)
max qNonf = DTNonf X

s.t.
BX ≤ Z
(3.43)
X ≥0
6
where the j-th element, D j = Bi j , in vector DNonf is the sum of all elements in
i=1
column j of matrix B.
6
Here, define Ifeas = max(qNonf ) − Z i as the fesibility index. And then, if
i=1
and only if the internal force measurement max(qNonf ) is same as the external force
6
measurement Z i , namely, the feasibility index is
i=1
Ifeas = 0 (3.44)
Equation (3.42) has solutions.
3.2.3.2 Force Closure Analysis with Friction
In connection with Eqs. (3.33 ~ 3.40, 3.9) can be used to obtain the force closure
model with friction as
bx = z
s.t.
x ≥ 0, hx ≥ 0 (3.45)
where b = diag(sgn(-W j,ext -Gj,act Fj,act )Gj,pas , z = diag(sgn(-W j,ext -Gj,act Fj,act )(-W j,ext -
Gj,act Fj,act ) and x = Fj,pas .
Likewise, the internal force measurement can be calculated by the following
equation
max qFric = d TFric x

s.t.
bx ≤ z
(3.46)
z≥0
6
where the j-th element, d j = bi j , in vector d Fric is the sum of all elements in
i=1
column j of matrix b.
Therefore, if and only if max(qFric ) is equal to the external force measurement
6
z i , Eq. (3.45) has solutions. That is, the feasibility index is I feas = 0, Eq. (3.45) has
i=1
solutions. At this time, the workpiece is in a stable state which shows the clamping
force Fj,act is feasible.
3.3 Numerical Examples
In this section, several examples are utilized to illustrate the proposed method.
Different loading conditions are considered. Example 1 is used to judge the exis-
tence of clamping forces. Example 2 and 3 aim at investigating the effects of the
clamping force and clamping sequence upon the stability over the entire machining
time, respectively.
3.3.1 Analysis of Force Existence
In order to explain the application of the stability analysis model of workpiece simply
and clearly, it is assumed that the friction between fixture and workpiece is ignored.
As shown in Fig. 3.12, a fixture configuration is designed for a 2D workpiece of
80 mm × 50 mm. Four locators L 1 , L 2 , L 3 , L 4 and one clamp C 5 are set up to restrain
the workpiece. The weight of the workpiece is 50 N. The clamping force supplied for
Fig. 3.12 Fixturing layout with four locators and one clamp
3.3 Numerical Examples 103
the workpiece by clamp C 5 is 60 N to 6000 N. Coordinates of five fixture elements

and their normal unit vectors are given in Table 3.2.
Above all, Based on Eq. (3.12), the problem about workpiece stability is stated in
a standard form
⎧
⎨ F4n − F5n = 0
F + F2n + F3n = 50
⎩ 1n
70F1n + 30F2n + 10F3n − 40F4n + 10F5n = 2000
s.t.
F1n , F2n , F3n , F4n , F5n ≥ 0
(3.47)
60 ≤ F5n ≤ 6000
And then, the stability model of workpiece can be converted the following linear
programming problem in light of Eq. (3.20), i.e.,
min w1 = −w = −(71F1n + 31F2n + 11F3n − 39F4n + 9F5n )

s.t.
⎧
⎪
⎪ F4n − F5n ≤ 0
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎨ F1n + F2n + F3n ≤ 50
70F1n + 30F2n + 10F3n − 40F4n + 10F5n ≤ 2000 (3.48)
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ −F 1n , −F2n , −F3n , −F4n , −F5n ≤ 0
⎪
⎩ 60 ≤ F ≤ 6000
5n
The function linprog in MATLAB toolbox can be used to solve Eq. (3.48). Anal-
ysis results of the workpiece stability are shown in Table 3.3. Because the existence
index I exist is not 0 but -7.5, the workpiece is unstable. In other words, the clamping
force F 5n has no solution in the range from 60 to 6000.
Table 3.2 Coordinates and unit normal vectors of fixels

Fixel L1 L2 L3 L4 C5
Coordinate [70,0]T [30,0]T [10,0]T [0,40]T [80,10]T
Unit normal vector [0,1]T [0,1]T [0,1]T [1,0]T [–1,0]T
Table 3.3 Stability analysis

Contact force/N Internal force External force Existence index
L1 L2 L3 L4 C5 measurement measurement
50 0 0 52.5 60 2042.5 2050 – 7.5

3.3.2 Analysis of Force Feasibility Without Friction
In order to hold the workpiece, the designed fixture is shown in Fig. 3.13, in which
L 1 , L 2 , L 3 , L 4 are four locators whereas C 1 , C 2 are two clamps supplied clamping
forces F 5n , F 6n for the workpiece. The workpiece has a weight of 50 N.
The workpiece is subject to an external machining force Fmach of [–150 N,–
100 N]T in the position rmach = [0.5 mm, 1 mm]T . The gravity center of the workpiece
is located at rgrav = [–.5 mm, –0.5 mm]T . The positions and the corresponding unit
normal vectors of each fixels are listed as Table 3.4.
In this case, two different clamping sequences shown in Table 3.5 are investi-
gated here. The function linprog of MATLAB toolbox is used to solve the linear
programming problem (3.43). Stability analysis results are shown in Tables 3.6 and
3.7.
Effects of the clamping sequence on workpiece stability are shown in this example.
As shown in Figs. 3.14 and 3.15, in clamping sequence A, the workpiece is said to
be strongly stable in step 2 and step 3 as equality I feas = 0 is valid all the time for
arbitrary positive values of F 6n and F 5n .
However, the workpiece is said to be weakly stable in step 2 of clamping sequence
B provided that F 5n varies within the closed interval [0,75]. Otherwise, the workpiece
Fig. 3.13 Fixturing layout with four locators and two clamps
Table 3.4 Position and unit normal vector of each fixel

Fixel L1 L2 L3 L4 C5 C6
Coordinate [–3.5,0]T [–3,–2]T [–1,–2]T [0,–2]T [0.5,–1]T [–1.5,1]T
Unit normal vector [1,0]T [0,1]T [0,1]T [0,1]T [–1,0]T [0,–1]T
Table 3.5 Clamping sequence schemes

Clamping Clamping sequence A Clamping sequence B
step
1
L1 L1
Fgrav Fgrav
L2 L3 L4 L2 L3 L4
2 F6n
L1
Fgrav F5n
C5
C6
L1
L2 L2 L1
Fgrav
L2 L2 L1
3 C6 F6n
L1
C6
L1
Fgrav C5 F5n
Fgrav C5
L2 L2 L1
L2 L2 L1
4 Fmach Fmach
C6 C6
L1 L1
Fgrav C5 Fgrav C5
L2 L2 L1 L2 L2 L1
becomes unstable when F 5n varies within the open interval (75, + ∞). Similarly, the
workpiece is found to be strongly stable in step 3 of clamping sequence B no matter
how F 6n varies within the interval [0, + ∞).
Table 3.6 Analysis of workpiece stability in clamping sequence A

Workpiece Locating stability Clamping stability Machining
stability stability
Clamping step 1 2 3 4
External force [0, –50, 75]T [0, –50, 75]T [0, –50, 75]T [–150, –150,
wrench –100]T
External force 125 125 125 400
measurement
Internal force 125 125 125 400
measurement
Result analysis Stable Strongly stable Strongly stable Stable
Table 3.7 Analysis of workpiece stability in clamping sequence B

Workpiece Locating stability Clamping stability Machining
stability stability
Clamping step 1 2 3 4
External force [0, –50, 75]T [0, –50, 75]T [0, –50, 75]T [–150, –150,
wrench –100]T
External force 125 125 125 400
measurement
Internal force 125 125 125 400
measurement
Result analysis Stable Weakly stable Strongly stable Stable
400 200
Internal force measurement 180
Objective function/N
350
External force measurement Internal force measurement

160 External force measurement
300
140
250
120
200
100
150 80
100 60
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Clamping force/N Clamping force/N
(a) Clamping step 2 (b) Clamping step 3
Fig. 3.14 Stability of clamping sequence A
3.3.3 Analysis of Force Feasibility with Friction
A workpiece is shown in Fig. 3.16, which consists of a base block of 120 mm ×

80 mm × 50 mm and a semi-ellipsoid top. In accordance with the “3–2-1” principle,
six spherical locating pins are placed together with one clamp. Their coordinates,
200 400
180 Internal force measurement

Internal force measurement 350
External force measurement External force measurement
160 300
140
250
120
200
100
80 150
60 100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Clamping force/N Clamping force/N
(a) Clamping step 2 (b) Clamping step 3
Fig. 3.15 Stability of clamping sequence B
Fig. 3.16 The workpiece in

a milling process
normal and tangential unit vectors are listed in Table 3.8. The workpiece has a weight
of 50 N and considered as the external force in stability analysis. The static friction
coefficient between the workpiece and the fixture elements is assumed to be 0.3. The
normal clamping force F 7n is prescribed to be 200 N.
A keyway milling operation with a feed-rate of 5 mm/s will be performed on
the workpiece to produce a through keyway. The instantaneous milling forces (f tx ,
f ty , f tz ) and a couple mtz defined in the local tool frame x t yt zt are imposed on the
workpiece with f tx = 25sin(π t/4) N, f ty = 30 N, f tz = –20 N, and mtz = 800 Nmm,
in which the cutting force component f tx is supposed to be time-varying.
Suppose the friction cone is approximated by a 4-sided circumscribed polyhedron
with q = 1. Now, locating stability, clamping stability and machining stability will be
all studied in detail. We utilize linprog of the MATLAB toolbox to solve the linear
programming problem (3.46). Results of the first two ones are shown in Table 3.9.
Table 3.8 Coordinates and orientations of fixels

Fixel Cooedinate Unit normal vector Unit tangential Unit tangential vector
ni vector t i bi
1 (–30, 50, –50) (0, 0, 1) (1, 0, 0) (0, 1, 0)
2 (30, 50, –50) (0, 0, 1) (1, 0, 0) (0, 1, 0)
3 (–30, –50, –50) (0, 0, 1) (1, 0, 0) (0, 1, 0)
4 (40, 50, –20) (–1, 0, 0) (0, 1, 0) (0, 0, –1)
5 (40, –50, –20) (–1, 0, 0) (0, 1, 0) (0, 0, –1)
6 (0, –60, –20) (0, 1, 0) (1, 0, 0) (0, 0, –1)
√ √ √
7 (−20, 30, 15 2) ( , − 15 , − ( √4 , − (− √2 , − , −
5 2 5 5
√
√5 70 √ √ 7 3 7
15 )
4 10
√6 , 3 2
√ ) √2 )
70 70 3 7
Table 3.9 Analysis of

Workpiece Locating stability Clamping stability
locating and clamping
stability
stability
External force [0, 0, –50, 0, 0, 0]T [0, 0, –50, 0, 0, 0]T
wrench
External force 50 50
measurement
Internal force 50 50
measurement
Result analysis Stable Stable
Finally, machining stability is discussed. Because the machining force is a time-

varying load, a set of linear programming problems is solved at different time
increments. Corresponding results are listed in Table 3.10.
It turns out that the workpiece is of stability during the entire machining process.
Therefore, the placement and magnitude of clamping force F 7n are reasonably
chosen.
Table 3.10 Analysis of machining stability

Machining time/s External force External force Internal force Result analysis
wrench measurement measurement
0 [0, 30, –70, 1200, 2100 2100 Stable
0, 800]T
2 [25, 30, –70, 3092.1 3092.1 Stable
502.5, 414.6,
2050]T
4 [0, 30, –70, 129.2, 1029.2 1029.2 Stable
0, 800]T
6 [–25, 30, –70, 1003.9 1003.9 Stable
–179.4, –649.5,
50]T
8 [0, 30, –70, 1348.5 1348.5 Stable
–448.5, 0, 800]T
10 [25, 30, –70, 2601.9 2601.9 Stable
–687.4, 739.5,
1050]T
12 [0, 30, –70, –900, 1800 1800 Stable
0, 800]T
14 [–25, 30, –70, 3001.9 3001.9 Stable
–1087.4, –739.5,
1050]T
16 [0, 30, –70, 2148.5 2148.5 Stable
–1248.5, 0, 800]T
18 [25, 30, –70, 2203.9 2203.9 Stable
–1379.4, 649.5,
50]T
20 [0, 30, –70, 2370.8 2370.8 Stable
–1470.8, 0, 800]T
22 [–25, 30, –70, 4087.1 4087.1 Stable
–1497.5, –414.6,
2050]T
24 [0, 30, –70, –1200, 2100 2100 Stable
0, 800]T
References
Asada H, By AB. Kinematic analysis of workpiece fixturing for flexible assembly with automatically
reconfigurable fixtures [J]. IEEE J Robot Automat. 1985; RA-1(2):86–94.
Asada H, Kitagawa M. Kinematic analysis and planning for form closure grasps by robotic hands
[J]. Robot Comp Integ Manuf. 1989;5(4):293–9.
Chou YC, Chandru V, Barash MM. A mathematical approach to automatic configuration of
machining fixtures: analysis and synthesis [J]. Trans ASME J Eng Ind. 1989;111(11):299–306.
Hurtado JF, Melkote SN. Modeling and analysis of the effect of fixture-workpiece conformability
on static stability. ASME J Manuf Sci Eng. 2002;124:234–41.
Jiang A, Fan QL, Zheng C, Yu KG, Jin S. Stability evaluation of fixture locating layout and research
in locator-searching algorithm [J]. J Shanghai Jiaotong Univ. 2010;44(4):484–8 (in Chinese).
Kang YZ. Computer aided fixture design verification [D]. Ph.D. Thesis, Worcester Polytechnic
Institute, 2001.
Kang YZ, Rong YM, Yang JC. Computer-aided fixture design verification. Part 3. Stability analysis
[J]. Int J Adv Manuf Technol. 2003;21:842–9.
Liang ZP, Zhao CJ, Zhou HW, Zhou YH. Investigation on fixture design and precision stability
of new-type double collect for machining of long ladder shaft gear [J]. J Mech Sci Technol.
2019;33(1):323–32.
Liao JM, Roy U. Fixturing analysis for stability consideration in an automated fixture design [J].
ASME J Manuf Sci Eng. 2002;124(1):98–104.
Liu JJX, Strong DR. Machining fixture verification for nonlinear fixture systems [J]. Int J Adv
Manuf Technol. 2003;21:426–37.
Qin GH, Zhang WH. Modeling and analysis of workpiece stability based on the linear programming
method [J]. Int J Adv Manuf Technol. 2007;32(1–2):78–91.
Qin GH, Zhang WH, Wan M. Modeling and application of workpiece stability based on the linear
programming method [J]. J Mechan Eng. 2005;41(9):33–37+41. (in Chinese).
Qin GH, Wang XY, Wu TJ, Ao ZQ, Xiao J. Prediction of workpiece-fixture contact forces based
on multiple clamping [J]. Comput Integr Manuf Syst. 2008;14(7):1421–6 (in Chinese).
Roy U, Liao J. Fixturing analysis for stability consideration in an automated fixture design system
[J]. Trans ASME J Manuf Sci Eng. 2002;124:98–104.
Trappey AJC, Liu CR. An automatic workholding verification system [J]. Robot Comput-Integ
Manuf . 1992;9(4–5):321–6.
Wang MY, Pelinescu DM. Contact force prediction and force closure analysis of a fixtured rigid
workpiece with friction [J]. Trans ASME J Manuf Sci Eng. 2003;125:325–32.
Wu NH, Chan KC, Leong SS. Static interactions of surface contacts in a fixture-workpiece system
[J]. Int J Comput Appl Technol. 1997;10:133–51.
Yan HC, Ahmad S. Kinematic analysis of fixturing systems for robot aided assembly [C]. In: IEEE
International Conference on Systems Engineering, 1990, 9–11, pp 499–502.
Chapter 4
Analysis of Clamping Reasonability
Because the workpiece is affected by machining force, inertia force, gravity and
other external forces in the machining process, some clamps are used to exert
clamping forces to press the workpiece against locators. However, insufficient
clamping forces cannot prevent the workpiece from slipping or detaching from loca-
tors whereas excessive clamping forces may cause strongly the workpiece defor-
mations and overall workpiece motions. Therefore, besides gravity and machining
forces, clamping forces have a significant impact on the machining quality.
From a mathematical point of view, the essence of clamping layout scheme is a
mapping from clamping source error to clamping deformation, as shown in Fig. 4.1.
In order to solve the contradiction between the clamping reliability and the clamping
deformation, a clamping reasonability model must be established to describe the
relationship among the magnitude of clamping force, the placement of clamping
force and the clamping error.
4.1 Local Deformation
Mathematically, gravity, machining forces, clamping forces and corresponding

moments may be described by a resultant wrench vector W e , as shown in Fig. 4.2a.
Under their solicitations, three kinds of deformations will occur, i.e.
The first is the fixel (including the locator and the clamp) deformation, as shown
in Fig. 4.2b.
The second is the contact deformation at the local region between the workpiece
and the fixels, as shown in Fig. 4.2c.
And the final is the workpiece deformation as illustrated in Fig. 4.2d.
However, only the contact deformations at the locators and the locator deforma-
tions can lead to the workpiece position error, whereas the contact deformations at the
clamps and the clamp deformations have no direct impact on the workpiece position
error.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-33-4493-8_4
112 4 Analysis of Clamping Reasonability
Fig. 4.1 Mapping of clamping. source to objective error
We
Yw
Yw Xw
Xw
w ηi Zw
Z ni Y
fin fiη
Y X
X fiτ τ i Z
Z
(a) Before deformation (b) Fixel deforamtion
Yw
Yw
Xw Xw
Zw Zw
Y
Y
X
X
Z
Z
(c) Contact deformation (d) Workpiece deformation
Fig. 4.2 Source errors due to workpiece-fixture compliance
As can be seen from Fig. 4.2, the position variation of the workpiece coordinate
system X w Y w Z w relative to the global coordinate system XYZ, which is caused by the
local deformation consisting of the locator deformations and contact deformations,
is a factor of clamping error (Qin et al. 2007). Moreover, the workpiece deformation
is another factor of clamping error.
4.1 Local Deformation 113
4.1.1 Contact Deformation
When two elastic bodies contact with each other, a point on the boundary of the
elastic half plane will generate additional displacement, in addition to the general
elastic displacement caused by the internal deformation of the body. This kind of
displacement is caused by the local deformation of the surface determined by the
surface structure of the elastic body, which is called contact deformation (Gui et al.
1996; Li and Melkote 2001).
In dealing with the contact problem of general smooth elastic body, Hertz applies
the Bushenisk theory of infinite elastic half space to the finite elastic body according
to the fact that the contact area is very small compared with the macroscopic size of
the elastic body (Johnson 1985). Thus, the contact problem is successfully solved.
Figure 4.3 shows the point contact between the sphere and the sphere, in which
the workpiece is spherical at the i-th contact point as well as the fixel. Denote E wi
and E fi as the Young’s moduli of the workpiece and fixture, respectively, at the i-th
contact point. ν wi and ν fi are Possion’s ratios. Gwi and Gfi are the shear moduli of
two contact bodies. Rwi and Rfi are the radii of workpiece and the i-th fixel at the i-th
contact point, respectively. When the spherical surface is in contact with the spherical
surface, the contact surface of the two objects is a circular region with a radius of r i .
13
3Ri∗ 1
ri = ( f in ) 3 (4.1)
4E i∗
where f in is the normal contact force at the i-th contact point,
1 1 1
= + (4.2)
Ri∗ Rwi Rfi
Fig. 4.3 Point contact ni

between sphere and sphere Workpiece
ηi
Rwi
τi
Rfi
Fixel i
is the equivalent radius, and
1 1 − vwi2
1 − vfi2
= + (4.3)
E i∗ E wi E fi
is the equivalent contact Young’s modulus.

According to Hertz theory and its extension in the field of contact, the contact
stiffness at the i-th contact point in the normal direction ni , tangent directions τ i and
ηi are respectively
⎧ 1
⎪
⎪ ∗ ∗2 3
⎪
⎪ 16R E 1
⎪
⎪ kci n = i i
( fi n ) 3
⎪
⎪ 1 − v 2
⎪
⎪ wi
⎨ ∗ 13
3Ri (4.4)
kciτ = 8G i∗
1
⎪ ( fi n ) 3
⎪
⎪ 4E i∗
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ∗ 13
⎪
⎪ 3Ri
⎪
⎩ kciη = 8G i∗
1
( fi n ) 3
∗
4E i
where
1 2 − νwi 2 − νfi
= + (4.5)
G i∗ G wi G fi
is the equivalent contact shear modulus.

In Eq. (4.4), if Rwi or Rfi tends tends to infinity, the contact stiffness of point
contact model between plane and sphere can be obtained.
Under the condition that the fixel and the workpiece are plane at the i-th contact
point, if the workpiece surface is much larger than the surface of the fixel, the contact
between them is approximately regarded as a point contact. Thus, the contact area
between the workpiece and the fixel is a circle with a radius of afi , as shown in
Fig. 4.4. Therefore, the contact stiffness between the fixel i and the workpiece is
Fig. 4.4 Point contact

between plane and plane Workpiece
ni ηi
τi
afi
Fixel i
⎧
⎪
⎪ kci n =
2E wi
⎪
⎪ afi
⎪
⎪ 1 − vwi2
⎪
⎨
8G wi
k = afi (4.6)
⎪ ciτ
⎪ π(2 − vwi )
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ 8G wi
⎪
⎩ kciη = afi
π(2 − vwi )
where afi is the radius of the planar-tipped fixel (Li and Melkote 2001).
Figure 4.5 is that the contact between the workpiece and the i-th fixel is the contact

between the curved surface and the curved surface at the i-th contact point. Rwi , Rwi
and R f i , R f i are the principal radii of the workpiece and the i-th fixel at the i-th
contact point, respectively. Then the equivalent radius reads
Ri∗ = Rai Rbi (4.7)
where
1
Rai = (4.8)
(Ai + Bi ) − (Bi − Ai )
1
Rbi = (4.9)
(Ai + Bi ) + (Bi − Ai )

1 1 1 1 1
Ai + Bi = + + + (4.10)
2 Rwi Rwi Rfi R f i
Fig. 4.5 Point contact between curved surface and curved surface
Bi − Ai
⎡ ⎤ 21
2
1⎣ 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1
= − + − +2 − − cos 2θi ⎦
2 Rwi Rwi R f i Rfi Rwi
Rwi R f i Rfi

θi is the angle between main surfaces containing Rwi and R f i or Rwi

and R f i
(4.11)
An elliptical contact area forms when the workpiece is in contact with the i-th
fixel, as shown in Fig. 4.5. So major and minor radii of contact ellipse can be written
as
⎧ 1 13
⎪
⎪ Rai 3 3Ri∗
⎪
⎨ ai = αi R
⎪
4E i∗
fi n
bi
1 13 (4.12)
⎪
⎪ Rbi 3 3Ri∗
⎪
⎪
⎩ bi = αi fi n
Rai 4E i∗
Thus, the contact stiffness in the contact coorinate system τ i ηi ni at the i-th contact
point can be achieved as
⎧ 13
⎪
⎪ 16E i∗2 Ri∗ 1
⎪
⎪ kci n = fi n
⎪
⎪ 9 βi
⎪
⎨
1
⎪ kciτ = 8ai G i∗ (4.13)
⎪
⎪ γi
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎩ kciη = 8ai G i∗ 1
λi
where αi , βi , γi , λi are the correction factors whose expressions are as follows

0.0602 1.456
Rai
αi ≈ 1 − −1 (4.14)
Rbi
0.0684 1.531
Rai
βi ≈ 1 − −1 (4.15)
Rbi

ai
γi ≈ 1+ 1.4 − 0.8vi∗ log (4.16)
bi

ai
λi ≈ 1+ 1.4 + 0.8vi∗ log (4.17)
bi
with the equivalent Poisson’s ratio νi∗ which can be formulized as
1 1 1
= + (4.18)
vi∗ 2vwi 2vfi
In workpiece fixturing, the contact type between curved surface and curved surface
is mainly the point contact between the workpiece with curved surface and the
fixel with spherical or planar surface. Their contact stiffness can be easily derived
according to the equations from Eq. (4.7) to Eq. (4.18).
4.1.2 Fixel Deformation
As shown in Fig. 4.6, K fin , K fiτ and K fiη are assumed to be the shiftiness of the fixel
in three directions. According to unit force method, the finite element method can
be used to calculate the fixel stiffness.
In the global coordinate system XYZ, it is assumed that the fixel is affected by
unit force Fi = [F i X , F iY , F i Z ]T in X, Y and Z directions respectively at the contact
point, then
⎧
⎨ Fi X = 1
⎪
F iY = 1 (4.19)
⎪
⎩
Fi Z = 1
The fixel deformations at all notepoints, which are in the global coordinate system
XYZ, can directly be obtained by the finite element software, and denote Ufi as the
maximum notepoint deformation.
Fig. 4.6 Model of fixel FiY

ηi FiZ
ni
τi
FiX
X
Z
By transforming the fixel deformation Ufi in XYZ to the fixel deformation ufi in
τ i ηi ni , the following equation can be obtained
U fi = T (i )ufi (4.20)
with
⎡ ⎤
n i x τi x ηi x
T (i ) = ni , τ i , ηi = ⎣ n i y τi y ηi y ⎦ (4.21)
n i z τi z ηi z
Because Fi = [F i X , F iY , F i Z ]T is the unit force in XYZ, it must be transformed

to f i = [ f in , f iτ , f iη ]T in ni τ i ηi , i.e.,
F i = T (i ) f i (4.22)
In the global coordinate system XYZ, the relationship between the contact force
and deformation of the i-th fixel is
F i = K fi U fi (4.23)
⎡ ⎤
K fin
where Kfi = ⎣ K fiτ ⎦.
K fiη
By substituting Eqs. (4.20, 4.22) into Eq. (4.23), the following relationship can
be achieved
T (i ) f i = K fi T (i )ufi (4.24)
By putting Eq. (4.24) in order, the stiffness of the i-th fixel in the contact coordinate
system ni τ i ηi can be obtained as
kfi = T (i )T K fi T (i ) (4.25)

⎡ ⎤
kfin
with kfi = ⎣ kfiτ ⎦.
kfiη
Specially, the planar-tipped fixels may be modeled as cantilevered beam elements
with a cylindrical cross-section of radius r fi and length L fi (Gou 2000). Thus, the
stiffness of the i-th fixel in ni τ i ηi is written as
⎧
⎪ π E fi rfi2
⎪
⎪ k =
⎪
⎪
fi n
L fi
⎪
⎪
⎨ 3π G fi rfi2
kfiτ = (4.26)
⎪
⎪ 4L fi
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ G fi rfi2
⎪
⎩
3π
kfiη =
4L fi
4.1.3 Local Deformation
At the i-th contact point, the contact stiffness in the contact area of the workpiece and
the locator can modeled as a linear spring in the ni , τ i and ηi direction, in addition
to the locator stiffness, as shown in Fig. 4.7.
According to Hooke’s law, the relationship between the contact force and the
locator deformation at the i-th contact point is
⎧ fi n
⎪
⎪ δei n =
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
kfi n
⎨ f iτ
δeiτ = (4.27)
⎪
⎪ kfiτ
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ f
⎩ δeiη = iη
kfiη
Again, the relationship between contact force and contact deformation at i-th
contact point is as follows
ni
ni
workpiece kcin
fin
kfin
kfiτ
fiη fiτ kciτ
ηi kfiη τi
τi kciη
Locator i ηi
(a) Contact between workpiece and locator (b) Equivalent spring model
Fig. 4.7 Spring modeling of local stiffness

⎧ fi n
⎪
⎪ δci n =
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
kci n
⎨ f iτ
δciτ = (4.28)
⎪
⎪ k
⎪
⎪
ciτ
⎪
⎪ f iη
⎩ δciη =
kciη
Considering the contact deformation and locator deformation presented above,

we can write the overall local deformation terms in each direction at the i-th contact
point as follows
δei + δci = ki−1 f i , i = 1, 2, . . . , m (4.29)
where f i = [f in , f iτ , f iη ]T is the contact force at the i-th contact point, δei = [δein ,
δeiτ , δeiη ]T , δci = [δcin , δciτ , δciη ]T are respectively the locator deformation and the
contact deformation.
⎡ ⎤
ki n 0 0
ki = ⎣ 0 kiτ 0 ⎦, i = 1, 2, . . . , m (4.30)
0 0 kiη
is the local stiffness at the i-th contact point with

⎧ 1 1 1
⎪
⎪ = +
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
ki n kci n kfi n
⎨ 1 1 1
= + (4.31)
⎪
⎪ k k k
⎪
⎪
iτ ciτ fiτ
⎪
⎪ 1 1 1
⎩ = +
kiη kciη kfiη
4.2 Workpiece Position Error
When the workpiece is clamped, the contact area between the workpiece and the
locator will produce local deformation including the contact deformation and the
locator deformation under the action of clamping force. Thus, the workpiece position
will vary with the local deformation. This is so-called the workpiece position error.
4.2 Workpiece Position Error 121
4.2.1 Static Equilibrium Equation
Suppose that there are m locators and n clamps in the workpiece-fixture system. The
workpiece is subjected the machining force wrench W mach , gravity wrench W grav
and the clamping forces. Contacts between the workpiece and fixels are considered
as frictional contacts.
Assumed that ni is the unit normal vector at the position ri = [x i , yi , zi ]T in
which the workpiece is contact with the i-th fixel. Moreover, denote τ i and ηi to be
two orthogonal unit tangential vectors of the workpiece at ri . As shown in Fig. 4.8,
f i = f in + f iτ + f iη is the contact force at the i-th contact point in the global
coordinate system XYZ. f in , f iτ and f iη are respectively the three components of f i
along ni , τ i and ηi . Therefore, f in , f iτ and f iη can be expressed as
⎧
⎨ f i n = f i n ni
⎪
f iτ = f iτ τ i (4.32)
⎪
⎩
f iη = f iη ηi
According to the forced status of the workpiece, its static equilibrium equation
can easily be obtained as
m

m+n
fi f jn
+ + Wm + Wg = 0 (4.33)
ri × f i r j × f jn
i=1 j=m+1
Fig. 4.8 Static equilibrium We

of the workpiece
Workpiece
ni
fin kiτ
fiη
ηi
kiη
fiτ kin
τi
ri
Y
{GCS}
X Fixel i
Z
In order to express Eq. (4.33) concisely and clearly, it can be rewritten using the
matrix form as
G 1 f 1 = − G cn f cn − W e (4.34)
where

n1 τ1 η 1 · · · nm τm ηm
G1= (4.35)
r 1 × n1 r 1 × τ 1 r 1 × η 1 · · · r m × nm r m × τ m r m × η m

nm+1 ··· nm+n
G cn = (4.36)
r m+1 × nm+1 · · · r m+1 × nm+n
T
f cn = f (m+1)n , f (m+2)n , · · · , f (m+n)n (4.37)
W e =W g + W m (4.38)
4.2.2 Friction Cone
In order to prevent the workpiece from detaching from the i-th fixel in the fixturing
process, the contact force between the workpiece and the i-th fixel must be in
compression such that
f in ≥ 0 (4.39)
On the other hand, based on Coulomb’s Friction Law, the contact force at the i-th
fixel must be in the friction cone, i.e.,

f iτ2 + f i2n
≤ μi (4.40)
fi n
or
⎡ ⎤T ⎡ 2 ⎤⎡ ⎤
fi n μi fi n
⎣ f iτ ⎦ ⎣ −1 ⎦⎣ f iτ ⎦ ≥ 0 (4.41)
f iη −1 f iη
where μi is the friction coefficient between the workpiece and the i-th fixel.
4.2.3 Relationship Between Local Deformation and Contact

Force
It is known from Eq. (4.31) that f i = [f in , f iτ , f iη ]T is the i-th contact force. Again,
according to Eq. (4.28), the relationship between the local deformations and the
contact forces can be obtained as
f l = kl (δel + δcl ) (4.42)
where
T
f l = f 1T , f 2T , · · · , f mT (4.43)
is the contact force vector at locators,
kl = diag(k1 , k2 , · · · , km ) (4.44)
is the stiffness matrix of locators, and

T
δel + δcl = (δe1 + δc1 )T , (δe2 + δc2 )T , · · · , (δem + δcm )T (4.45)
is the local deformation vector of locators.
4.2.4 Relationship Between Workpiece Position Error

and Local Deformation
As shown in Fig. 4.9, the position of the i-th contact point between the workpiece
and the i-th locator can be represented equivalently by the following two equations

ri rw , w , riw = rw + T(w )riw (4.46)
and

ri rfi , fi , rif = rfi + T(fi )rif (4.47)
where rw , w and rfi , fi are respectively the position and orientation of the work-
piece and the i-th locator with respect to XYZ. riw = [xiw , yiw , z iw ]T is the position
vector of the i-th contact point in X w Y w Z w . rif is the position vector of the i-th
contact point in X fi Y fi Z fi . T(w ) is the orthogonal coordinate transformation matrix
of X w Y w Z w to XYZ. T(fi ) is the orthogonal coordinate transformation matrix of
X fi Y fi Z fi to XYZ.
Fig. 4.9 The fixturing

scheme of the workpiece
Workpiece
with m locators
Yw
Xw ηi
ni
Zw τi
ri w f
rw ri
Yfi
ri Xfi
Y
rfi Zfi
X
Z
Fixel i
Since the workpiece and the i-th locator are always in contact at the i-th contact
point, the following relationship can easily be achieved

ri rw , w , riw = ri rfi , fi , rif (4.48)
As shown in Fig. 4.10, the local deformation δd i = δei + δci at the i-th contact
point can cause the contact point on the locator to deviate from its ideal position for
the position error δrif (Xiong et al. 2005). It can also cause the contact point on the
workpiece to deviate from its ideal position for the position error δriw . By respectively
Yw
Workpiece
w
X
Zw ni ηi
rwi
δei δrif
rw
δdi τi
Y rif
δci ri Yfi δriw
X
Z Xfi
Zfi
Locator i
Fig. 4.10 Local deformation of the workpiece-fixture system

Fig. 4.11 Clamping error
Yw P
Xw
Zw
rPw Y rP
X
Z
differentiating Eq. (4.46) and Eq. (4.47) to obtain

δri rw , w , rwi = δrw + δT(w ) rwi + T(w ) δriw (4.49)

δri rfi , fi , rfi = T(fi ) δrfi (4.50)
where δrw and δw are the deviation of the position rw and orientation w of the
workpiece, respectively.
During the practical fixturing process, in order to ensure that the workpiece can
be keep in touch with the fixel, the following condition must be hold

δri rw , w , rwi = δri rfi , fi , rfi (4.51)
In combination with Eqs. (4.49, 4.50), the workpiece position error can be deduced
from the local deformation as
Uiw δqw = δdi , i = 1, · · · , m (4.52)
where δqw = [δrwT , δTw ]T is the workpiece position error resulting from the
workpiece-fixture deformation.
Uiw = [I3×3 , −T(w )Riw ] (4.53)
⎡ ⎤
0 −z iw cαw cβw + yiw sαw yiw cαw + z iw sαw cβw
Riw = ⎣ z iw cαw cβw − yiw sαw 0 −xiw + z iw sβw ⎦
−yi cαw − z i sαw cβw
w w
xi − z i sβw
w w
0
(4.54)
δdi = T(fi ) rif − T(w ) δriw

= T(i )[δdin , δdiτ , δdiη ] T
= T(i )[δcin + δein , δciτ + δeiτ , δciη + δeiη ]T
= T(i )(δci + δei ) (4.55)
Without loss of generality, X w Y w Z w and XYZ can be always assumed to have the
identical orientation, then αw = βw = γw = 0. Thus, the workpiece position error
δqw can be further described as
Eiw δqw = δdi , i = 1, · · · , m (4.56)
where
⎡⎡ ⎤
1 0 0 0 z iw −yiw
⎢ ⎣ 0 1 0 −z w 0 x w ⎦, 3D workpiece
⎢
⎢ i i
Ei = ⎢ 0 0 1 yiw −xiw 0
w
(4.57)
⎢
⎣ 1 0 yiw
, 2D workpiece
0 1 −xiw
In order to clearly understand Eq. (4.56), the workpiece position error can be
described by matrix form, i.e.,
Elw δqw = δdl (4.58)
where
Elw = [(E1w )T , (E2w )T , · · · (Em ) ]

w T T
(4.59)
By substituting Eqs. (4.55, 4.42) into Eq. (4.58), the following equation can finally
be concluded
+
δq w = E lw T (l )(kl )−1 f l (4.60)
where (Elw )+ is the Moore–Penrose inverse of matrix Elw , and
T(l ) = diag(T(1 ), T(2 ), · · · , T(m )) (4.61)

4.2.5 Solution Method
It is known from Eq. (4.60) that, the contact force f l is the decisive factor of the
workpiece position error δqw . Therefore, contact forces f l must be determined firstly.
To this end, we can apply the principle of the total complementary energy stating
that for all statically admissible forces satisfying equilibrium, the actual state of
forces (the one corresponding to kinematically compatible displacements) leads to
an extreme value for the total complementary energy ∗ (Pilkey and Wunderlich
1994). The latter has the form of
Π ∗ = U ∗ −W ∗ (4.62)
For a workpiece-fixture model described in Eq. (4.60), as the workpiece is assumed

to be rigid and contacts between the workpiece and the fixture elements are considered
as frictional point-wise contacts with friction coefficient μi , the complementary strain
energy is only concerned with deformable fixels
1 T −1
U∗ = f k fl (4.63)
2 l l
In our case, as the prescribed displacement vector δl is zero, the related potential
W * is also zero with
W ∗ = f lT δl = 0 (4.64)
Consequently, the contact force f l can be obtained by finding the extreme value
of the following problem
Find fl
min 21 flT kl−1 fl
s.t. (4.65)

G l fl = −G cn f cn − We
flT μl fl ≥ 0
where the first set of constraints is the static equilibrium condition of the workpiece,
the second set of constraints is the friction cone condition, and

μl = diag μ1 , μ2 , · · · , μm (4.66)
⎡ ⎤
μi2
μi = ⎣ −1 ⎦ (4.67)
−1
4.3 Workpiece Deformation
In fact, the workpiece is an elastic deformable body (Lee and Haynes 1987; Menassa
and DeVries 1991; Raghu and Melkote 2005). Generally, the contact force and the
workpiece deformation can be calculated by the finite element method. Oppositely
to Eq. (4.65), we will solve the mathematical programming problem defined by the
complementary strain energy of the workpiece
Find fw
min 21 fwT kw−1 fw
s.t. (4.68)

Gl fl = −Gcn fcn − We
flT μl fl ≥ 0
where kw is the workpiece stiffness matrix. f w is the external load vector including
the gravity f g , the machining force f m and the clamping force f cn .
Equation (4.68) can be used to solve the contact force fl by commercial finite
element software. When contact forces are computed at all locators according to
Eq. (4.68), the workpiece deformation can be simultaneously derived by Hooke
theorem as
Uw = kw−1 fw (4.69)
where U w = [U w1 , …, U wr ]T = [u1 , v1 , w1 , …, ur , vr , wr ]T is the node deformation

of the workpiece.
4.4 Modeling of Clamping Reasonability
The clamping reasonability is used to measure the machining error resulting from
the clamping deformation of the workpiece. If the clamping error can satisfy the
specified machining accuracy of the workpiece, the design of the clamping layout is
acceptable.
As shown in 4.11, it is assumed that the coordinate of process point P on the
workpiece in the workpiece coordinate system X w Y w Z w is rPw = [xPw , yPw , z Pw ]T .
Again, X w Y w Z w is assumed to be coincident with XYZ, then the clamping error δrP
of process point P is obtained as
δrp = E pw δqw + δrpw (4.70)

4.4 Modeling of Clamping Reasonability 129
where δrPw is the workpiece deformation at process point P whose magnitude is

approximately equal to the node deformation UwN = [u N , v N , w N ]T (1 ≤ N ≤ r )
closest to the point P, and
⎡ ⎤
1 0 0 0 z Pw −yPw
EPw = ⎣ 0 1 0 −z Pw 0 xPw ⎦ (4.71)
0 0 1 yPw −xPw 0
4.5 Application and Analysis
In this section, two numerical tests are used to illustrate the proposed method in
checking step by step the validity and performing the analysis of the machining error.
The first example will show the effects of deformations of the workpiece-fixture
system upon the workpiece machining error. The second one is used to show the
whole procedure of computing the clamping error resulting from local deformations
of the high-stiffness workpiece.
4.5.1 Analysis of the Clamping Error Due to the Weak

Stiffness Workpiece
A workpiece-fixture system model consisting of two clamps and two locators is

shown in Fig. 4.12. A through slot will be milled along the centerline of the workpiece.
Here, the machining error to be evaluated refers to the asymmetry of the slot with
respect to the beam neutral axis C D defining the processing datum line. Suppose that
the workpiece and fixture elements are deformable. Locators can be simplified as
spring with stiffness K and cantilever beam with the flexural stiffness EI, respectively.
The workpiece is a hinged beam with the flexural stiffness EI. Studies are focused
on the machining error due to the workpiece-fixture compliance. Firstly, a singular
function f (x) is defined as follows

0, x < a
f (x) = x − an = (4.72)
(x − a)n , x ≥ a, n ≥ 0
and this function must obey the integration rule as

x − an+1
x − an d x = + c, n ≥ 0 (c is an arbitrary number) (4.73)
n+1
Y F=qL
q
Locator 2 Workpiece
nB
nC
tB X
A C D
B
tC
Locator 1
L L L
Fig. 4.12 A workpiece-fixture system
Suppose that all coordinate systems are identical. As the workpiece is in contact
with locators at points C and B whose coordinates respectively are [L, 0]T and [2L,
0]T , contact forces can firstly be determined as
T
1 5
f = [(fC ) , (f B ) ] = 0, − q L , 0, q L
T T T
(4.74)
2 2
In this case, if contact deformations are ignored, locator deformations caused by

contact forces are then obtained by using Eq. (4.26)
T
q L4 5q L
δel = [δeC , δe B ]T = 0, , 0, − (4.75)
6E I 2K
In addition, the workpiece deformation can be directly evaluated at any arbitrary

point, x, on the processing datum line C D.
δrpw ≈ Uw = [Uwx , Uwy ]T = [0, Uwy ]T (4.76)
where Uwy = − 8E1 I q L 4 + 8E1 I q L 3 x − 12E

1
I
q Lx − L3 + 12E
5
I
q Lx − 2L3 −
1
24E I
qx − L4 + 24E
1
I
qx − 2L4 .
By observing Fig. 4.12, we can obtain the location matrix of locators
⎡ ⎤
1 0 0
⎢ 0 1 −L ⎥
Elw = ⎢
⎣1
⎥ (4.77)
0 0 ⎦
0 1 −2L
Therefore, from Eq. (4.60), it concludes that the workpiece position error is
T
1 5 1 5
δqw = 0, q L4 + qL, q L3 + q (4.78)
3E I 2K 6E I 2K
Furthermore, from Eq. (4.70), the workpiece machining error can be finally solved
as
δr p = [δx, δy]T = [0, δy]T (4.79)
where

7L 3
δy = 1
q L 3 (x − L) − 5
+ q(x − L) − 1
q Lx − L3
4E I 2K 24E I 12E I (x ≥ L)
+ 12E
5
I
q Lx − 2L3 − 1
24E I
qx − L4 + 1
24E I
qx − 2L4 + 6E1 I q L 4
(4.80)
The magnitude changes

from point C to point D and attains the maximum value
2
at point x = 3L − 23L 12
+ 5E
KL
I
.
From the classical theory of the mechanics of materials (Gou 2000), the deflection
function vy (x) of the beam can be obtained as
3
v y (x) = 4E1 I q L 2 x 2 − 12E1
q L x 3 − ( 2K
5
+ 24E
7L
)qx − L1 +
I I , (x ≥ 0) (4.81)
5
12E I
q Lx − 2L − 24E I qx − L + 24E I qx − 2L4
3 1 4 1
The comparison of Eq. (4.80) with Eq. (4.81) shows that the predicted value
obtained by using Eq. (4.70) is exactly the same as the theoretical calculation value
at any point of the workpiece.
4.5.2 Evaluation of the Clamping Error of High Stiffness

Workpiece
As shown in Fig. 4.13, suppose that the workpiece is a solid block with outer dimen-
sions of 220 mm (±12 µm) × 122 mm (±10 µm) × 112 mm (±9 µm). The fixture
consists of 2 clamps and 6 locators that are placed following “3–2–1” locating
scheme. The coordinates of these fixels, their normal and tangential unit vectors
are defined in Table 4.1.
Fig. 4.13 Scheme of 3–2–1 25 0.006

fixture setup Milling tool A
B
L4
C
Z C7
L5
L2
L3 C6 X
Y
L1 L0
Table 4.1 Positions and orientations of fixture elements

Fixels Types Coordinates Orientation
X i (mm) Y i (mm) Z i (mm) ni τi ηi
L0 Planar 110 10 0 (0, 0, 1) (1, 0, 0) (0, 1, 0)
L1 Planar 10 110 0 (0, 0, 1) (1, 0, 0) (0, 1, 0)
L2 Planar 210 110 0 (0, 0, 1) (1, 0, 0) (0, 1, 0)
L3 Planar 0 60 60 (1, 0, 0) (0, 1, 0) (0, 1, 0)
L4 Planar 210 122 60 (0, −1, 0) (0, 0, 1) (−1, 0, 0)
L5 Planar 10 122 60 (0, −1, 0) (0, 0, 1) (−1, 0, 0)
C6 Planar 110 0 60 (0, 1, 0) (0, 0, 1) (1, 0, 0)
C7 Planar 220 60 60 (−1, 0, 0) (0, 1, 0) (0, 0, −1)
The workpiece weighs 59.73 N and is made of aluminum with Young’s modulus
E w = 70 GPa and Poisson’s ratio ν w = 0.334. Planar-tipped locators and clamps with
a tip radius of 9 mm are made of hardened steel with E f = 207 GPa and ν f = 0.292.
Clamping forces of 640 N and 670 N are applied simultaneously by clamp C 6 and
clamp C 7 . The static friction coefficient is assumed to be 0.25 between the workpiece
and fixture elements. A slot milling operation will be performed on the workpiece to
produce a through slot with a cutting speed of 100 mm/min. The milling force and
torque are estimated to be (-131 N, 232 N, -55 N) and (0, 0, 2.77 Nm), respectively.
In this test, the machining error results from local deformations (i.e., clamping
error) while the workpiece deformations are neglected. The machining errors δrP (P
= A, B and C) of the workpiece will be measured by the displacements at processing
datum points A (220,122,112), B (110,122,112), and C (0,122,112).
By solving Eq. (4.65), we can evaluate contact forces numerically as shown in
Fig. 4.14. Then the workpiece position error δqw is determined by using Eq. (4.60)
and the clamping error δr P is computed at points A, B and C by means of Eq. (4.70).
In order to understand the variation, error results are listed in Table 4.2 and plotted
Fig. 4.14 Prediction results L0 L1 L2

of contact forces L3 L4 L5
700
600
500
Contact force /N
400
300
200
100
0
0 22 44 66 88 110 132
Machining time /s
Table 4.2 Clamping error

Time (s) Machining error due to deformation (10−3 mm)
δrA δrB δrC
0 −0.1427, 0.2960, − −0.1427, 0.2588, −0.0634 −0.1427, 0.2216, −0.1037
0.0231
22 −0.1417, 0.2819, − −0.1417, 0.2561, −0.0627 −0.1417, 0.2304, −0.1064
0.0189
44 −0.1407, 0.2678, − −0.1407, 0.2535, −0.0621 −0.1407, 0.2391, −0.1093
0.0149
66 −0.1397, 0.2538, − −0.1397, 0.2508, −0.0614 −0.1397, 0.2477, −0.1121
0.0108
88 −0.1388, 0.2398, − −0.1388, 0.2481, −0.0608 −0.1388, 0.2563, −0.1149
0.0066
110 −0.1381, 0.2256, − −0.1381, 0.2452, −0.0597 −0.1381, 0.2647, −0.1178
0.0017
132 −0.1373, 0.2114, 0.0032 −0.1373, 0.2423, −0.0587 −0.1373, 0.2732, −0.1207
in Fig. 4.15 versus time. Obviously, the maximum machining error caused by the
system compliance occurs at point A.
Due to the fact that contact forces are dominant factors influencing the workpiece
machining error, it is significant to verify experimentally contact forces between
the workpiece and fixels. According to Tao’s literature (Tao et al. 1997), modular
fixtures were assembled using 6 locators and 2 camps with piezoelectric sensor, as
shown in Fig. 4.16. Piezoelectric force sensors can measure the reaction forces on
the fixtures during clamping and machining. Signals from the force sensors were
amplified by charge amplifiers and recorded by PC. Figure 4.17 is measured results
of contact forces obtained by Tao’s experiment. Based on observation of Fig. 4.17,
Tao concluded that curve 0 is very close to zero, curves 1 and 2 are quite low in values,
curve 3 is almost constant with very small variation, curve 4 constantly decreases
Fig. 4.15 Prediction results -0.13
Clamping error in direction X/μm

of the workpiece position
error A B C
-0.135
-0.14
-0.145
-0.15
0 22 44 66 88 110 132
Machining time /s
(a) Machining error in direction X due to deformation
0.32
Clamping error in direction Y/μm
A B C
0.3
0.28
0.26
0.24
0.22
0.2
0 22 44 66 88 110 132
Machining time /s
(b) Machining error in direction Y due to deformation
0.02 A B C
Clamping error in direction Z/μm
0
-0.02
-0.04
-0.06
-0.08
-0.1
-0.12
-0.14
0 22 44 66 88 110 132
Machining time /s
(c) Machining error in direction Z due to deformation

Clamps
Y
Locators
Workpiece Baseplate
X
Fig. 4.16 Experimental instrument
Fig. 4.17 Measured contact 800

forces obtained in Tao’s
700
experiment
600
Contact force /N
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Machining time /s
whereas curve 5 steadily increases, and they intersect with each other at the vicinity
of the gravity center of the workpiece.
In addition, according to the friction capacity ration, it is necessary to propose
the following contact force model and the corresponding finite element method to
predict the contact forces (Tan et al. 2004). Finite element analysis results are showed
in Fig. 4.18.
Find fl = [f1T , f2T , ... , fmT ]T

m
fi ×ni
Maximize μ fTn i i i
i=1
(4.82)
s.t.

Gl flc = −We − Gcn fcn
flT μl fl ≥ 0
Compared with the simulation results and the experimental ones, the maximum
relative error of the prediction values can be respectively estimated about 10 and
15% except for contact forces at fixel L 1 when the rigid workpiece is in contact with
Fig. 4.18 Finite element L0 L1 L2

results for Tan’s model L3 L4 L5
700
600
Contact force (N)

500
400
300
200
100
0
0 17 50 66 83 116 132
Machining time /s
flexible fixels. The prediction results by the proposed model are quite agreeable with
the FEM model prediction, the measured data and Tao’s conclusion (Tao et al. 1997).
Therefore the predicted accuracy of the local deformations should be 85%.
References
Chetaev NG. Theoretical mechanics [M]. Moscow, 1989.

Choudhuri SA, DeMeter EC. Tolerance analysis of machining fixture locators [J]. Trans ASME J
Manuf Sci Eng. 1999;121:272–81.
Chou YC, Chandru V, Barash MM. A mathematical approach to automatic configuration of
machining fixtures: analysis and synthesis [J]. Trans ASME J Eng Ind. 1989;111(11):299–306.
DeMeter EC, Xie W, Choudhuri S, Vallapuzha S, Trethewey MW. A model to predict minimum
required clamp pre-loads in light of fixture-workpiece compliance [J]. Int J Mach Tools Manuf.
2001;41:1031–54.
Gou WX. Mechanics of materials [M]. Northwestern Polytechnical University Press, 2000. (in
Chinese).
Gui XW, Fuh JYH, Nee AYC. Modeling of frictional elastic fixture-workpiece system for improving
location accuracy [J]. IIE Trans. 1996;28:821–7.
Hong M, Payandeh S, Gruver WA. Modeling and analysis of flexible fixturing systems for agile
manufacturing [J]. In: IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 1996,
Vol. 2, pp. 1231–1236.
Johnson KL. Contact mechanics [M]. Cambridge University Press, 1985.
Kang YZ. Computer Aided Fixture Design Verification [D]. Ph.D. Thesis, Worcester Polytechnic
Institute, 2001.
Kashyap S, DeVries WR. Finite element analysis and optimization in fixture design [J]. Struc Optim.
1999;18:193–201.
Lee JD, Haynes LS. Finite element analysis of flexible fixturing system [J]. Trans ASME J Manuf
Sci Eng. 1987;109(134):9.
Li B, Melkote SN. Fixture clamping force optimization and its impact on workpiece location
accuracy [J]. Int J Adv Manuf Technol. 2001;17(104):13.
Menassa RJ, DeVries WR. Opimization methods applied to selecting support positions in fixture
design [J]. Trans ASME J Eng Ind. 1991;113:412–8.
References 137
Pilkey WD, Wunderlich W. Mechanics of structures: variational and computational methods [M].
CRC Press, 1994.
Qin GH, Zhang WH, Wu ZX, Wan M. Systematic modeling of workpiece-fixture geometric default
and compliance for the prediction of workpiece machining error [J]. Trans ASME J Manuf Sci
Eng. 2007;129(4):789–801.
Raghu A, Ferreira PM. Analysis of the influence of fixture locator errors on the compliance of
work part features to geometric tolerance specifications [J]. Trans ASME J Manuf Sci Eng.
2003;125:609–6161.
Raghu A, Melkote SN. Modeling of workpiece location error due to fixture geometric error and
fixture-workpiece compliance [J]. Trans ASME J Manuf Sci Eng. 2005;127:75–83.
Rong Y, Bai Y. Machining accuracy analysis for computer aided fixture design [J]. J Manuf Sci
Eng. 1996;118:289–300.
Rong Y, Hu W, Kang Y, Yen DW. Locating error analysis and tolerance assignment for computer-
aided fixture design [J]. Int J Prod Res. 2001;39(15):3529–45.
Tan EYT, Kumar AS, Fuh JYH, Nee AYC. Modeling, analysis, and verification of optimal fixturing
design [J]. IEEE Trans Autom Sci Eng. 2004;1:121–32.
Tao ZJ, Kumar AS, Nee AYC, Mannan MA. Modeling and experimental investigation of a sensor-
integrated workpiece-fixture system [J]. Int J Comput Appl Technol. 1997;10:236–50.
Trappey AJC, Liu CR. An automatic workholding verification system [J]. Robot Comput Integ
Manuf. 1992;9(4.5):321–6.
Wang MY. Tolerance analysis for fixture layout design [J]. Assem Autom. 2002;22:153–62.
Xiong CH, Wang MY, Tang Y, Xiong YL. On prediction of passive contact forces of workpiece-
fixture systems [J]. Proc Ins Mechan Eng Part B-J Eng Manuf. 2005;219(B3):309–24.
Xiong CH, Ding H, Xiong YL. Fundamentals of Robotic Grasping and Fixturing [M]. World
Scientific, 2007.
Chapter 5
Analysis of Workpiece
Attachment/Detachment
The attachment and detachment can reflect the possibility of placing a workpiece in
the fixturing layout or displacing a workpiece from the fixturing layout (Asada and
By 1985). The objective of attachment and detachment analysis is to help the correct
selection of fixturing surfaces and fixturing points on workpiece (Xiong 1991, 1994).
According to the practical contact/assembly of workpiece with the fixturing layout,
hence, Taylor theorem is used to formulate the attachment and detachment model.
After equalizing the possibility of of placing a workpiece in the fixture layout or
displacing a workpiece from the fixture layout to the solution existence of the attach-
ment and detachment model, a mathematics trick is created to express an arbitrary
number in the attachment and detachment model as a difference of two non-negative
numbers. Only by doing so can the analysis of the solution existence of the attach-
ment and detachment model be identified as a linear programming problem and in
turn, a judgement method is proposed for the workpiece attachment and detach-
ment. Specially under the condition that the attachment and detachment model has
solutions, the direction of attachment/detachment of workpiece to/from the fixturing
layout is further considered. By equivalently transforming the directionality of attach-
ment and detachment into the general solution of the attachment and detachment
model, the pivot algorithm is suggested for solving a set of homogeneous linear
inequalities.
5.1 Attachment and Detachment Model
Figure 5.1 is the fixturing layout scheme with m locators and n clamps. Its main
purpose is to provide clamping forces by clamps to resist the destructive effect of
cutting force/cutting torque on the reasonable position of the workpiece relative to
the cutting tool obtained by locators.
The global coordinate system {XYZ} in Fig. 5.1 is the fixed coordinate system
fastened on the machine tool whereas the workpiece coordinate system {xyz} is the

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-33-4493-8_5
140 5 Analysis of Workpiece Attachment/Detachment
Fig. 5.1 The fixturing layout

with m locators and n clamps
m+1
y
m+j
z m
ri
x
m+n
i
R0 1
Y Ri
X
Z
moving coordinate system fixed on the workpiece. Suppose that the workpiece is
a rigid body, and its surface is piecewise differentiable. Thus, the equation of the
workpiece surface with respect to {xyz} can be expressed as
g() = 0 (5.1)
where Ξ = [x, y, z]T is the coordinate of any point on the workpiece relative to {xyz}.
Here, if the point Ξ is outside the workpiece, there is g(Ξ ) > 0; if it is inside the
workpiece, there is g(Ξ ) < 0. Again, denote R0 = [X 0 , Y 0 , Z 0 ]T as the position of
the origin of {xyz} in {XYZ}. Θ 0 = [α 0 , β 0 , γ 0 ]T as the orientation of {xyz} relative
to {XYZ} in which α 0 , β 0 and γ 0 are three independent angles. Thus, the coordinate
transformation of Ξ = [x, y, z]T into R = [X, Y, Z]T can be expressed as
R = T (Θ 0 )Ξ + R0 (5.2)
where T(Θ 0 ) is the orthogonal coordinate transformation matrix with

⎡ ⎤
cβ0 cγ0 −cα0 sγ0 + sα0 sβ0 cγ0 sα0 sγ0 + cα0 sβ0 cγ0
T (Θ 0 ) = ⎣ cβ0 sγ0 cα0 cγ0 + sα0 sβ0 sγ0 −sα0 cγ0 + cα0 sβ0 sγ0 ⎦ (5.3)
−sβ0 sα0 cβ0 cα0 cβ0
c is the cosine function cos, and s is the sine function sin (Hirai and Asada 1993; Qin
et al. 2017).
5.1 Attachment and Detachment Model 141
If T(Θ 0 )T is denoted to be the transpose matrix of T(Θ 0 ), the following equation

can be achieved according to Eq. (5.2), i.e.,
Ξ = T (Θ 0 )T (R − R0 ) (5.4)
By substituting the above equation into Eq. (5.1), the surface equation of the
workpiece in {XYZ} can be described as

g T (Θ 0 )T (R − R0 ) = 0 (5.5)
If Ri = [X i , Y i , Z i ]T means the position of the i-th locator, then the contact of the
i-th locator and the the workpiece can mathematically result in

g(Ri ) = g T (Θ 0 )T (Ri − R0 ) = 0 (5.6)
In principle, a new vector q = [X 0 , Y 0 , Z 0 , α 0 , β 0 , γ 0 ]T of {xyz} relative to {XYZ}

can be obtained by combining the position vector R0 of {xyz} relative to {XYZ} with
the direction vector Θ 0 . Thus, Eq. (5.6) can further be rewritten as
g(q, Ri ) = g(Ri ) = 0 (5.7)
In order to describe Eq. (5.7) clearly, gi (q) is denoted as g(q, Ri ) to obtain

gi (q) = g T (Θ 0 )T (Ri − R0 ) = 0 (5.8)
It is known from Eq. (5.8), three position relationships between the i-th locator
and the workpiece (that is, outside the workpiece, on the workpiece, and inside the
workpiece) respectively corresponds to
⎧
⎨ gi (q) > 0
g (q) = 0 (5.9)
⎩ i
gi (q) < 0
Denote q* = [X * , Y * , Z * , α * , β * , γ * ]T to be the theoretical position of the work-

piece. When the workpiece is in the theoretical position, m locators can always keep
touch with it. So there is gi (q* ) = 0 for 1 ≤ i ≤ m. Again, let q = [δ 1 , δ 2 , δ 3 , δ 4 ,
δ 5 , δ 6 ]T to be an infinitesimal offset of the practical position q of the workpiece from
the theoretical position q* , the Taylor principle is relied on to expand Eq. (5.9) as
gi (q) = gi (q ∗ ) + ai q (5.10)
T
∂gi ∂gi ∂gi ∂gi ∂gi ∂gi
where ai = , , , , ,
∂ X 0 ∂Y0 ∂ Z 0 ∂α0 ∂β0 ∂γ0
is the gradient vector by differentiating
gi (q) to q.
Because the external normal vector of the workpiece at the i-th locator is
T
ni = ∂g∂ir(q)
i
= ∂g∂ix(q)
0
, ∂g∂iy(q)
0
, ∂g∂zi (q)
0
, there exists the following equation under
the condition of the identical orientation of {xyz} with {XYZ}, namely

ni
ai = (5.11)
r i × ni
with 1 ≤ i ≤ m.
In order to clearly understand Eq. (5.10), it can be further described in matrix
form as follows
g(q) = g(q ∗ ) + Jq (5.12)
where J is the locating Jacobian matrix with

J = aT1 , . . . , aiT , . . . , aTm (5.13)
By combining Eq. (5.9) with Eq. (5.12), the position relationship between the
workpiece and the locators should practically be
Jq ≥ 0 (5.14)
It is noteworthy that if and only if
Jq = 0 (5.15)
is hold, the locators are in contact with the workpiece. Otherwise, some locators
are separated from the workpiece. In other words, if the Eq. (5.14) has a solution
but does not satisfy Eq. (5.15), that is, δ 1 , δ 2 , δ 3 , δ 4 , δ 5 , δ 6 in q are not all 0, the
workpiece has the attachment and detachment (Liu and Xiong 2003; Xiong et al.
2007).
5.2 Judgment Method of the Attachment and Detachment
As above stated, whether the workpiece has the attachment and detachment, it is
necessary to judge whether Eq. (5.14) has a solution which is not a solution of
Eq. (5.15). In fact, if ζ i (1 ≤ i ≤ m) is denoted as the infinitesimal non-negative
number, Eq. (5.14) is equivalent to the following equation
Jq − ζ = 0 (5.16)
5.2 Judgment Method of the Attachment and Detachment 143
with ζ = [ζ 1 , …, ζ i , …, ζ m ]T .
Because δ i (1 ≤ i ≤ 6) is an arbitrary number, it can be expressed by a difference
between two non-negative numbers, i.e.,
δi = u i − vi (5.17)
where ui ≥ 0 and vi ≥ 0.
Let a = [J, –J, –I m×m ] and x = [uT , vT , ζ T ] T with u = [u1 , u2 , u3 , u4 , u5 , u6 ]T
and v = [v1 , v2 , v3 , v4 , v5 , v6 ]T . Thus, Eq. (5.16) can further be described as
ax = 0
s.t.
x≥0 (5.18)
where I m×m is the m-by-m identity matrix.

Accordingly, the solution existence of Eq. (5.16) can be examined equivalently
by solving the following linear programming problem
max λ = b1 x1 + b2 x2 + ... + br xr
s.t.
⎧
⎪
⎪ a11 x1 + a12 x2 + ... + a1r xr ≤ 0
⎪
⎪ a x + a x + ... + a x ≤ 0
⎪
⎨ 21 1 22 2 2r r
... ... (5.19)
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ am1 x1 + am2 x2 + ... + amr xr ≤ 0
⎪
⎩ x1 , x2 , ... , xr ≥ 0
where r = 12 + m, x i (1 ≤ i ≤ r) is the i-th element in vector x, aij (1 ≤ i ≤ m, 1 ≤ j

r
≤ r) is the element of the i-th row and the j-th column in matrix a, and b j = ai j .
i=1
Here, max(λ) is defined as the position measurement. Therefore, if and only if the
position measurement is the same as the position index, namely
max(λ) = 0 (5.20)
Equation (5.18) has a solution. Consequently, Eq. (5.14) has also a solution.
However, it is necessary to further exclude the solutions which belong to Eq. (5.15)
from solutions of Eq. (5.14). Therefore, in (ui -vi ) or -(ui -vi ) for 1 ≤ i ≤ 6, at least
one of them is not 0. In other words, in the following twelve equations, at least one
of them has a solution, i.e.,
ax = 0
s.t.
x≥0
(u i − vi ) − σi = ηi (5.21)
or
ax = 0
s.t.
x≥0
− (u i − vi ) − σi = ηi (5.22)
where σ i (1 ≤ i ≤ 6) is an arbitrary non-negative number, ηi (1 ≤ i ≤ 6) is a given

infinitesimal positive number.
In order to clearly express Eqs. (5.21, 5.22), they can further be described as
ak x k = bk
s.t.
xk ≥ 0 (5.23)

J − J −I m×m 01×mT
where ak = , xk = [uT , vT , ζ T , σ k ]T , ok =
ok −ok 01×m −1
⎧⎡ ⎤
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ⎣0, ... , 0, 1, 0, ... , 0⎦, 1 ≤ k ≤ 6
⎪
⎪
⎨ T
⎡ k−1 ⎤ 01×m
6−k
and bk = .
⎪
⎪ ηk
⎪
⎪ ⎣0, ... , 0, −1, 0, ... , 0⎦, 7 ≤ k ≤ 12
⎪
⎪
⎩
k−7 12−k
By analogy, the solution existence of Eq. (5.23) can be examined equivalently by
solving the linear programming problem of Eq. (5.24)
max τk = ek,1 xk,1 + ek,2 xk,2 + ... + ek,w xk,w

s.t.
⎧
⎪
⎪ ak,11 xk,1 + ak,12 xk,2 + . . . + ak,1w xk,w ≤ φk,1
⎪
⎪a x + a x + ... + a
⎪
⎨ k,21 k,2 k,22 k,2 k,2w x k,w ≤ φk,2
...... (5.24)
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ak,t1 xk,1 + ak,t2 xk,2 + . . . + ak,tw xk,w ≤ φk,t
⎪
⎩ xk,1 , xk,2 , . . . , xk,w ≥ 0
5.2 Judgment Method of the Attachment and Detachment 145
where w = m + 13, t = m + 1, x k,i (1 ≤ i ≤ w) is the i-th element in vector xk , ϕ k,i

(1 ≤ i ≤ t) is the i-th element in vector bk , ek,ij (1 ≤ i ≤ t, 1 ≤ j ≤ w) is the element

t
of the i-th row and the j-th column in matrix ak , and ek, j = ak,i j .
i=1
Thus, if and only if the position measurement max(τ k ) is equal to the position
index, that is

t
max(τk ) = φk,i (5.25)
i=1
Equation (5.23) has a solution (Qin and Zhang 2007; Qin et al. 2005).
If Eq. (5.25) is hold for one arbitrary value k from 1 to 12, Eq. (5.23) has a
solution. It shows that the workpiece can be mounted into the fixturing layout scheme
or dismounted from fixturing layout scheme.
5.3 Analysis Algorithm of the Attachment and Detachment

Direction
If the workpiece has the attachment or the detachment, along which direction can
the workpiece be mounted into the fixturing layout scheme or dismounted from the
fixturing layout scheme? This problem involves the solution of Eq. (5.14). In fact,
let A = − J T , Eq. (5.14) can be further rewritten as
AT q ≤ 0 (5.26)
where A = [a1 , a2 , …, ai , …, am ] is the gradient vector matrix, and the gradient

vector ai is the i-th (1 ≤ i ≤ m) column vector in matrix A.
Suppose that the general expression of the solution of Eq. (5.26) is as follows
q = Vρ + W π (5.27)
where ρ is an arbitrary real number vector. π is an arbitrary non-negative real number

vector. V and W are the base vector matrix of solution (Castillo et al. 1999, 2002).
Obviously, the key to obtain the general solution of q is to solve the basis vector
matrix V and W. By combining the gradient vectors, a1 , a2 , …, am , in a non-negative
linear way, a polyhedral convex cone Aπ can be generated to be Aπ = {x | x = π 1 a1
+ π 2 a2 + … + π m am ; π i ≥ 0; 1 ≤ i ≤ m}. By analogy, the gradient vectors, a1 , a2 ,
…, am , can be linearly combined to generate a linear space Aρ = {y | y = ρ 1 a1 +
ρ 2 a2 + … + ρ k ak ; 1 ≤ i ≤ k}. Here, the column vector ai (1 ≤ i ≤ m) is called the
generator of the convex cone Aπ and the linear space Aρ . So the coefficient matrix
A is also called the generator matrix of the base vector matrix (Castillo et al. 1999;
Castillo and Jubete 2006).
The non-positive dual cone of the convex cone Aπ is APπ = { u | AT u ≤ 0} = {
u | aiT u ≤ 0; 1 ≤ i ≤ m}. Moreover, for the convex cone Aπ , the generator matrix A
can be classified into B and C, i.e.,
B m = {bi |bi ∈ Aπ , and − bi ∈ Aπ } (5.28)

C = c j |c j ∈ Aπ , but − c j ∈
/ Aπ (5.29)
Thus, the general expression of the polyhedral convex cone Aπ consists of a linear
space B and a polyhedral convex cone C, i.e., Aπ = B + C. Therefore, (B + C)p is
the non-positive dual cone of the cone (B + C), and
APπ = {u|biT u = 0, cTj u ≤ 0} (5.30)
As stated above, in order to obtain the base vector matrix V and W, it is necessary
to find the generator u or the generator matrix U of the non-positive dual cone APπ .
Here, for simplicity, V and W are respectively called the first base vector matrix and
the second base vector matrix.
5.3.1 Calculation Algorithm of the Generator Matrix

of the Non-Positive Dual Matrix
Denote the row number and the column number of matrix A to be n and m, respec-
tively. The pivot algorithm of solving the base vector matrix V and W is related as
follows.
Step 1 is to initiate the generator matrix.
Initiate the counter h to be h = 1.
Initiate the base vector matrices V h , W h to be V h = I n , W h = Ø to obtain the generator
matrix U h = [V h , W h ], where I n is the identity matrix of dimension n, and Ø is the
empty set.
Initiate the record set of the column in U h to be I jh = Ø, where uhj ∈ U h , vhj ∈ V h ,
whj ∈ W h , 1 ≤ j ≤ n.
Step 2 is to determine a pivot column.
Calculate the flag vector t h = aTh Uh according to the dot product of ah and U h .
Denote the pivot column to be p = { j |t hj = 0, uhj ∈ V h , 1 ≤ j ≤ n} where n is the
column number of U h . If p dose not exist, let p = 0.
5.3 Analysis Algorithm of the Attachment and Detachment Direction 147
Step 3 is to perform the pivot transformation.

uh
− t hj , j = p
Perform the pivot transformation by letting uhj = p if
uhj + t hj uph , j = p,1 ≤ j ≤ n
p = 0. Otherwise, go to step 6 if p = 0.
Step 4 is to update the base vector matrix.
h+1
V = V h − uph
Update the generator matrix to be if a h ∈ B. Otherwise, update
W h+1
= Wh

V h+1 = V h − uph
the generator matrix to be if a h ∈ B.
W h+1 = W h ∪ uph
Update the record set of the column to be I jh+1 = I jh ∪ {h} for j = p and 1 ≤ j ≤ n.
Step 5 is to judge the termination condition.
Update the counter to be h = h + 1 if h < m, and go to Step 2. Otherwise, stop the
iterative calculation process.
Step 6 is to construct a new base vector.
Add h into I jh corresponding to t hj = 0 for 1 ≤ j ≤ n, i.e., I jh = I jh ∪ {h}.
wh wh
j) = |tih | +
h
Construct a new base vector to be wk(i, i j
h for tih < 0 and t hj > 0.
t j
j) = (Ii ∩ I j ) ∪ {h}.
h h h
Calculate the record set of the column to be Ik(i,
Find the maximal proper subset Z ∗ = {wk(i,
h
j) |Ik(i, j) ⊂ Ik( p,q) , Ik(i, j) ⊂ Is , ws ∈
h h h h h
wh wh
W h , tsh = 0}from Z = {wk(i,
h
j) |wk(i, j) = |tih | +
h i j , t h
h i < 0, t hj > 0}.
t j
Step 7 is to update the second base vector matrix.

W h − whj , t hj > 0
Update the second base vector matrix to be W h = according to
W h , t hj ≤ 0
t hj > 0.
Update
h the second base vector matrix to be Wh =
W − wkh , a h ∈ B, aTh wkh < 0
according to ah ∈ B.
W h , others
Update the second base vector matrix to be W h+1 = {W h , Z ∗ } by adding the vectors
in Z * into W h .
Update the record set of the column to be I jh+1 = I jh , and go to Step 5.
5.3.2 Classification Method of Coefficient Matrix
Whether the vector ai in coefficient matrix An×m is the member of matrix B or matrix
C, i.e., ai ∈ B or ai ∈ C, it is only to judge whether there exists –ai ∈ Aπ .
If –ai ∈ Aπ , then bi = ai ; Otherwise, if –ai ∈ / Aπ , then ci = ai . It can be judged
equivalently by examining whether the equation –ai = π 1 a1 + π 2 a2 + … + π i ai +
… + π m am for π 1 , π 2 , …, π i , …, π m has a solution. In other words, provided that
the equation has a solution, ai ∈ B. But provided that the equation has no solution,
ai ∈ C (Qin et al. 2017).
Since ai = [a1,i , a2,i , …, an,i ]T , the equation of –ai = π 1 a1 + π 2 a2 + … + π i ai
+ … + π m am can in detail be expressed as
⎧
⎪
⎪ a1,1 π1 + a1,2 π2 + · · · + a1,i πi + · · · + a1,m πm = −a1,i
⎨
a2,1 π1 + a2,2 π2 + · · · + a2,i πi + · · · + a2,m πm = −a2,i
⎪
⎪ ······
⎩ (5.31)
an,1 π1 + an,2 π2 + · · · + an,i πi + · · · + an,m πm = −an,i
s.t.
π1 , π2 , · · · , πm ≥ 0
Thus, the solution existence of Eq. (5.31) can be examined equivalently by solving
the following linear programming problem
max i = λ1 π1 + λ2 π2 + · · · + λm πm
s.t.
⎧
⎪
⎪ s1 a1,1 π1 + s1 a1,2 π2 + · · · + s1 a1,m πm = −s1 a1,i
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎨ s2 a2,1 π1 + s2 a2,2 π2 + · · · + s2 a2,m πm = −s2 a2,i
······ (5.32)
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ s n n,1 π1 + sn an,2 π2 + · · · + sn an,m πm = −sn an,i
a
⎪
⎩π ,π ,··· ,π ≥ 0
1 2 m

n
where λi = s j a j,i , and sj is the sign value of –aj,i with
j=1

1, −a j,i ≥ 0
sj = (5.33)
−1, −a j,i < 0
Accordingly, if and only if the following condition is hold,

n

max(i ) = −s j a j,i = −λi (5.34)
j=1
π 1 , π 2 , …, π m in Eq. (5.31) has solutions. It shows that there exists ai ∈ B.

However, the following condition

n

max(i ) = −s j a j,i (5.35)
j=1
shows that π 1 , π 2 , …, π m in Eq. (5.31) has no solution. Therefore, ai ∈ C.
5.3.3 Application of Pivot Algorithm

⎡ ⎤
x1
⎢ x2 ⎥
Denote A = (a1 , a2 , a3 , a4 , a5 , a6 , a7 , a8 ) and x = ⎢ ⎥
⎣ x3 ⎦, where the column vectors
x4
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
0 1 0 0 1 2
⎢ 0 ⎥ ⎢0⎥ ⎢1⎥ ⎢1⎥ ⎢0⎥ ⎢1⎥
are a1 = ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎣ 0 ⎦, a2 = ⎣ 1 ⎦, a3 = ⎣ 1 ⎦, a4 = ⎣ 0 ⎦, a5 = ⎣ 0 ⎦, a6 = ⎣ 2 ⎦,
⎢ ⎥
−1 2 1 1 1 0
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
1 1
⎢ 0 ⎥ ⎢ −1 ⎥
a7 = ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎣ −3 ⎦ and a8 = ⎣ −1 ⎦. Therefore, a system of linear inequalities with four
−2 1
variables can be expressed as
⎧
⎪
⎪ −x4 ≤ 0
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ x1 + x3 + 2x4 ≤ 0
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ x2 + x3 + x4 ≤ 0
⎪
⎨
x2 + x4 ≤ 0
(5.36)
⎪
⎪ x1 + x4 ≤ 0
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ 2x1 + x2 + 2x3 ≤ 0
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ x1 − 3x3 − 2x4 ≤ 0
⎪
⎩
x1 − x2 − x3 + x4 ≤ 0
⎡ ⎤
0 10012 1 1
⎢ 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 −1 ⎥
Since A = ⎢ ⎥
⎣ 0 1 1 0 0 2 −3 −1 ⎦ with m = 8 and n = 4, there are obviously
−1 2 1 1 1 0 −2 1
B = Ø and C = A. Consequently, the solving process of x in Eq. (5.36) goes as
follows in detail.
Step 1 is the initiation of the base vector matrix. Let h = 1, V 1 = I 4×4 =

⎡ ⎤ v1 v1 v1 v1
1000 ⎡ 1 2 3 4⎤
⎢0 1 0 0⎥ 1 0 0 0
⎢ ⎥ and W 1 = Ø. So U 1 = ⎢ 0 1 0 0 ⎥ .
⎣0 0 1 0⎦ ⎢ ⎥
⎣ 0 0 1 0 ⎦
0001
0 0 0 1
Again, let the column number record set of each column in the generator matrix
of dual cone be an empty set, i.e., I j1 = Ø for 1 ≤ j ≤ 4.
Step 2 is the determination of pivot column. Since t 1 = aT1 U 1 = [0, 0, 0, −1],
then there is p = 4. That is, the corresponding pivot column is u14 .
Step 3 is the performance of pivot transformation. Each column in U 1 is listed
in Table 5.1 after it is carried out the pivot transformation.
Step 4 is the update of base vector matrix. Because a1 ∈ / B, the pivot column
u14 is removed from V 1 and added into W 1 to obtain v21 = [0, 1, 0, 0]T , v22 = [0, 0, 1,
0]T , v23 = [0, 0, 0, 1]T and w21 = [0, 0, 0, 1]T . Therefore, V 2 = [v21 , v22 , v23 ], W 2 = w21 ,
v2 v2 v2 w2
⎡ 1 2 3 1⎤
0 0 0 0
and U 2 = ⎢ ⎢ 1 0 0 0 ⎥.
⎥
⎣ 0 1 0 0 ⎦
0 0 1 1
And then, h = 1 is added into the set I j2 (j = 1, 2, 3) to obtain I12 = {1}, I22 =
{1}, I32 = {1}, and I42 = Ø.
Step 5 is the judgement of termination condition. Because h = 1 is less than
m = 8, then h should be updated to be h = 2.
Since the first element in t 2 = aT2 U 2 = [1, 0, 1, 2] is non-zero value, the column
number of the pivot column is p = 1. Therefore, the pivot column is u21 . The pivot
transformation is carried out for U 2 to obtain the data in Table 5.2.
The condition of a2 ∈ / B will remove the pivot column u21 from V 2 and add it into
W such that w1 = [−1, 0, 0, 0]T , v31 = [0, 1, 0, 0]T , v32 = [−1, 0, 1, 0]T , and w32 = [−2, 0,
2 3
w3 v3 v3 w3
⎡ 1 1 2 2 ⎤
−1 0 −1 −2
0, 1]T . In consequence, V 3 = [v31 , v32 ], W 3 = [w31 , w32 ], and U 3 = ⎢
⎢ 0 1 0 0 ⎥.
⎥
⎣ 0 0 1 0 ⎦
0 0 0 1
The next is to add h = 2 into the non-pivot column of I j2 (j = 2, 3, 4). Thus, =
{1}, = {1, 2}, I33 = {1, 2}, and I43 = {2}.
Because h = 2 is less than m = 8, h = 3. At this time it is easy to calculate t 3 = aT3
U = [0, 1, 1, 1]. The column number of pivot column is p = 2. The corresponding
3
pivot column is u32 . Thus, U 3 is carried out the pivot transformation to achieve the
result shown in Table 5.3.
Because a3 ∈ / B, it is necessary to eliminate the pivot column u32 from V 3 and
then merge into W 3 . So w41 = [−1, 0, 0, 0]T , w24 = [0, −1, 0, 0]T , v41 = [−1, −
Table 5.1 The first pivot transformation
The first column The second column The third column The fourth column
Before After Before After Before After Before After
transforming transforming transforming transforming transforming transforming transforming transforming
u11 u21 u12 u22 u13 u23 u14 u24
1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
I11 I12 I21 I22 I31 I32 I41 I42
Ø 1 Ø 1 Ø 1 Ø Ø
5.3 Analysis Algorithm of the Attachment and Detachment Direction
151
152
Table 5.2 The second pivot transformation

u12 u13 u22 u23 u32 u33 u42 u43
1 −1 0 0 0 −1 0 −2
0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
I12 I13 I22 I23 I32 I33 I42 I43
1 1 1 1, 2 1 1, 2 Ø 2
5 Analysis of Workpiece Attachment/Detachment
Table 5.3 The third pivot transformation
u31 u41 u32 u42 u33 u43 u34 u44
−1 −1 0 0 −1 −1 −2 −2
0 0 1 −1 0 −1 0 −1
0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
I13 I14 I23 I24 I33 I34 I43 I44
1 1, 3 1, 2 1, 2 1, 2 1, 2, 3 2 2, 3
153
1, 1, 0]T , and w43 = [−2, −1, 0, 1]T . Obviously, V 4 = v41 , W 4 = [w41 , w24 , w43 ], and
w4 w4 v4 w4
⎡ 1 2 1 3 ⎤
−1 0 −1 −2
U4 = ⎢ ⎢ 0 −1 −1 −1 ⎥ .
⎥
⎣ 0 0 1 0 ⎦
0 0 0 1
h = 3 is then added into the non-pivot column of I j2 (j = 1, 3, 4) for obtaining I14
= {1, 3}, I24 = {1, 2}, I34 = {1, 2, 3}, and I44 = {2, 3}.
The update of h is continued to obtain h = 4. Thus, t 4 = aT4 U 4 = [0, −1, −1, 0].
Because only the column corresponded to the third element t34 in t 4 belongs to V 4 ,
the column number of the pivot column is p = 3. By pivoting U 4 , each column can
be calculated to be listed in Table 5.4.
Since a4 ∈ / B, the pivot column u34 should be canceled from V 4 to add into W 4 such
that w1 = [−1, 0, 0, 0]T , w52 = [1, 0, −1, 0]T , w53 = [−1, −1, 1, 0]T and w54 = [−2, −1,
5
w5 w5 w5 w5
⎡ 1 2 3 4 ⎤
−1 1 −1 −2
0, 1]T . As a result, V 5 = Ø, W 5 = [w51 , w52 , w53 , w54 ], and U 5 = ⎢ ⎢ 0 0 −1 −1 ⎥ .
⎥
⎣ 0 −1 1 0 ⎦
0 0 0 1
The addition of h = 4 into the non-pivot column of I j (j = 1, 2, 4) to obtain I15 =
4
{1, 3, 4}, I25 = {1, 2, 4}, I35 = {1, 2, 3} and I45 = {2, 3, 4}.
When h = 5, t 5 = aT5 U 5 = [−1, 1, −1, −1]. Even though t 5j = 0 for 1 ≤ j ≤ 4, p
= 0 because u5j ∈ / V 5 . Again, because there exist t15 < 0, t25 > 0, t35 < 0 and t45 < 0, three
new columns can be obtained as w51(2,1) = [0, 0, −1, 0]T , w52(2,3) = [0, −1, 0, 0]T and
w53(2,4) = [−1, −1, −1, 1]T . Therefore, these three new vectors can combine into a
new set Z = {w51(2,1) , w52(2,3) , w53(2,4) }. Moreover, the corresponding column number
5
record sets are I1(2,1) = {1, 4, 5}, I2(2,3)
5
= {1, 2, 5}, I3(2,4)
5
= {2, 4, 5}, respectively.
Because there are only non-zero elements in vector t 5 , Ish = Ø. On the other hand,
5
since I1(2,1) ⊂ I2(2,3)
5 5
and I1(2,1) ⊂ I3(2,4)
5
, so w51(2,1) ∈ Z * . Likewise, it can easily be
known that w2(2,3) ∈ Z and w3(2,4) ∈ Z * . In other words, the maximal proper subset
5 * 5
of Z is Z * = Z.
Since t25 > 0, the corresponding column vector w52 must be removed from W 5 to
be W 5 = [w51 , w53 , w54 ]. Finally, because there exists a5 ∈ / B, all vectors in Z * are
w6 w6 w6 w6 w6 w6
⎡ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ⎤
−1 −1 −2 0 0 −1
added into W 5 to obtain U 6 = ⎢ ⎥
⎢ 0 −1 −1 0 −1 −1 ⎥ , as illustrated in Table
⎣ 0 1 0 −1 0 −1 ⎦
0 0 1 0 0 1
5.5. Simultaneously, the column number record sets are achieved as I16 = {1, 3, 4},
I26 = {1, 2, 3}, I36 = {2, 3, 4}, I46 = {1, 4, 5}, I56 = {1, 2, 5} and I66 = {2, 4, 5},
respectively.
Table 5.4 The fourth pivot transformation
u41 u51 u42 u52 u43 u53 u44 u54
−1 −1 0 1 −1 −1 −2 −2
0 0 −1 0 −1 −1 −1 −1
0 0 0 −1 1 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
I14 I15 I24 I25 I34 I35 I44 I45
1, 3 1, 3, 4 1, 2 1, 2, 4 1, 2, 3 1, 2, 3 2, 3 2, 3, 4
155
Table 5.5 The fifth pivot transformation

Before transforming w51 w52 w53 w54 w51(2,1) w52(2,3) w53(2,4)
−1 1 −1 −2 0 0 −1
0 0 −1 −1 0 −1 −1
0 −1 1 0 −1 0 −1
0 0 0 1 0 0 1
I15 I25 I35 I45 5
I1(2,1) 5
I2(2,3) 5
I3(2,4)
1, 3, 4 1, 2, 4 1, 2, 3 2, 3, 4 1, 4, 5 1, 2, 3 2, 3, 4
After transforming w61 w62 w63 w64 w65 w66
−1 −1 −2 0 0 −1
0 −1 −1 0 −1 −1
0 1 0 −1 0 −1
0 0 1 0 0 1
I16 I26 I36 I46 I56 I66
1, 3, 4 1, 2, 3 2, 3, 4 1, 4, 5 1, 2, 3 2, 3, 4
The calculation process goes on with h = 6. Thus, the flag vector is calculated as
t 6 = aT6 U 6 = [ −2, −1, −5, −2, −1, −5]. Because there is only w6j in U 6 but no v6j
(1 ≤ j ≤ 6), then p = 0. Since there exists only non-zero element in t 6 such that the
column number record sets remain unchanged, i.e., I16 = {1, 3, 4}, I26 = {1, 2, 3},
I36 = {2, 3, 4, 5}, I46 = {1, 4, 5}, I56 = {1, 2, 5}, and I66 = {2, 4, 5}.
Since there is only negative value in t 6 , so Z = Ø. Clearly, Z * = Ø. Ultimately,
w7 w7 w7 w7 w7 w7
⎡ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ⎤
−1 −1 −2 0 0 −1
the relationship of a6 ∈ / B will result in U 7 = ⎢⎢ 0 −1 −1 0 −1 −1 ⎥ .
⎥
⎣ 0 1 0 −1 0 −1 ⎦
0 0 1 0 0 1
Since h = 6 is less than m = 8, the calculation process will still be carried out
with h = 7. Though t 7 = aT7 U 7 = [ −1, −4, −4, 3, 0, 0], the pivot column does
still not exist in U 7 , i.e., p = 0. This is because an arbitrary element in U 7 is not a
member of V 7 .
Because t57 = 0 and t67 = 0, h = 7 should be added into I56 and I66 such that I17 =
{1, 3, 4}, I27 = {1, 2, 3}, I37 = {2, 3, 4}, I47 = {1, 4, 5}, I57 = {1, 2, 5, 7} and I67 =
{2, 4, 5, 7}。
w7 w7
Since t17 < 0, t27 < 0, t37 < 0 and t47 > 0, then w1(1,4)
7
= |t 71| + |t 74| = [−1, 0, −1/3, 0]T ,
1 4
w72 w74 w7 w7
w72(2,4)= +
|t27 | = [−1/4, −1/4, −1/12, 0] , w73(3,4) = |t 73| + |t 74| = [−1/2, −1/4,
|t47 |
T
3 4
−1/3, 1/4] which can form a new set Z = {w1(1,4)
T 7 7
, w2(2,4) 7
, w3(3,4) }. Accordingly,
7
I1(1,4) = {1, 4, 7}, I2(2,4)
7
= {1, 7} and I3(3,4) 7
= {4, 7}.
7
It is easily known that I2(2,4) ⊂I1(1,4)
7 7
and I3(3,4) ⊂I1(1,4)
7 7
. So w2(2,4) ∈/ Z * and w3(3,4)
7
∈
/ Z * . However, I1(1,4)
7
⊂ I57 , I1(1,4)
7
⊂ I67 . Therefore, Z * = {w7k(1,4) }.
Table 5.6 The seventh pivot transformation

Before transforming w71 w72 w73 w74 w75 w76 w71(1,4)
−1 −1 −2 0 0 −1 −1
0 −1 −1 0 −1 −1 0
0 1 0 −1 0 −1 −1/3
0 0 1 0 0 1 0
I17 I27 I37 I47 I57 I67 7
I1(1,4)
1, 3, 4 1, 2, 3 2, 3, 4 1, 4, 5 1, 2, 5, 7 2, 4, 5, 7 1, 4, 7
After transforming w81 w82 w83 w84 w85 w86
−1 −1 −2 0 −1 −1
0 −1 −1 −1 −1 0
0 1 0 0 −1 −1/3
0 0 1 0 1 0
I18 I28 I38 I48 I58 I68
1, 3, 4 1, 2, 3 2, 3, 4, 8 1, 2, 5, 7 2, 4, 5, 7 1, 4, 7
The condition of t47 > 0 will make w74 to be removed from W 7 such that W 7 is
updated as W 7 = [w71 , w72 , w73 , w75 , w76 ]. Again, a7 ∈
/ B, so all vectors in Z * are added
into W to obtain W = {W , Z }. The seventh iterative results are listed in Table
7 8 7 *
5.6.
The calculation process can not be stopped when h = 7. Consequently, h must be
updated to h = 8 at which t 8 = aT8 U 8 = [ −1, −1, 0, 1, 2, −2]. It is thus clear that
t38 = 0 such that I18 = {1, 3, 4}, I28 = {1, 2, 3}, I38 = {2, 3, 4, 8}, I48 = {1, 2, 5, 7},
I58 = {2, 4, 5, 7}, and I68 = {1, 4, 7}.
Because there exist t18 < 0, t28 < 0, t68 < 0 and t48 > 0, t58 > 0 in t 8 , six new vectors
w8 w8 w8 w8
can be constructed as w81(1,4) = |t 81| + |t 84| = [−1, −1, 0, 0]T , w82(1,5) = |t 81| + |t 85|
1 4 1 5
w8 w8 w8
= [−3/2, −1/2, −1/2, 1/2]T , w83(2,4) = |t 82| + |t 84| = [−1, −2, 1, 0]T , w84(2,5) = |t 82|
2 4 2
w8 w8 w8
+ |t 85| = [−3/2, −3/2, 1/2, 1/2]T , w85(6,4) = |t 86| + |t 84| = [−1/2, −1, −1/6, 0]T ,
5 6 4
w8 w8
w86(6,5) = |t 86| + |t 85| = [−1, −1/2, −2/3, 1/2]T , respectively. In sequence, a new
6 5
w81(1,4) w82(1,5) w83(2,4) w84(2,5) w85(6,4) w86(6,5)

⎧⎡ ⎤⎡ 3⎤⎡ ⎤⎡ 3⎤⎡ 1⎤⎡ ⎤⎫
⎪
⎪ −1 −2 −1 −2 −2 −1 ⎪ ⎪
set Z = ⎢ ⎨ ⎥⎢ 1⎥⎢ ⎥⎢ 3⎥⎢ ⎥ ⎢ 1 ⎥⎬
⎢ −1 ⎥ ⎢ − 2 ⎥ ⎢ −2 ⎥ ⎢ − 2 ⎥ ⎢ −1 ⎥ ⎢ − 2 ⎥ can be merged by
⎪ ⎣ ⎦ ⎣−1 ⎦ ⎣ 1 ⎦ ⎣−1 ⎦ ⎣−1 ⎦ ⎣−2 ⎦⎪
⎪ 0
⎩ 2 2 6 3 ⎪
⎭
1 1 1
0 2
0 2
0 2
8
these six constructed vectors. Furthermore, a little effort is poured out to obtain I1(1,4)
= {1, 8}, I2(1,5) = {4, 8}, I3(2,4) = {1, 2, 8}, I4(2,5) = {2, 8}, I5(6,4) = {1, 7, 8}, and
8 8 8 8
8
I6(6,5) = {4, 7, 8}.
Table 5.7 The eighth pivot transformation

Before w81 w82 w83 w84 w85 w86 w83(2,4) w85(6,4) w86(6,5)
transforming
−1 −1 −2 0 −1 −1 −1 −1/2 −1
0 −1 −1 −1 −1 0 −2 −1 −1/2
0 1 0 0 −1 −1/3 1 −1/6 −2/3
0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1/2
I18 I28 I38 I48 I58 I68 8
I3(2,4) 8
I5(6,4) 8
I6(6,5)
1, 3, 4 1, 2, 3 2, 3, 1, 2, 2, 4, 1, 4, 7 1, 2, 8 1, 7, 8 4, 7, 8
4, 8 5, 7 5, 7
After w91 w92 w93 w94 w95 w96 w97
transforming −1 −1 −2 −1 −1 −1/2 −1
0 −1 −1 0 −2 −1 −1/2
0 1 0 −1/3 1 −1/6 −2/3
0 0 1 0 0 0 1/2
I19 I29 I39 I69 I79 I89 I99
1, 3, 4 1, 2, 3 2, 3, 1, 4, 7 1, 2, 8 1, 7, 8 4, 7, 8
4, 8
Since the column vector w83 corresponded to t38 = 0 is a member of matrix W 8 , it

is easily obtained I38 = {2, 3, 4, 8}. Because I1(1,4)
8
⊂ I3(2,4)
8 8
, I2(1,5) ⊂ I6(6,5)
8 8
, I4(2,5) ⊂
I3(2,4) and I2(1,5) ⊂ I3 , I4(2,5) ⊂ I3 , the elements, w1(1,4) , w2(1,5) , w4(2,5) , corresponded
8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
8
to I1(1,4) 8
, I2(1,5) 8
, I4(2,5) should be excluded from Z to obtain Z * = {w83(2,4) , w85(6,4) ,
8
w6(6,5) }.
Again, because there exist t48 > 0 and t58 > 0, the corresponding column vectors
w4 and w85 are also excluded from W 8 . Thus, W 8 = [w81 , w82 , w83 , w86 ]. In addition,
8
the relationship of a8 ∈ / B will make all vectors in Z * to add into W 8 so that W 9 =

8 *
{W , Z }. The eighth pivot transformation carried out to obtain the results listed in
Table 5.7.
Eventually, the value of h is the same as the value of m, i.e., h = m = 8, so the
⎡ ⎤
−1 −1 −2 −1 −1 − 21 −1
⎢ 0 −1 −1 0 −2 −1 − 1 ⎥
calculation process is over. Therefore, W = ⎢ ⎣ 0 1 0 − 1 1 − 1 − 2 ⎦ and V
2⎥
3 6 3
0 0 1 0 0 0 21
⎡ ⎤
π1
⎡ ⎤⎢ π2 ⎥
−1 −1 −2 −1 −1 − 21 −1 ⎢ ⎢ ⎥
⎥
⎢ 0 1 ⎥⎢ π3 ⎥
−1 −1 0 −2 −1 − 2 ⎥⎢ ⎥
= Ø. In other words, x = ⎢
⎣ 0 ⎢ π ⎥ with π i ≥ 0 for 1
1 0 − 13 1 − 16 − 23 ⎦⎢ 4 ⎥
⎢ π5 ⎥
0 0 1 0 0 0 1 ⎢ ⎥
2 ⎣ π6 ⎦
π7
≤ i ≤ 7.
5.4 Analysis and Application of Attachment

and Detachment
This section enumerates several typical examples to illustrate the application of the
attachment and detachment analysis method for the workpiece in the fixturing layout.
5.4.1 Three Dimensional Workpiece
Figure 5.2 shows the front view and top view of the shift fork held by the drill fixture.
The shift fork is located by five locators L 1 , L√2 , L 3 , L 4 , L 5 whose coordinates are √
respectively r1 = [0, 0, 25 mm]T , r2 = [− 252 3 mm, 0, −12.5 mm]T , r3 = [ 252 3
√ √ √
mm, 0, −12.5 mm] √ , r4 = [−15 2 mm, 10 mm, −15 2 mm] , r5 = [−15 2
T T
mm, 10 mm, 15 2 mm]T . Obviously, the corresponding √ √

normal vectors
√
are √n1 =
[0, 1, 0] , n2 = [0, 1, 0] , n3 = [0, 1, 0] , n4 = [ 2 , 0, 2 ] , n5 = [ 2 , 0, − 22 ]T ,
T T T 2 2 T 2
respectively. Thus, the analysis process of the attachment and detachment for the
shift fork is as follows.
First, according to Eq. (5.13), the locating Jacobian matrix can be obtained to be
⎡ ⎤
0 1 0 −25 0 0√
⎢ 0 1 0 12.5 0 − 25 3 ⎥
⎢ √2 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
J = ⎢ √0 1 √0 12.5 0 252 3 ⎥. It is obvious to be a1 = [0, 1, 0, −25, 0, 0]T ,
⎢ 2 √ √ ⎥
⎣ 0 2√2 5 2 0 −5 2 ⎦
√2 √ √
2
0 − 22 −5 2 0 −5 2
2 √ √ √ √ √
a2 = [0, 1, 0, 12.5, 0, - 252 3 ]T , a3 = [0, 1, 0, 12.5, 0, 252 3 ]T , a4 = [ 22 , 0, 22 , 5 2,
√ √ √ √ √
0, −5 2]T and a5 = [ 22 , 0, − 22 , −5 2, 0, −5 2]T。Therefore, the classification
method of coefficient matrix A = [a1 , a2 , a3 , a4 , a5 ] can be depended on to obtain B
= Ø and C = A, as shown in Table 5.8.
Because the row number and the column number of A are n = 6 and m = 5,
respectively. In light of the pivot algorithm, the base vector matrices V and W can
be calculated as follows in detail.
Drill bush
Bush plate
Clamp
Bolt
Base plate
L4 Locating sleeve
L2
L3 V block L5 L1 Shift fork
Fig. 5.2 The drill fixture for a shift fork
Table 5.8 Classification of

Vector Parameter Classification matrix
coefficient matrix
max(Σ i ) -λi
-a1 23.0000 26 C
-a2 32.1506 35.1506 C
-a3 32.1506 35.1506 C
-a4 −2.0491e−11 15.5563 C
-a5 −3.8625e−12 15.5563 C
5.4 Analysis and Application of Attachment and Detachment 161
Table 5.9 The non-pivot column after the first pivot transformation
Column vector u1,i u2,i u3,i u4,i u5,i u6,i
u1 u11 before transforming 1 0 0 0 0 0
u21 after transforming 1 0 0 0 0 0
⎡ ⎤
100000
⎢0 1 0 0 0 0⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢0 0 1 0 0 0⎥
The first step is to initiate the iteration counter to be h = 1, V = ⎢
h
⎥
⎢0 0 0 1 0 0⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎣0 0 0 0 1 0⎦
000001
and W h = Ø. Again, not pivot transformation makes the initial record set of each
column in U h = [V h , W h ] is the empty set, i.e., I j1 = Ø for 1 ≤ j ≤ 6.
The second step is to calculate the flag vector t 1 = aT1 U 1 = [0, 1, 0, −25, 0, 0].
Therefore, there exists the pivot column in U 1 which is u12 = [0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0]T .
The third step is to carry out the pivot transformation. Thus, the pivot column is
updated to be u22 = [0, −1, 0, 0, 0, 0]T , and other columns are listed in Table 5.9.
The fourth step is to obtain the generator matrix. h = 1 is added into the non-pivot
column I j1 for j = 2 and 1 ≤ j ≤ 6 to obtain I12 = {1}, I22 = Ø, I32 = {1}, I42 = {1},

I52 = {1} and I62 = {1}. Since a1 ∈ / B, then V 2 = v11 v13 v14 v15 v16 and W 2 = v12 .
Accordingly, the result obtained by the first pivot transformation is shown in Table
5.10.
Table 5.10 The result of the first iteration

Element v1 w1 v2 v3 v4 v5
1 1 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 −1 0 25 0 0
3 0 0 1 0 0 0
4 0 0 0 1 0 0
5 0 0 0 0 1 0
6 0 0 0 0 0 1
Table 5.11 The non-pivot column after the second pivot transformation
u2 u22 before transforming 0 −1 0 0 0 0
u32 after transforming 0 −0.3333 0 0.0267 0 0
u36 after transforming 0 14.4338 0 0.5774 0 1
The fifth step is to judge the termination condition. Since h = 1 is less then m
= 5, h should be increased as h = 2. And then, t 2 = a2T U 2 = [0, −1, 0, 37.5, 0,
−21.6506] is calculated to obtain the the column number of the pivot column, p =
4. In other words, there is the pivot column u24 = v23 = [0, 25, 0, 1, 0, 0]T in U 2 , as
illustrated in Table 5.10. By performing the pivot transformation on U 2 , the other
non-pivot columns are listed in Table 5.11 whereas the pivot column vector is u34 =
[0, −0.6667, 0, −0.0267, 0, 0]T .
The non-pivot column I j2 (j = 4, 1 ≤ j ≤ 6) is merged h = 2 to I13 = {1, 2}, I23
= {2}, I33 = {1, 2}, I43 = {1}, I53 = {1, 2} and I63 = {1, 2}. Since a2 ∈ / B, then V 3
= [v21 , v22 , v24 , v25 ] and W 2 = [w21 , v23 ], as shown in Table 5.12.
The less of h = 2 than m = 5 can result in the continuous increment of h so that h
= 3. Since t 3 = aT3 U 3 = [0, 0, 0, −1, 0, 43.3013], the pivot column is the 6-th column
whose magnitude is u36 = v34 = [0, 14.4338, 0, 0.5774, 0, 1]T . After the third pivot
transformation is carried out, the pivot column is u46 = [0, −0.3333, 0, −0.0133, 0,
−0.0231]T , and other columns are listed in Table 5.13.
And then, the addition of h = 3 into the record set of the non-pivot column I j3 for
j = 6 and 1 ≤ j ≤ 6 can obtain I14 = {1, 2, 3}, I24 = {2, 3}, I34 = {1, 2, 3}, I44 = {1,
Table 5.12 The result of the second iteration

Element v1 w1 v2 w2 v3 v4
1 1 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 −0.3333 0 −0.6667 0 14.4338
3 0 0 1 0 0 0
4 0 0.0267 0 −0.0267 0 0.5774
5 0 0 0 0 1 0
6 0 0 0 0 0 1
Table 5.13 The non-pivot column after the third pivot transformation
向量 u1,i u2,i u3,i u4,i u5,i u6,i
u2 u32 before transforming 0 −0.3333 0 0.0267 0 0
u42 after transforming 0 −0.3333 0 0.0267 0 0
u4 u34 before transforming 0 −0.6667 0 −0.0267 0 0
u44 after transforming 0 −0.3333 0 −0.0133 0 0.0231
Table 5.14 The result of the third iteration

Element v1 w1 v2 w2 v3 w3
1 1 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 −0.3333 0 −0.3333 0 −0.3333
3 0 0 1 0 0 0
4 0 0.0267 0 −0.0133 0 −0.0133
5 0 0 0 0 1 0
6 0 0 0 0.0231 0 −0.0231
3}, I54 = {1, 2, 3} and I64 = {1, 2}. Again, since a3 ∈ / B, V 4 = [v31 , v32 , v33 ] and W 4
= [w1 , w2 , v4 ], as illustrated in Table 5.14.
3 3 3
h = 3 is still less than m = 5. The calculation process must go on with h = 4. So t 4

= aT4 U 4 = [0.7071, 0.1886, 0.7071, −0.2576, 0, 0.0690]. Consequently, the matrix
U 4 has also a pivot column u41 = v41 whose the column number is p = 1. The next is
to carry out the fourth pivot transformation. Thus, the pivot column is updated to u51
= [−1.4142, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0]T . The transformed non-pivot columns are shown in Table
5.15.
By adding h = 4 into the record set of the non-pivot column I j4 for j = 1 and 1
≤ j ≤ 6, it can easily obtain I15 = {1, 2, 3}, I25 = {2, 3, 4}, I35 = {1, 2, 3, 4}, I45 =
{1, 3, 4}, I55 = {1, 2, 3, 4} and I65 = {1, 2, 4}, respectively. Due to a4 ∈ / B, so V 5
= [v2 , v3 ] and W = [w1 , w2 , w3 , v1 ], as listed in Table 5.16.
4 4 5 4 4 4 4
The next pivot transformation continues because h = 4 is less than m = 5. Thus,

h = 5 so that t 5 = aT5 U 5 = [−1, −0.3771, −1.4142, 0.1886, 0, 0.1886]. There is
a pivot column u53 = v51 in U 5 whose column number is p = 3. The pivot column is
transformed to obtain u63 = [−0.7071, 0, 0.7071, 0, 0, 0]T . The other columns are
transformed as shown in Table 5.17.
Table 5.15 The non-pivot column after the fourth pivot transformation
u2 u42 before 0 −0.3333 0 0.0267 0 0
transforming
u52 after −0.2667 −0.3333 0 0.0267 0 0
transforming
u3 u43 before 0 0 1 0 0 0
transforming
u53 after −1 0 1 0 0 0
transforming
u4 u44 before 0 −0.333 0 −0.0133 0 0.0231
transforming
u54 after 0.3643 −0.3333 0 −0.0133 0 0.0231
transforming
u5 u45 before 0 0 0 0 1 0
transforming
u55 after 0 0 0 0 1 0
transforming
u6 u46 before 0 −0.3333 0 −0.0133 0 −0.0231
transforming
u56 after −0.0976 −0.3333 0 −0.0133 0 −0.0231
transforming
Table 5.16 The result of the fourth iteration

Element w1 w2 v1 w3 v2 w4
1 −1.4142 −0.2667 −1 0.3643 0 −0.0976
2 0 −0.3333 0 −0.3333 0 −0.3333
3 0 0 1 0 0 0
4 0 0.0267 0 −0.0133 0 −0.0133
5 0 0 0 0 1 0
6 0 0 0 0.0231 0 −0.0231
The increase of h = 5 into the record set of the non-pivot column I j5 for j = 3 and
1 ≤ j ≤ 6 is done to obtain I16 = {1, 2, 3, 5}, I26 = {2, 3, 4, 5}, I36 = {1, 2, 3, 4}, I46
= {1, 3, 4, 5}, I56 = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5} and I66 = {1, 2, 4, 5}. And then, a5 ∈ / B makes
V 6 = v52 and W 6 = [w15 , w52 , w53 , w54 , v51 ], as shown in Table 5.18.
Since h = m = 5, the calculation process stops for obtaining the workpiece position
variation
Table 5.17 The non-pivot column after the fifth pivot transformation
u1 u51 before −1.4142 0 0 0 0 0
transforming
u61 after −0.7071 0 −0.7071 0 0 0
transforming
u2 u52 before −0.2667 −0.3333 0 0.0267 0 0
transforming
u62 after 0 −0.3333 −0.2667 0.0267 0 0
transforming
u4 u54 before 0.3643 −0.3333 0 −0.0133 0 0.0231
transforming
u64 after 0.2309 −0.3333 0.1333 −0.0133 0 0.0231
transforming
u5 u55 before 0 0 0 0 1 0
transforming
u65 after 0 0 0 0 1 0
transforming
u6 u56 before −0.0976 −0.3333 0 −0.0133 0 −0.0231
transforming
u66 after −0.2309 −0.3333 0.1333 −0.0133 0 −0.0231
transforming
Table 5.18 The result of the fifth iteration

Element w1 w2 w3 w4 v1 w5
1 −0.7071 0 −0.7071 0.2309 0 −0.2309
2 0 −0.3333 0 −0.3333 0 −0.3333
3 −0.7071 −0.2667 0.7071 0.1333 0 0.1333
4 0 0.0267 0 −0.0133 0 −0.0133
5 0 0 0 0 1 0
6 0 0 0 0.0231 0 −0.0231
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
0 −0.7071 0 −0.7071 0.2309 −0.2309 ⎡ ⎤
⎢0 ⎥ ⎢ π1
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ 0 −0.3333 0 −0.3333 −0.3333 ⎥
⎥⎢ π ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥⎢ 2 ⎥
⎢0 ⎥ ⎢ −0.7071 −0.0267 0.7071 0.1333 0.1333 ⎥⎢ ⎥
q = ⎢ ⎥ρ + ⎢ ⎥⎢ π3 ⎥
⎢0 ⎥ ⎢ 0 0.0267 0 −0.0133 −0.0133 ⎥⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥⎣ π4 ⎦
⎣1 ⎦ ⎣ 0 0 0 0 0 ⎦
π5
0 0 0 0 0.0231 −0.0231
(5.37)
where ρ is the arbitrary value, π i (1 ≤ i ≤ 5) is the non-negative value.

8 mm
6 mm
8 mm
m
m
4
60
7 mm 8 mm 12 mm
Fig. 5.3 Workpieces with different structures
5.4.2 Two Dimensional Workpiece
Figure 5.3 shows three workpiece shapes with different fixturing layouts. The
diagrams of the layout schemes are listed in the second column of Table 5.19
whose coordinates and normal vectors are in the third column and the fourth column,
respectively.
Above all, in combination with the data in the third and the fourth columns of
Table 5.19, Eq. (5.20) is used to judge whether Eq. (5.14) has solutions. Secondly, if
Eq. (5.14) has solutions, Eq. (5.25) are depended on to judge whether Eq. (5.15) has
solutions respectively under the condition of six kinds of fixturing layout schemes.
Finally, in the case that the workpiece has viable attachment/detachment, the position
variation q should be further solved by using the pivot algorithm so that it can be
judged the direction of attachment/detachment.
Here, it is assumed to take ϕ 1 = ϕ 2 = ϕ 3 = ϕ 4 = ϕ 5 = ϕ 6 = 0.01, the calculated
results are listed in the fifth and the sixth columns of Table 5.19.
Table 5.19 Attachment/detachment analysis of 2D workpiece
Scheme Fixturing diagram Coordinate Normal vector Attachment/ Attachment/detachment
⎡ ⎤ direction
detachment 1
⎢ ⎥
1 r1 = [2, 0]T n1 = [0, 1]T max(λ) = 0 q = π ⎢ ⎥
Y L4 L3 ⎣ 0 ⎦(π ≥ 0)
r2 = [5, 0]T n2 = [0, 1]T max(τ 1 ) = 0.01 0
r3 = [5, 6]T n3 = [0, −1]T b1 = [0,0,0,0,0,0.01]T
r4 = [2, 6]T n4 = [0, −1]T The workpiece can positively translate
L5 6

r5 = [0, 3]T n5 = [1, 0]T max(τ1 ) = φ1,i only along the X direction
i=1
O X The workpiece has the attachment and ⎡ ⎤

L1 L2 detachment 1
⎢ ⎥
2 r1 = [2, 0]T n1 = [0, 1]T max(λ) = 0 q = π ⎢ ⎥
Y L3 ⎣ 0 ⎦(π ≥ 0)
r2 = [5, 0]T n2 = [0, 1]T max(τ 1 ) = 0.01 0
r3 = [3, 6]T n3 = [0, −1]T b1 = [0,0,0,0,0.01]T
r4 = [0, 3]T n4 = [1, 0]T The workpiece can positively translate
5

L4 max(τ1 ) = φ1,i only along the X direction
i=1
O X
The workpiece has the attachment and
L1 L2 detachment
5.4 Analysis and Application of Attachment and Detachment
(continued)
167
168

⎡ ⎤ direction
detachment 0
⎢ ⎥
3 r1 = [7, 1]T n1 = [−1, 0] T max(λ) = 0 q = π ⎢ ⎥
Y L3 ⎣ −1 ⎦(π ≥ 0)
r2 = [7, 5]T n2 = [−1, 0]T max(τ 1 ) = 0.002 0
r3 = [4, 7]T n3 = [0, −1]T b1 = [0,0,0,0,0.01]T
L4 L2
r4 = [0, 5]T n4 = [1, 0]T The workpiece can negatively translate
5

r5 = [0, 1]T n5 = [1, 0]T max(τ1 ) < φ1,i only along the Y direction
L5 L1 i=1
O X
max(τ 2 ) = 0
b2 = [0,0,0,0,0.01]T
5

max(τ2 ) < φ2,i
i=1
max(τ 3 ) = 0
b3 = [0,0,0,0,0.01]T
5

max(τ3 ) < φ3,i
i=1
max(τ 4 ) = 0.002
b4 = [0,0,0,0,0.01]T
5

max(τ4 ) < φ4,i
i=1
max(τ 5 ) = 0.01
b5 = [0,0,0,0,0.01]T
5

max(τ5 ) = φ5,i
i=1

detachment
(continued)
⎡ ⎤ direction
detachment 0
⎢ ⎥
4 r1 = [0, −2]T n1 = [0, −1]T max(λ) = 0 q = ρ ⎢ ⎥
Y ⎣ 0 ⎦(ρ ∈ R)
r2 = [2, 0]T n2 = [1, 0]T
L3
max(τ 1 ) = 0 1
r3 = [0, 2]T n3 = [0, 1]T b1 = [0,0,0,0,0.01]T
r4 = [−2, 0]T n4 = [−1, 0]T The workpiece can only rotate about O
L4 5

O L2 X max(τ1 ) < φ1,i
i=1
L1 max(τ 2 ) = 0
b2 = [0,0,0,0,0.01]T
5

max(τ2 ) < φ2,i
i=1
max(τ 3 ) = 0.01
b3 = [0,0,0,0,0.01]T
5

max(τ3 ) = φ3,i
i=1

detachment
(continued)
169
170

⎡ direction
⎤ ⎡ ⎤
detachment −1 −5 1 π
⎢ √ √ ⎥ ⎢ 1⎥
5 Y r1 = [2, 0]T n1 = [0, 1]T max(λ) = 0 q = ⎢⎣ 0 5 3 − 3 ⎥⎢ π ⎥(π i ≥ 0,
⎦⎣ 2 ⎦
√ √
r2 = [10, 0]T n2 = [0, 1]T 3 3
√ √ max(τ 1 ) = 0.01 0 2 − 2 π3
L3 r3 = [9,3 3]T n3 = [- 3 ,- 1 ]T b1 = [0,0,0,0.01]T
2 2 1 ≤ i ≤ 3)
4
max(τ1 ) = φ1,i The workpiece can not only translate
i=1 along the X and Y directions but also
O X
rotate about O
L1 L2 The workpiece has the attachment and
detachment
(continued)
Scheme Fixturing diagram Coordinate Normal vector Attachment/ Attachment/detachment direction
detachment
6 Y r1 = [2, 0]T n1 = [0, 1]T max(λ) = 0 The workpiece can not move
r2 = [10, 0]T n2 = [0, 1]T max(τ 1 ) = 0.0033
√ √
L3 r3 = [9,3 3]T 3 1 T b1 = [0,0,0,0,0.01]T
L4 n3 = [- 2 ,- 2 ]
√
r4 = [0,3 3]T n4 = [1, 0]T 5

max(τ1 ) < φ1,i
X i=1
O
L1 L2 max(τ 2 ) = 0.0095
b2 = [0,0,0,0,0.01]T
5

max(τ2 ) < φ2,i
i=1
max(τ 3 ) = 0.005
b3 = [0,0,0,0,0.01]T
5

max(τ3 ) < φ3,i max(τ 4 ) = 0.009
i=1
b4 = [0,0,0,0,0.01]T
5

max(τ4 ) < φ4,i max(τ 5 ) = 0.0022
i=1
b5 = [0,0,0,0,0.01]T
5

max(τ5 ) < φ5,i max(τ 6 ) = 0
i=1
b6 = [0,0,0,0,0.01]T
5

max(τ6 ) < φ6,i
i=1
(continued)
171
172
Scheme Fixturing diagram Coordinate Normal vector Attachment/ Attachment/detachment direction

detachment
The workpiece has not the attachment and
detachment
max(τ 1 ) = 0.0033
b1 = [0,0,0,0,0.01]T
5

max(τ1 ) < φ1,i max(τ 2 ) = 0.01
i=1
b2 = [0,0,0,0,0.01]T
5

max(τ2 ) = φ2,i
i=1

detachment
References 173
References
Asada H, By AB. Kinematics of workpart fixturing for flexible assembly with automatically
reconfigurable fixtures [J]. IEEE J Robot Automat. 1985;RA-1(2): 86–94.
Castillo E, Jubete F. The -algorithm and some applications [J]. Int J Math Educ Sci Technol.
2006;35(3):369–89.
Castillo E, Cobo A, Jubete F, Pruneda RE. Orthogonal Sets and Polar Methods in Linear Algebra
[J]. Am Mathemat Monthly. 1999;84(9):876–7.
Castillo E, Jubete F, Pruneda RE, Solares C. Obtaining simultaneous solutions of linear subsystems
of inequalities and duals [J]. Linear Algebra Appl. 2002;346:131–54.
Hirai S, Asada H. Kinematics and statics of manipulation using the theory of polyhedral convex
cones [J]. Int J Robot Res. 1993;12(5):434–47.
Liu WL, Xiong CH. Closure of fixtures and detachability of workpiece [J]. J Huazhong Uni Sci
Technol Nat Sci Edi. 2003;31(8):7–9 (in Chinese).
Qin GH, Zhang WH. Modeling and analysis of workpiece stability based on the linear programming
method [J]. Int J Adv Manuf Technol. 2007;32(1–2):78–91.
Qin GH, Zhang WH, Wan M. Modeling and application of workpiece stability based on the linear
programming method [J]. J Mechan Eng. 2005;41(9):33–37+41. (in Chinese).
Qin GH, Huang Z, Wu ZX, Wang HM, Wu TJ. Analysis algorithm of workpiece attach-
ment/detachment based on solution existence and general solution of inequalities [J]. J Mechan
Eng. 2017;53(21):136–48.
Xiong YL. Closure and accessibility of robot multi-finger grasping and adaptive clamp clamping
[J]. J Mechan Eng. 1991;27(4):60–5 (in Chinese).
Xiong YL. Point contact constraint theory and qualitative analysis of robot grasping [J]. Sci China
A. 1994;24(8):874–83 (in Chinese).
Xiong CH, Ding H, Xiong YL. Fundamentals of Robotic Grasping and Fixturing [M]. World
Scientific, 2007.
Chapter 6
Analysis of Locating Accuracy
By analyzing the movement mechanism of a workpiece in fixture locating scheme,

the locating error which can measure a fixture locating performance is formulized as
a function of the workpiece position error by the technology of coordinate transfor-
mation. Moreover, the workpiece position error is also concluded as a function of the
position variation of contact point between the workpiece and locators. This proves
that a reasonable calculation method of the position variation of contact points is a
key to achieve the locating error. Therefore, according to the contact pair between
the workpiece and the locators, a DDP (i.e., Directional Dimension Path) model is
presented for the position variation of contact points without the unknown parameters
in all vectoral links. Again, the assembly relation between locators is depended on
to establish a DDC (i.e., Directional Dimension Chain) model for position variation
of contact points with the unknown parameters. According to the parameter status
in the vectorial links of DDC model, the date table method is suggested to calculate
the workpiece position error when the coefficients with the same parameters must
be added.
6.1 Analysis Model
The locating of workpiece in fixture aims at reasonably determining the position

and direction of workpiece relative to the cutting tool by the contact between the
workpiece and the locators (Gong and Cai 1981; Wang 1994). Only so doing, the
workpiece can achieve the specified requirements in the machining process. However,
the inherent geometrical nature of a workpiece-fixture system, e.g., the workpiece
manufacturing error, the locator manufacturing error, the setup error between the
locators with each other, will all affect the final workpiece position. This is the
so-called locating accuracy (Wu and Li 2011; Wu and Song 2010).

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-33-4493-8_6
176 6 Analysis of Locating Accuracy
6.1.1 Locating Source Error
A workpiece-fixture system is illustrated in Fig. 6.1. To analyze the involved source

errors and their effects, two coordinate systems are firstly defined: the workpiece
coordinate system {WCS} attached rigidly to the workpiece and the global coordinate
system {GCS} fixed to a machine table.
The workholding aims at guaranteeing the workpiece finished feature during the
machining operation (Qin et al. 2006; Vishnupriyan et al. 2010). For example, dimen-
sion h shown in Fig. 6.1 is the machining requirement of the current machining step
with respect to the processing datum plane AA (the upper plane of the workpiece).
Note that {CCS}i denotes the contact coordinate system consisting of the normal
unit vector ni and two orthogonal tangential unit vectors τ i and ηi at the i-th contact
point, respectively.
As shown in Fig. 6.2a, source errors relative to geometric defaults correspond
to the setup-errors and manufacturing-errors of locators and the workpiece. These
errors will finally cause the translation and rotation of the workpiece, i.e., the so-
called workpiece position error. δh will be the locating error, which belongs to one
of the workpiece machining error, whose value varies along the machined feature.
Besides, the inconsistent datum error is another kind of source error. As shown in
Fig. 6.2c, if the processing datum plane for machined feature h is not identical with
the locating datum plane (the bottom plane) and if the manufacturing default of the
processing datum plane, being equal to Hmax −Hmin , exists with respect to the locating
datum plane, the IDE will occur for dimension h and equals also Hmax − Hmin (Qin
and Zhang 2006; Qin et al. 2007).
Fig. 6.1 Illustration of the

workpiece-fixture system Clamp 2
A A'
Machined feature
Locator 1 Workpiece h
Chip
thickness
{WCS}
Clamp 1
{GCS}
Locator 2 Locator 3
6.1 Analysis Model 177
δh δh
Workpiece Workpiece
h
{WCS}
{WCS}
Locator 1
Locator 1
{GCS}
Locator 3 {GCS} Locator 2
Locator 2 Locator 3
(a) Illustration of the setup-error and manufacturing-error of locator
Workpiece δh
Locator 1
{WCS}
{GCS}
Locator 2 Locator 3
(b) Illustration of the manufacturing default of workpiece locating plane
Workpiece
δh
Hmax
Hmin
Locator 1
{WCS}
{GCS}
Locator 2 Locator 3
(c) Illustration of the IDE
Fig. 6.2 Source errors due to geometric default
6.1.2 Workpiece Position Error
From section above, we know that only setup-error and manufacturing error can
cause the workpiece position error corresponding to the rigid motion of the work-
piece. In this section, a generic mathematical formulation is derived to describe their
relationship.
Yw Workpiece
{WCS}
Ow Xw
rpw
Z w P(Curvature center
at point C)
riw
C
rw
rp
T(Curvature center
ri at point C)
Y
rt
O X
{GCS} Locator i
Z
Fig. 6.3 Fixture locating scheme
As shown in Fig. 6.3, the locating scheme consists of k locators. The locating
surface in contact with the i-th locator is assumed to be represented by the following
function in {WCS} (Asada and By 1985; Liu and Xiong 2003).
fi (rw )=f (xw , yw , z w )=0 (6.1)

T
where rw = xw , yw , z w is the coordinate vector of any point on the workpiece with
respect to {WCS}.
If the orientation and position of the workpiece are known, the workpiece point
rw can be mapped from {WCS} to {GCS} following
r=T(Θ w )rw + rw (6.2)

T
where r= x, y, z is the coordinate vector of any point on the workpiece with
respect to {GCS}. rw =[xw , yw , zw ]T denotes the position of the origin of {WCS}
Θ w =[αw , βw , γw ] is the orientation of {WCS} with respect to {GCS}.
T
in{GCS}.
T Θ w is an orthogonal rotation matrix with c = cos, s = sin and
⎡ ⎤
T(Θ w )=⎣ cβw sγw cαw cγw + sαw sβw sγw −sαw cγw + cαw sβw sγw ⎦ (6.3)
According to Eq. (6.2), rw can be described as a function of r, rw and Θ w , i.e.,
rw =T(Θ w )T (r − rw ) (6.4)
By substituting Eqs. (6.3) into (6.1), the locating surface of the workpiece can be
rewritten as

fi (rw , Θ w , r)=fi T(Θ w )T (r − rw ) =0 (6.5)
It is known from Eq. (6.4) that, the position of the i-th (i = 1, 2, …, k) locator can
be expressed as
i =T(Θ w ) (ri − rw )
T
rw (6.6)
Agian, because the i-th locator is on the locating surface of the workpiece, there
exist

fi (rw , Θ w , ri )=fi T(Θ w )T (ri − rw ) =0 (6.7)
T
Denote qw = rTw , Θ Tw to be six position parameters of the workpiece, i.e.,
T
qw = xw , yw , zw , αw , βw , γw , then Eq. (6.7) can be described by the following
equation

fi qw , ri =fi T(Θ w )T (ri − rw ) =0 (6.8)
Obviously, the position and orientation qw of the workpice will vary with the
variation of the position ri of the contact point. Therefore, Eq. (6.8) is differentiated
with respect to qw and ri such that
∂fi ∂fi
δqw + w T(Θ w )T δri =0 (6.9)
∂qw ∂ri
T
where δqw = δxw , δyw , δzw , δαw , δβw , δγw represents the practical position errors
of the workpiece. δri =[δx, δy, δz] is the position variation of the i-th contact point.
T ∂fi ∂fi ∂fi ∂fi ∂fi ∂fi ∂fi T
Because qx = xw , yw , zw , αw , βw , γw , then ∂qw
= , , , ,
∂xw ∂yw ∂zw ∂αw ∂βw ∂γw
, .
Therefore, if Eqs. (6.8, 6.6) are differentiated with respect to x w , yw , zw , α w , β w and
γ w , the following equation can be obtained
⎧ T
⎪
⎪ ∂fi
= ∂fi
T(Θ w )T ∂x∂rw
⎪
⎪ ∂xw ∂rw
⎪
⎪ i
w
⎪
⎪ ∂fi ∂fi
T
T ∂rw
⎪
⎪ = ∂rw T(Θ w ) ∂yw
⎪
⎪ ∂yw
i T
⎪
⎪
⎨ ∂fi = ∂fwi T(Θ w )T ∂rw
∂zw ∂r ∂zw
i T (6.10)
⎪
⎪ ∂f
= ∂rw∂f T(Θ )T
T(Θ w )rw
⎪
i i w
⎪
⎪ ∂αw

∂αw i
⎪
⎪
i
T
⎪
⎪ ∂fi
= ∂rw∂fi T(Θ w )T
T(Θ w )ri
w
⎪
⎪ ∂βw ∂βw
⎪
⎪ i T
⎪
⎩ ∂fi = ∂fwi T(Θ w ) T(Θ w )rw
T
∂γw ∂r i ∂γw i
∂fi ∂fi ∂fi ∂fi T

where ∂rw
= ∂x w, ,
∂yiw ∂ziw
is the normal vector of the workpiece at i-th locating
i i
w w w T
w w w T ∂fi
i = xi , yi , zi
contact point rw i = nix , niy , niz = ∂rw
, and denote nw
i
(Qin et al. 2006).
According to Eq. (6.3), it can easily obtain the differentiation of the orthogonal
rotation matrix T(Θ w ) with respect to α w , β w and γ w as
⎡ ⎤
0 0 0
∂T(Θ w )T ⎣
= sαw sγw + cαw sβw cγw −sαw cγw + cαw sβw sγw cαw cβw ⎦ (6.11)
∂αw
cαw sγw − sαw sβw cγw −cαw cγw − sαw sβw sγw −sαw cβw
⎡ ⎤
−sβw cγw −sβw sγw −cβw
∂T(Θ w )T ⎣
= sαw cβw cγw sαw cβw sγw −sαw sβw ⎦ (6.12)
∂βw
cαw cβw cγw cαw cβw sγw −cαw sβw
⎡ ⎤
−cβw sγw cβw cγw 0
∂T(Θ w )T ⎣
= −cαw cγw − sαw sβw sγw −cαw sγw + sαw sβw cγw 0 ⎦ (6.13)
∂γw
sαw cγw − cαw sβw cγw −cαw cγw − sαw sβw sγw 0
For the sake of simplicity, X w Ow Y w is generally selected to coincide with

∂rw
T ∂rw T
XOY. Thus, αw =βw =γw =0. Because ∂x = 1, 0, 0 , ∂y = 0, 1, 0 and
∂rw
T w w
∂zw
= 0, 0, 1 , the workpiece position error can be obtained by substituting
these equations of Eqs. (6.10) to (6.13) into Eq. (6.9), i.e.,
Jδqw = − N T δr (6.14)
where J=[J T T T T
1 , J2 , . . . , Jk ] is the locating Jacobian matrix with

J i = −nix , −niy , −niz , niz yi − nw
w w w w z , nw y − nw z , nw z − nw x . N=diag nw , nw , . . . , nw
ij i iz i ij i ix i iz i 1 2 k
is the unit normal vector matrix. δr=[δrT1 , δrT2 , . . . , δrTk ]T is the position error vector
of the contact point (Wang 2002; Kang et al. 2003).
Especially, J i = −nwix , −nij , nij xi − nix yi in Eq. (6.14) for a 2D workpiece.
w w w
Generally, δqw can be decomposed into two parts according to Eq. (6.14)

δqw =δqsw + δqhw = − J + N T δr + I 6×6 − J + J λ (6.15)
with J + is a Moore-Penrose inverse matrix of J, λ is an arbitrary constant vector and
δqsw = − J + N T δr (6.16)
δqhw =(I 6×6 − J + J)λ (6.17)
In the above equations, δqsw results from the position variation δr of the locating
point to the tool-setting, and δqhw is induced by the free DOFs of the workpiece,
which aren’t constrained by locators.
To have a good understanding, Fig. 6.4a and b show a 2D workpiece constrained
by two locators represented by triangles. In both cases, the workpiece is obviously
free to either translate along the X direction or rotate about point O. This means that
Fig. 6.4 Locating scheme

Y Workpiece
X λ
O
free direction
Locator 1 Locator 2
(a) Translation along the X direction
Locator 1 Workpiece
Y
λ
O X free direction
Locator 2
(b) Rotation about point O
Locator 1
Y Workpiece
O X
Locator 2 Locaor 3
(c) Deterministic constraint
a non-zero λ exists. On the contrary, the workpiece is determinately constrained in

case (c) so that the second item δqhw =(I 6×6 − J + J)λ will vanish. More information
on δqhw can be seen in Chap. 2.
6.1.3 Locating Error
Locating accuracy refers to the accordance of the practical position and orientation
of the process datum with the ideal ones after the workpiece is located in the fixture.
Generally, the locating accuracy is measured by using the locating error which is
defined as the deviation of the practical position and orientation of the process datum
from the ideal ones. The smaller the locating error, the higher the locating accuracy.
T
As shown in Fig. 6.3, rP = xP , yP , zP and rw
P =[xP , yP , zP ] are the coordinates of
w w w T
the process datum point P in XOY and X w Ow Y w , respectively. According to Eq. (6.2),
the coordinate transformation of point P from X w Ow Y w to XOY is
rP =T(Θ w )rw
P + rw (6.18)
where
⎡ ⎤
−sβw cγw δβw (sαw sγw + cαw sβw cγw )δαw (cαw sγw − sαw sβw cγw )δαw
⎢ ⎥
⎢ −cβw sγw δγw +sαw cβw cγw δβw +cαw cβw cγw δβw + cαw cβw cγw δβw ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ −(cαw cγw + sαw sβw sγw )δγw +(sαw cγw − cαw sβw sγw )δγw ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ −sβw sγw δβw (−sαw cγw + cαw sβw sγw )δαw (−cαw cγw − sαw sβw sγw )δαw ⎥
δT(Θ w )=⎢
⎢ +cβ cγ δγ
⎥
⎥
⎢ w w w +sαw cβw sγw δβw +cαw cβw sγw δβw ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ −(cαw sγw − sαw sβw cγw )δγw +(sαw sγw + cαw sβw cγw )δγw ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎣ −cβw δβw cαw cβw δαw −sαw cβw δαw ⎦
−sαw sβw δβw −cαw sβw δβw
(6.19)
If X w Ow Y w is assumed to have the identical orientation with XOY, Eq. (6.18) is

differentiated to obtain
δrP =Ξ P δqw + δrw

p (6.20)
1 0 0 0 zP −yP
where Ξ P = 0 1 0 −zP 0 xP is the position matrix of process datum point (Qin
0 0 1 yP −xP 0
et al. 2008, 2011).
6.2 Position Error Model of Contact Point 183
6.2 Position Error Model of Contact Point
Equation (6.17) shows that the key to solve the locating error δrP is to calculate the
workpiece position error δqw (Qin et al. 2014). Again, it is known from Eq. (6.20)
that the solution of the position error δr of contact point is key to calculation of the
workpiece position error δqw .
6.2.1 Directional Dimension Path
No matter how many kinds of locating schemes there are used to locate the workpiece,
there are only four types of contact pairs between workpiece and locator.
The first is the plane-plane contact in which the contact surfaces of the workpiece
and the locator are planes, as shown in Fig. 6.5a. The second is the plane-curved
surface contact in which the contact surface of the workpiece is plane whereas the
contact surface of the locator is curved surface, as shown in Fig. 6.5b. The third is
the curved surface-plane contact where the contact surfaces of the workpiece and
the locaor are curved surface and plane, respectively, as shown in Fig. 6.5c. The
fourth is the curved surface-curved surface contact where the contact surface of the
workpiece is curved surface as well as the the contact surface of the locator, as shwon
in Fig. 6.5d.
Generally, the global coordinate system XOY is established with the main locating
point as the coordinate origin, and X w Ow Y w is coincides with XOY. Thus, no matter
which kind of contact pair, a directional dimension path composed of m vector rings
can be found out according to the search principle of “from the coordinate origin to
the locating point and then through the contact point to the tool-setting point”. Here,
the dimension described by length L and its vector angle θ is called a vector ring d,
which is denoted as d = (l, θ ).
Suppose that the i-th dimension path ri consists of m vector rings d i1 =(l1 , θ1 ),
d i2 =(l2 , θ2 ), …, and d im =(lm , θm ), where l 1 , l 2 , …, l m are the length of vector ring,
while θ 1 , θ 2 , …, θ m are the angle of the vector ring. Therefore, the coordinate of the
i-th contact point can be expressed as
ri =ni Li (6.21)
T
where N i = n1 , n2 , . . . , nm is the direction matrix. Li = l1 , l2 , . . . , lm is the size
T
vector. nj = cos θj , sin θj (j=1, 2, . . . , m) is the direction of dimension L j .
By differentiating the variables L j and θj (j=1, 2, . . . , m) in Eq. (6.21), the position
variation of the i-th contact point can be achieved as
δri =N i δLi + Λi δθ i (6.22)

Y Y
θ0 θ0
X Workpiece
O X O
Workpiece Z L0 θi
Z L0
Ci(Pi)
Ci(Pi/Ti) Li
Ti
Locator i Locator i
(a) Plane-Plane (b) Plane-curved surface
Y
Y
Workpiece
Workpiece
θi
O(Pi) θ0
X O(Pi)
L0 X
Li
Ci
Ci(Ti) θi Li
Z Z Ti
Locator i Locator i
(c) Curved surface-plane (d) Curved surface-Curved surface
Fig. 6.5 Contact pair
T
where δLi = δl1 , δl2 , . . . , δlm is the tolerance of the size vector Li .
T T
δθ i = δθ1 , δθ2 , . . . , δθm is the tolerance of vector angle vector θ i = θ1 , θ2 , . . . , θm .
Λi = R1 , R2 , . . . , Rm is the tolerance coefficient matrix with the tolerance coefficient
T
Rj = −lj sin θj , lj cos θj (j=1, 2, . . . , m) of the j-th vector angle in the i-th directional
dimension path.
Thus, the calculation model of the position error can be concluded for the i-th
contact poinit, i.e.,
δri =Bi δY i , i=1, 2, . . . , k (6.23)
where δY i =[δLTi , δθ Ti ]T , Bi =[N i , Λi ] .

However, if there is unknown vector ring or unknown parameters in the vector ring,
the directional dimension chain containing the directional dimension path should
be searched to overcome the problem according to the the principle of “assembly
relationship between locators”.
6.2.2 Directional Dimension Chain
According to the the principle of “assembly relationship between locators”, the r-th
directional dimension chain is assumed to be obtained, which includes the s-th direc-
tional dimension pathand the t-th directional dimension path. It is assumed that there
are i vector rings d sj = lj , θj j=1, 2, . . . , i in the s-th
directional dimension path and
n-i vector rings d tj = lj , θj j=i + 1, i + 2, . . . , n in the t-th directional
dimension
path, then the r-th dimension chain has n vector rings d rj = Lj , Θj j=1, 2, . . . , n ,
as illustrsted in Fig. 6.6.
Fig. 6.6 Directional θi

dimension chain Y
li
l1 θ1 li+1
X
θi+1
θn
ln
(a) Two directional dimension path
Θi=θi
Y
Li=li
Θi+1=π+θi+1
L1=l1
Θ1=θ1
Li+1=li+1
O X
Θn=π+θn
Ln=ln
(b) One directional dimension chain

It can be seen from Fig. 6.3b that the relationship between linear dimension L j
and angular dimension Θ j can be obtained by projecting each ring in the directtional
dimension chain onto the X and Y axes respectively
⎧ n
⎪
⎪
⎨ Li cos Θ i =0
i=1

n (6.24)
⎪
⎪ Li sin Θ i =0
⎩
i=1
As shown in Fig. 6.3a, because Θ1 =θ1 , . . . , Θi =θi , Θi+1 =π +θi , . . . , Θn+1 =π +

n n n n
θn , there are Lj cos Θj = − lj cos θj , Lj sin Θj = − lj sin θj and
j=i+1 j=i+1 j=i+1 j=i+1

i i
i
i
Lj cos Θj = lj cos θj , Lj sin Θj = lj sin θj . Again, there are the following
j=1 j=1 j=1 j=1
relationship
⎧
⎪
⎪
i
n
⎪
⎨ lj cos θj + lj cos θj =0
j=1 j=i+1
(6.25)
⎪
⎪
i
n
⎪
⎩ lj sin θj + lj sin θj =0
j=1 j=i+1
Thus, by putting Eq. (6.25) in order, the relationship among the vector rings in
the two directional dimension paths can be described as
⎧n
⎪
⎪
⎨ lj cos θj =0
j=1

n (6.26)
⎪
⎪ lj sin θj =0
⎩
j=1
By differentiating Eq. (6.26), there is the following relationship between the

tolerance δl j of the linear size l j and the tolerance δθ j of the angle size θ j ,
⎧ n
⎪
⎪
⎨ (cos θi δli − li sin θi δθi )=0
i=1

n (6.27)
⎪
⎪
⎩ (sin θi δli + li cos θi δθi )=0
i=1
Generally speaking, under the condition of complete dimension in the fixture

assembly drawing, there are no more than 2 unknown parameters in Eqs. (6.26)
and (6.27). In the directional dimension chain, if all unknown parameters are sizes,
this chain belongs to the sized-type dimension chain. If all unknown parameters are
angles, this chain is called the angled-type dimension chain. If one of the unknown
parameters is the size and the other is the angle, this chain belongs to the mixed-type
dimension chain.
Assume the s-th directional dimension path d su , . . . , d sp, . . . , d sv is contained in

the r-th directional dimension chain d r1 , d r2 , . . . , d 2n (1 ≤ u ≤ v ≤ n), there must
be three ways including
“dimension path and dimension chain have only unknown
parameter x p and δxp 1 ≤ u ≤ p ≤ v ≤ n ”, “dimension path and dimension chain
have unknown parameters x p , x q and δx p , δxq (x=l or θ 1 ≤ u ≤ p ≤ q ≤ v ≤ n)”,
“dimension path has only unknown parameter x p and δx p , but dimension chain has
unknown parameters x p , x q and δx p , δxq (1 ≤ u ≤ p ≤ v ≤ q ≤ n). However,
no matter which way, the unknown parameter x p (or x p , x q ) can be obtained from
Eq. (6.26) as
AL= − A∗ L∗ (6.28)
where it belongs to the sized-type dimension chain if x = l. Thus in Eq. (6.28),

T
L= lp , la is the unknown size, A= np , nq is the known direction corre-
T
sponding
to the unknown size. L∗ = l1 , . . . , lp−1 , lp+1 , . . . , lq−1 , lq+1 , . . . , ln and
A∗ = n1 , . . . , np−1 , np+1 , . . . , nq−1 , nq+1 , . . . nn are the known size and the corre-
sponding direction in the directional dimension chain, respectively. Therefore, the
unknown size can be obtained from Eq. (6.28) as
−1
L= − AT A AT A∗ L∗ (6.29)
If x = θ, it is the angled-type dimension chain. In Eq. (6.25),

T
A= np , nq is the unknown angle. L= lp , lq is the known size corre-
∗
T
sponding
to the unknown angle. L = l1 , . . . ,lp−1 , lp+1 , . . . , lq−1 lq+1,... , ln and
A∗ = n1 , . . . , np−1 , np+1 , . . . , nq−1 , nq+1 , . . . nn are the known size and the corre-
sponding direcion in the directional dimension chain, respectively. Therefore, the
unknown angle can be obtained from Eq. (6.28) as
−1
A = −A∗ L∗ LT LLT (6.30)
But if x p = l p and x q = θ q , it is the so-called mixed-type

dimension chain. In Eq. (6.28), L= lp , lq T and A= np,p , nq,p with
T
ni,p = cos θi − θp , sin θi − θp are the unknown size and the corre-
T
sponding direction. L∗ = l1 , . . . , lp−1 , lp+1 , . . . , lq−1 , lq+1 , . . . , ln and

A∗ = n1,p , . . . , np−1,p , np+1,p , . . . , nq−1,p , nq+1,p , . . . , nn,p are the known size and the
corresponding direction in the directional dimension chain, respectively. Therefore,
the unknown parameters can be obtained from Eq. (6.28) as
−1
A= − A∗ L∗ LT LLT
−1 (6.31)
L= − AT A AT A∗ L∗
After calculatingthepositionparameters accordingtoEqs. (6.29) to (6.31), theposi-

tion variation of the s-th contact point in the s-th directional dimension path, contained
in the r-th directional dimension chain, can be further obtained as follows

−1
δrs =es δys − P s P Ts P s P Ts Es δY s (6.32)

where

if x = l, δY s = δl1 , . . . , δlp−1 , δlp+1 , . . . , δlq−1 , δlq+1 ,. . . , δln , δθ1 , . . . , δθn T and
Es = n1 , . . . , np−1 , np+1 , . . . , nq−1 , nq+1 , . . . nn , R1 , . . . , Rn are the tolerance and the
corresponding coefficient
of the known dimension in the directional dimensionchain,
T
respectively. δys = δlu , . . . , δlp−1 , δlp+1 , . . . , δlq−1 , δlq+1 , . . . , δlv , δθu , . . . , δθv , es =

nu , . . . , np−1 , np+1 , . . . , nq−1 , nq+1 , . . . , nv , Ru , . . . , Rv or δys = δlu , . . ., δlp−1 , δlp+1 ,
T
. . ., δlv , δθu , . . ., δθves = nu , . . . , np−1 , np+1 , . . . , nv , Ru , . . . , Rv are the tolerance
and the corresponding coefficient of the known dimension in the directional dimension
path, respectively. T
If x=θ, δY s = δl1 , . . ., δln , δθ1 , . . ., δθp−1 , δθp+1 , . . ., δθq−1 , δθq+1 , . . ., δθn and

Es = n1 , . . .nn , R1 , . . ., Rp−1 , Rp+1 , . . ., Rq−1 , Rq+1 , . . ., Rn are the tolerance and the
corresponding coefficient
of the known dimension in the directional dimensionchain,
T
respectively. δys = δlu , . . ., δlv , δθu , . . ., δθp−1 , δθp+1 , . . ., δθq−1 , δθq+1 , . . ., δθy , es =

nu , . . ., nv , Ru , . . ., Rp−1 , Rp+1 , . . ., Rq−1 , Rq+1 , . . ., Rv or δys = δlu , . . ., δlv , δθu , . . .,
T
δθp−1 , δθp+1 , . . ., δθv , es = nu , . . ., nv , Ru , . . ., Rp−1 , Rp+1 , . . ., Rv are the tolerance
path, respectively.
If x p = l p and x q = θ q , δY s = δl1 , . . ., δlp−1 , δlp+1 , . . ., δln , δθ1 , . . ., δθq−1 , δθq+1 , . . .,
T
δθn and Es = n1 , . . ., np−1 , np+1 , . . ., nn , R1 , . . ., Rq−1 , Rq+1 , . . ., Rn are the tolerance

chain, respectively. δys = δlu , . . ., δlp−1 , δlp+1 , . . ., δlv , δθ1 , . . ., δθq−1 , δθq+1 , . . ., δθn T ,

es = nu , . . ., np−1 , np+1 , . . ., nv , Ru , . . ., Rq−1 , Rq+1 , . . ., Rv or δys = δlu , . . ., δlp−1 , δlp+1 ,
T
. . ., δlv , δθ1 , . . ., δθn , es = nu , . . ., np−1 , np+1 , . . ., nv , Ru , . . ., Rv or δys = δlu , . . ., δlv ,

δθ1 , . . ., δθq−1 , δθq+1 , . . ., δθn , es = nu , . . ., nv , Ru , . . ., Rq−1 , Rq+1 , . . ., Rv are the
tolerance and the corresponding coefficient of the known dimension in the directional
dimension path, respectively.

Moreover, P s = np , nq , ps = np , nq or P s =np , ps =np are the coefficient corre-
sponding to the tolerance of the unknown parameter in the directional dimension
chain and the directional dimension path, respectively.
It is seen from Eq. (6.32) that δys is actually included in δY s . Therefore, a new
sign H s can be defined as the included matrix which can hold δys =H s δY s . Thus, no
matter which type of unknown variable there is in Eq. (6.32), the calculation form of
the position variation of the s-th contact point is the same. Hence, it can be expressed
as a following unified expression
δrs =Bs δY s , s=1, 2, . . . , k (6.33)
where Bs =es H s − Es is the coefficient matrix.

According to Eqs. (6.23, 6.33), it is known that the position variations of the
contact points are similar formulas to each other whether it is the directional dimen-
sion path model or the directional dimension chain model. If there are k contact
points in the locating scheme, then the matrix form of the directional dimensional
chain model for the position variation of contact point is as follows according to
Eq. (6.33),
δr=BδY (6.34)

where B=diag B1 , B1 , · · · , Bk is the coefficient matrix. δY=[δY T1 , δY T2 , · · · , δY Tk ]
is the known parameter vector. It is noteworthy that there can be no duplicate param-
eters in δY s . Otherwise, the duplicate parameters must be merged with the same
category.
If all sizes or angles in the locating scheme are expressed in the form of symmet-
rical deviation, Eq. (6.34) is substituted into Eq. (6.17) to obtain the workpiece
position error as

δqw = abs −J + N T B δY (6.35)
6.3 Examples and Experiments
Three typical examples are given to illustrate the locating accuracy prediction method
based on the workpiece position error. The first example is based on the directional
dimension path. The second example is the analysis of the workpiece position error
in the two cylindrical pins locating scheme which is verified by experimental test.
The third example is the analysis and prediction of locating error in the one-side-
two-hole locating scheme. By comparing the calculation result with the literature
value, it show that the two methods are highly consistent.
6.3.1 One Vee Bloke-One Supporting Pin Locating Scheme
The cylindrical surface on the the workpiece is selected as the locating surface as
well as the plane, as shown in Fig. 6.7. The cylindrical surface is located on the vee
block whereas the plane is mountained on the supporting pin.
0
All dimensions can be seen in Fig. 6.7 where the workpiece diameter D=60−0.02
mm can be converted into the symmetrical deviation form of D = 59.99 ± 0.01 mm
(Dai et al. 1980).
Step 1 is the search of all directional dimension paths.
There are three contact points C 1 , C 2 and C 3 in the One Vee bloke-one supporting
pin locating scheme. Therefore, the corresponding locating points and the tool setting
points are P1 , P2 , P3 and T 1 , T 2 , T 3 , respectively. The establishment of coordinate
system is based on the main locating point, as shown in Fig. 6.8.
D=Φ600-0.02
C1
α=90º
h=25±0.03
C3
C2
L=100
Fig. 6.7 One Vee bloke-one supporting pin locating scheme
To calculate the position variation at the first contact point C 1 , the first directional
dimension path can be obtained according to the search principle of “from the coordi-
nate origin to the locating point and then through the contact point to the tool-setting
point”. It has only one vector ring d 1 = (D/2, 135°), as shown in Fig. 6.8a.
Likewise, the other two directional dimension paths second can be obtained, as
shown in Fig. 6.8b, c.
Step 2 is the calculation of all directional dimension paths.
Obviously, there are no unknown parameters in three directional
dimension paths. According to Eq. (6.23), the position variations of
cos 135◦ − D sin 135◦ δD
contact points can be obtained as δr1 = 2 2
sin 135◦ D2 cos 135◦ 0
−0.00707 cos 225◦ − D sin 225◦ δD −0.00707
= , δr2 = 2 2 = , and
0.00707 sin 225◦ D2 cos 225◦ 0 −0.00707
0
0
1 0 cos 270◦ −h sin 270◦ cos 270◦ −r sin 270◦ δh 0
δr3 = = .
0 L sin 270◦ h cos 270◦ sin 270◦ r sin 270◦ 0 −0.03
0
0
Step 3 is the calculation of the workpiece position error.
6.3 Examples and Experiments 191
d1=(l1, θ1)
T1(C1)
l1=D/2
θ1=π/2+α/2
O(P1) X
(a) The first path
θ2=π+α/2
O(P2) X
l2=D/2
T2(C2)
d2=(l2, θ2)
(b) The second path
Y d3,1=(l3,1, 0)
d3,2=(l3,2, θ3,2)
d3,3=(l3,3, θ3,2)
θ3,2=3π/2
l3,1=L A
O X
l3,2=h
θ3,3=3π/2
l3,3=r
T3 P3(C3)
(c) The third path
Fig. 6.8 Directional dimension paths of One Vee bloke-one supporting pin locating scheme
√
−√ 2/2 0 0
√ √ 2/2 √0 0
√2/2 −√ 2/2 0 0 −√2/2 0
Because J= 2/2 2/2 0 and N= , According
0 − 2/2 0
0 1 −100
0 0 0
0 0 −1
−0.0141
to Eq. (6.16), the workpiece position error can be obtained as δqsw = 0 .
0.003
6.3.2 Two Cylindrical Pins Locating Scheme
Figure 6.9 shows the two cylindrical pins locating scheme for the hole machining on
the end face of the disk sleeve parts. All dimensions can be converted into symmetrical
deviation form, i.e., D = 39.969 ± 0.031 mm, d 1 = d 2 = 10 ± 0.0049 mm, and L
= 35.2810 ± 0.0076 mm (Wang et al. 2006).
Step 1 is to search the directional dimension path.
There are two contact points C 1 and C 2 in the two cylinder locating scheme.
Therefore, the corresponding locating points and the tool setting points are P1 , P2
and T 1 , T 2 , respectively. The establishment of coordinate system is based on the
main locating point, as shown in Fig. 6.9b.
To calculate the position variation at the first contact point C 1 , the first directional
dimension path can be obtained according to the search principle of “from the coordi-
nate origin to the locating point and then through the contact point to the tool-setting
point”. It has two vector rings (R, θ 1 ) and (r 1 , θ 1 ), as shown in Fig. 6.10a.
Likewise, the second directional dimension path through the second contact point
C 2 can be obtained. There are also two vector rings (R, θ 2 ) and (r 1 , θ 2 ), as shown in
Fig. 6.10b.
Bush plate Drill bush Workpiece Eccentric wheel
Cylindrical pin
Base plate
d1
A
L A D
A
A
d2
(a) Drilling fixture
P1(P2)
X
C1 C2
T1 T2
(b) Coordinate system
Fig. 6.9 Two cylindrical pins locating scheme

Fig. 6.10 Directional Y

dimension paths of two
cylinder locating scheme
θ1
P1 X
θ1
C1 (R,θ1)
(r1,θ1)
T1
(a) The first directional dimension path

Y
θ2
P2
X
(R,θ2)
θ2
C2 (r2,θ2)
T2
(b) The second directional dimension path
Step 2 is to calculate the directional dimension path.

Because there exists an unknown parameter θ 1 in the first directional dimension
path, it is necessary to search the directional dimension chain.
Again, the second directional dimension path has also an unknown parameter θ 2 .
Nevertheless, a second directional dimension chain must be obtained to calculate the
position variation at contact point C 2 .
Step 3 is to search the directional dimension chain.
In order to calculate the position variation at contact point C 1 , the first directional
dimension chain can be obtained by connecting the first directional dimension path
and the second directional dimension path according to the principle of “assembly
relationship between locators”, as shown in Fig. 6.11. Because there exists two
unknown parameters of angle θ 1 and angle θ 2 , the chain is an angled-typed dimension
chain.
Fig. 6.11 The first Y

directional dimension chain
two cylinder locating scheme
P1(P2)
X
(R,θ1) (R,θ2)
(r1,θ1) C1 C2 (r2,θ2)
T1 (L, θ3) T2
By analogy, another directional dimension chain must be found to calculate the

position variation of contact point C 2 which is the same as Fig. 6.11.
Step 4 is to merge similar terms.
This is the key to calculation of the position variation of contact point. By listing
five vector rings in the dimension chain into the Table 6.1, the tolerances in the
second column can be used as a basis for merging the similar terms.
Table 6.1 All vector rings in the chain of two cylinder locating scheme
Before merging After merging
No Ring Tolerance Coefficient Tolerance Coefficient
1 (R, θ 1 ) δR n1 = [cosθ 1 , sinθ 1 ]T δR n1 + n5 = [cosθ 1 −cosθ 2 ,
δθ 1 R1 = [−r 1 sinθ 1 , sinθ 1 −sinθ 2 ]T
r 1 cosθ 1 ]T
2 (r 1 , θ 1 ) δr 1 n2 = [cosθ 1 , sinθ 1 ]T δr 1 n2 = [cosθ 1 , sinθ 1 ]T
δθ 1 R2 = [−Rsinθ 1 , δr 2 n4 = −[cosθ 2 , sinθ 2 ]T
Rcosθ 1 ]T
3 (L, θ 3 ) δL n3 = [1, 0]T δL n3 = [1, 0]T
4 (r 2 , θ 2 ) δr 2 n4 = −[cosθ 2 , δθ 1 R1 + R2 = [−(R +
sinθ 2 ]T r 1 )sinθ 1 , (R + r 1 )cosθ 1 ]T
δθ 2 R4 = −[−Rsinθ 2 ,
Rcosθ 2 ]T
5 (R, θ 2 ) δR n5 = −[cosθ 2 , δθ 2 R4 + R5 = −[−(R +
sinθ 2 ]T r 2 )sinθ 2 , (R + r 2 )cosθ 2 ]T
δθ 2 R5 = −[−r 2 sinθ 2 ,
r 2 cosθ 2 ]T
Obviously, three terms δR, δθ 1 , and δθ 2 are repeated such that the corresponding
coefficient should be merged according to the merging principle of coefficient addi-
tion, a shown in Table 6.1. It is worth mentioning that the unknown parameters δθ 1
and δθ 2 are put at the end of Table 6.1.
Step 5 is to calculate the directional dimension chain.
The calculation of the directional dimension chain means the calculation of the
position error for contact point.
It is necessary for the unknown tolerances to obtain the corresponding unknown
dimensions. It is known from Table 6.1 that, θ 1 , δθ 1 and θ 2 , δθ 2 are parameters to
be determined. Because there are L* = L, A* = n3 and L=[R + r1 , R + r2 ]T , A =
[n1 , n4 ], it is easy to solve θ 1 = 225.1° and θ 2 = 134.9° according to Eq. (6.30).
Next is to calculate the unknown tolerances. In the first directional dimen-
−1.4118 −0.7059 1 −0.7059 T
sion chain, E1 = , δY 1 = δR, δr1 , δL, δr2 and
0 −0.7083 0 0.7083
17.69 −17.69 −0.7059 −0.7059 T
P1 = . Agian, there are e1 = , δy1 = δR, δr1
−17.63 −17.63 −0.7083 −0.7083
17.69
and p1 = in the first directional dimension path. Therefore, the position
−17.63
δR
0.212 0.0335 0.05183 0.0335 δr1
variation of the contact point C 1 is δr1 = .
0.85 0.134 0.207 0.134 δL
δr2
Likewise, it is easy to obtain the position variation of the contact point C 2 as
δR
0.212 0.0335 0.05183 0.0335 δr1
δr2 = .
0.85 0.134 0.207 0.134 δL
δr2
Step 6 is to calculate the workpiece position error.
0.7059 0.7083 0
Because the locating Jacobian matrix is J= and the normal
−0.7059 0.7083 0
− 0.7059 0
−0.7083 0
vector matrix is N= , thus the workpiece position error can
0 0.7059
0 −0.7083
0.0072
be achieved as δqw = 0.0291 . The workpiece position error δqw obtained by the
0
table calculation method is completely consistent with the corresponding value in
literature of Qin et al. (2014), Qin and Zhang (2006).
6.3.3 One Plane-Two Holes Locating Scheme
As shown in Fig. 6.12, one plane and two holes on the workpiece is chosen to
be locating surfaces. The distance between two locating pins with diameter of
D1 =400+0.025 mm and D2 =400+0.039 mm is l 12 = 100 ± 0.02 mm. Now holes O3
and O4 will be drilled on the workpiece. The center position of hole O3 are required
to be l3 =500+0.5 mm = 50.25 ± 0.25 mm and h3 =700+0.3 mm = 70.15 ± 0.15 mm,
respectively. The machining specifications of hole O4 are respectively l4 =400+0.2 mm
= 40.1 ± 0.1 mm and h4 =700+0.3 mm = 70.15 ± 0.15 mm (Chen and Wang 1985).
Step 1 is to search the directional dimension paths. The first directional dimension
path consists of two vector rings of d 1,1 =(R1 , α) and d 1,2 =(r1 , π + α), as shown
in Fig. 6.13a. As shown in Fig. 6.13b, three
vector rings in the second directional
dimension path are d 2,1 = L12 , 0 , d 2,2 = R2 , β − π and d 2,3 =(r2 , β), respectively.
Step 2 is to calculate the directional dimension paths. In the first path, there are
known parameters of R1 = 20.00625 ± 0.0125, r 1 = 19.992 ± 0.016 and α which is
arbitrary number. Thus, we can directly solve the position variation of contact point
cos α cos(π + α) T
C 1 . Because B1 = and δY 1 = δR1 , δr1 , the position variation
sin α sin(π + α)
cos α − cos α δR1
of contact point C 1 is δr1 = according to Eq. (6.20).
sin α − sin α δr1
O3
5
l 3 = 50 0
3
h = 700
d1 = 40 .007
0
.032
0 D1 = 40 0+0.025 D2 = 40 0+0.039
S3
O1 S4 O2
d2 = 40 .020
.053
0
3
h = 700
2
l = 400
O4
L12=100±0.08 of two holes

l12=100±0.02 of two pins
Fig. 6.12 One plane-two holes locating scheme

π+α
d1,1=(R1,α)
C1 d1,2=(r1,π+α) C2
r1
T1
R1 α T2
O1(P1) X
O2(P2)
(a) The first directional dimension path

Y
C1 β C2
R2
r2
T1 T2 β-π
O1(P1)
O2(P2) X
L12
d2,1=(L12,0)
d2,2=(R2,β-π)
d2,3=(r2,β)
(b) The second directional dimension path
Fig. 6.13 Two paths of one plane-two holes locating scheme
Moreover, there are known parameters of R2 = 20.00975 ± 0.0195 and r 2 =

19.98675 ± 0.0265 in the second path, but there is also an unknown parameter β.
The position variation of contact point C 2 can not be calculated.
Step 3 is to search the directional dimension chain. As stated above, the posi-
tion variation of contact point C 2 cannot be obtained by using the dimension path.
Therefore, the directional dimension chain must be found according to the principle
of “assembly relationship between locators”, as shown in Fig. 6.14.
C1 C2
T1 (l12,θ)
T2
O2(P2) X
O1 d1=(R1,α)
d2=(r1,π+α)
d3=(l12,θ)
d4=(r2,β)
d5=(R2,β-π)
d6=(L12,0)
Fig. 6.14 One chain of one plane-two holes locating scheme
The dimension chain consists of six vector rings. Because it has two
unknown angles of θ and β, it belongs to the angled-type chain. According to
T cos α cos(π + α) 1
Eq. (6.26), since L∗ = 20.00625, 19.992, 100 , A∗ = , and
sin α sin(π + α) 0
cos θ cos β − cos β
L=[100, 19.98675, 20.00975]T , A= in which β and θ are the
sin θ sin β − sin β
function of α.
According to Table 6.2, it is easy to obtain
cos α − cos α cos θ cos β − cos β 1 T
E2 = , δY 2 = δR1 , δr1 , δl12 , δr2 , δR2 , δL12 ,
sin α − sin α sin θ sin β − sin β 0
Table 6.2 All vector rings in the chain of one plane two holes locating scheme
Before merging After merging
No Ring Tolerance Coefficient Tolerance Coefficient
1 (R1 , α) δR1 n1 = [cosα, sinα]T δR1 n1 = [cosα, sinα]T
2 (r 1 , π + α) δr 1 n2 = [−cosα, −sinα]T δr 1 n2 = [−cosα, −sinα]T
3 (l 12 , θ) δl 12 n3 = [cosθ, sinθ]T δl 12 n3 = [cosθ, sinθ]T
δθ R3 = [−l 12 sinθ, l 12 cosθ]T δr 2 n4 = [cosβ, sinβ]T
4 (r 2 , β) δr 2 n4 = [cosβ, sinβ]T δR2 n5 = [−cosβ, −sinβ]T
δβ R4 = [−r 2 sinβ, r 2 cosβ]T δL 12 n6 = [1, 0]T
5 (R2 , β−π ) δR2 n5 = [−cosβ, −sinβ]T δθ R3 = [−l 12 sinθ, l 12 cosθ]T
δβ R5 = [R2 sinβ, −R2 cosβ]T δβ R4 + R5 = [ (R2 −r 2 )sinβ,
6 (L 12 , 0) δL 12 n6 = [1, 0]T −(R2 −r 2 )cosβ]T
−l12 sin θ (R2 − r2 ) sin β

and P2 = in the dimension chain, whereas
l12 cos θ −(R2 − r2 ) cos β
cos β − cos β 1 T (R2 −r2 ) sin β
e2 = , δy2 = δr2 , δR2 , δL12 and p2 = in
sin β − sin β 0 −(R2 −r2 ) cos β
the second dimension path. Therefore, the position variation of contact point C 2 can
δR1
δr1
cos α cos α 1 0 0 0 δl12
be achieved as δr2 = .
sin α sin α 0 0 0 0 δr2
δR2
δL12
Step 4 is to calculate the workpiece position error. By combining the posi-
tion error of C 1 and C 2 , the position variation of contact points can be written as
δR1
cos α cos α 0 0 0 0 δr1
sin α sin α 0 0 0 0 δl12
δr= .
cos α cos α 1 0 0 0 δr2
sin α sin α 0 0 0 0 δR2
δL12
− cos α − sin α 0
Because the locating Jacobian matrix is J= and the
− cos β − sin β 100 sin β
cos α 0
sin α 0
unit normal vector matrix is N= , the workpiece position error δqw can
0 cos β
0 sin β
calculated by discretizing the contact angle α (0° ≤ α≤360°) with step of 10°, as
listed in Table 6.3. The calculated value of workpiece position deviation δqw is in
good agreement with the reference value Qin’s literature (Qin and Zhang 2006).
Step 5 is to calculate the locating error. According to Eq. (6.20), the locating
errors of holes O3 and O4 is calculated for arbitrary angle α, as listed in Table 6.3.
T
For hole O3 , its coordinate of the center is rO3 = l3 , h3 in which l3 is the horizontal
T
distance of point O3 from point O1 with the coordinate of rO1 = 0, 0 whereas
h3 is the vertical dimension of point O3 relative to point S 3 with the coordinate of
T
rS3 = l13 , 0 . Since the horizontal direction includes α = 0° and α = 180°, Table 6.3
shows the locating error of hole O3 in the horizontal direction is δrp =0.057 mm.
Because α = 90° and α = 270° are in the vertical direction, the locating error of hole
O3 in the vertical direction is obtained from Table 6.3 as δrp = 0.745 mm. Obviously,
the relationship between the machining specification and the locating error is δrp =
0.057 < 0.25 mm in the horizontal direction and δrp = 0.745 < 0.15 mm in the
vertical direction.
Likewise, it is easy for hole O4 that the relationship between the machining spec-
ification and the locating error is δrp = 0.217 > 0.1 mm in the horizontal direction
Table 6.3 Calculation of locating error
Contact angle α Workpiece position Locating error δrp of hole Locating error δrp of hole Locating error δrp of hole Locating error δrp of hole
error δqw O3 in the horizontal O3 in the vertical O4 in the horizontal O4 in the vertical
direction direction direction direction
Datum Value Datum Value Datum Value Datum Value
0 [0.0285, 0, 0.0002]T O1 [0.0285, 0]T S3 [0.0285, − O2 [0.1085, − S4 [0.1085,
0.01005]T 0.02]T -0.01198]T
10 [0.0246, 0.00435, O1 [0.0246, S3 [0.0246, − O2 [0.1046, − S4 [0.1046,
0.00026]T 0.00435]T 0.0126]T 0.022]T -0.0131]T
20 [0.02349, 0.00855, O1 [0.02349, S3 [0.02349, − O2 [0.10349, − S4 [0.10349,

0.00029]T 0.00855]T 0.0156]T 0.027]T -0.0179]T
30 [0.0216, 0.0125, O1 [0.0216, S3 [0.0216, − O2 [0.1016, − S4 [0.1016,
0.00032]T 0.0125]T 0.021]T 0.0335]T -0.0276]T
40 [0.019, 0.016, O1 [0.019, 0.016]T S 3 [0.019, − O2 [0.099, − S4 [0.099,
0.00036]T 0.026]T 0.0356]T -0.036]T
50 [0.0161, 0.01915, O1 [0.0161, S3 [0.0161, − O2 [0.0961, − S4 [0.0961,
0.00041]T 0.0191]T 0.0331]T 0.0378]T -0.041]T
60 [0.0125, 0.0216, O1 [0.0125, S3 [0.0125, − O2 [0.0925, − S4 [0.0925,
0.00046]T 0.0216]T 0.042]T 0.0389]T -0.0495]T
70 [0.0085, 0.02349, O1 [0.0085, S3 [0.0085, − O2 [0.0885, − S4 [0.0885,
0.00051]T 0.02349]T 0.0471]T 0.0399]T -0.0566]T
80 [0.0043, 0.0246, O1 [0.0043, S3 [0.0043, − O2 [0.0843, − S4 [0.0843,
0.00062]T 0.0246]T 0.053]T 0.041]T -0.0611]T
90 [0, 0.0285, 0.0007]T O1 [0, 0.0285]T S3 [0, − O2 [0.08, − S4 [0.08,
0.0637]T 0.0415]T -0.07043]T
100 [0.0041, 0.023, O1 [0.0041, S3 [0.0041, − O2 [0.0841, − S4 [0.0841,
0.00063]T 0.023]T 0.055]T 0.0408]T -0.059]T
(continued)
201
202
110 [0.00654, 0.01799, O1 [0.00654, S3 [0.00654, − O2 [0.08654, − S4 [0.08654,
0.00054]T 0.01799]T 0.049]T 0.0395]T -0.052]T
120 [0.0098, 0.0108, O1 [0.0098, S3 [0.0098, − O2 [0.0898, − S4 [0.0898,
0.00047]T 0.0108]T 0.0419]T 0.0389]T -0.0465]T
130 [0.0159, 0.0083, O1 [0.0159, S3 [0.0159, − O2 [0.0959, − S4 [0.0959,
0.00041]T 0.0083]T 0.037]T 0.0375]T -0.0416]T
140 [0.0185, 0.0077, O1 [0.0185, S3 [0.0185, − O2 [0.0985, − S4 [0.0985,
0.00036]T 0.0077]T 0.029]T 0.036]T -0.0326]T
150 [0.0199, 0.0065, O1 [0.0199, S3 [0.0199, − O2 [0.0999, − S4 [0.0999,
0.00032]T 0.0065]T 0.0197]T 0.0335]T -0.0264]T
160 [0.021, 0.0059, O1 [0.021, S3 [0.021, − O2 [0.101, − S4 [0.101,
0.00029]T 0.0059]T 0.0177]T 0.027]T -0.022]T
170 [0.023, 0.0045, O1 [0.023, S3 [0.023, − O2 [0.103, − S4 [0.103,
0.00025]T 0.0045]T 0.0141]T 0.022]T -0.0166]T
180 [0.0285, 0, 0.0002]T O1 [0.0285, 0]T S3 [0.0285, − O2 [0.1085, − S4 [0.1085,
0.01005]T 0.02]T -0.01198]T
190 [0.0245, 0.0043, O1 [0.0245, S3 [0.0245, − O2 [0.1045, − S4 [0.1045,
0.00026]T 0.00435]T 0.0156]T 0.0217]T -0.0126]T
200 [0.023, 0.0085, O1 [0.023, S3 [0.023, − O2 [0.103, − S4 [0.103,
0.00029]T 0.0085]T 0.0216]T 0.026]T -0.0179]T
(continued)
6 Analysis of Locating Accuracy
210 [0.0216, 0.0046, O1 [0.0216, S3 [0.0216, − O2 [0.1016, − S4 [0.1016,
0.00032]T 0.0125]T 0.029]T 0.032]T -0.0276]T
220 [0.019, 0.0016, O1 [0.019, 0.016]T S 3 [0.019, − O2 [0.099, − S4 [0.099,
0.00036]T 0.0345]T 0.035]T -0.036]T
230 [0.0161, 0.01915, O1 [0.0161, S3 [0.0161, − O2 [0.0961, − S4 [0.0961,

0.00041]T 0.0191]T 0.0399]T 0.037]T -0.041]T
240 [0.0126, 0.0216, O1 [0.0126, S3 [0.0126, − O2 [0.0926, − S4 [0.0926,
0.00046]T 0.0216]T 0.042]T 0.038]T -0.0495]T
250 [0.0087, 0.02349, O1 [0.0087, S3 [0.0087, − O2 [0.0887, − S4 [0.0887,
0.00051]T 0.02349]T 0.0471]T 0.0395]T -0.0566]T
260 [0.0044, 0.0246, O1 [0.0044, S3 [0.0044, − O2 [0.0844, − S4 [0.0844,
0.00062]T 0.0246]T 0.053]T 0.0408]T -0.0611]T
270 [0, 0.0285, 0.0007]T O1 [0, 0.0285]T S3 [0, − O2 [0.08, − S4 [0.08,
0.0637]T 0.0415]T -0.07043]T
280 [0.0042, 0.023, O1 [0.0042, S3 [0.0042, − O2 [0.0842, − S4 [0.0842,
0.00063]T 0.023]T 0.056]T 0.041]T -0.059]T
290 [0.00655, 0.01799, O1 [0.00655, S3 [0.00655, − O2 [0.08655, − S4 [0.08655,
0.00054]T 0.01799]T 0.049]T 0.039]T -0.052]T
300 [0.0098, 0.0108, O1 [0.0098, S3 [0.0098, − O2 [0.0898, − S4 [0.0898,
0.00046]T 0.0108]T 0.0419]T 0.038]T -0.0465]T
(continued)
203
204
310 [0.0159, 0.0083, O1 [0.0159, S3 [0.0159, − O2 [0.0959, − S4 [0.0959,
0.00041]T 0.0083]T 0.037]T 0.036]T -0.0416]T
320 [0.0185, 0.0077, O1 [0.0185, S3 [0.0185, − O2 [0.0985, − S4 [0.0985,
0.00036]T 0.0077]T 0.029]T 0.031]T -0.0326]T
330 [0.0199, 0.0065, O1 [0.0199, S3 [0.0199, − O2 [0.0999, − S4 [0.0999,
0.00032]T 0.0065]T 0.0197]T 0.026]T -0.0264]T
340 [0.022, 0.0059, O1 [0.022, S3 [0.022, − O2 [0.102, − S4 [0.102,
0.00029]T 0.0059]T 0.0177]T 0.0227]T -0.022]T
350 [0.023, 0.0045, O1 [0.023, S3 [0.023, − O2 [0.103, − S4 [0.103,
0.00026]T 0.0045]T 0.0126]T 0.0215]T -0.0166]T
6 Analysis of Locating Accuracy
and δrp = 0.14086 < 0.15 mm in the vertical direction. Obviously, the machining
requirements of hole O4 cannot be met in horizontal direction. It is worth mentioning
that the calculation results of the locating errors of holes O3 and O4 are exactly the
same as those in the literature of Wu et al. (2001).
6.3.4 Experimental Validation
Here, the experimental measurement method is used to verify the workpiece posi-
tion error for two cylindrical pins locating scheme of example 2. It is known that the
workpiece position error δqw is a stochastic variable. Therefore, in order to statisti-
cally analyze the calculation values of the workpiece position error, sixty samples
are used for the measurement (Qin et al. 2006). The cylindrical workpiece-fixture
system is set up as shown in Fig. 6.15.
The Global Status CMM, whose performance index is 2.5 + L/250 ~ 4 +
L/250 µm, is used for measuring the point coordinates of the workpiece. The
measured results are listed in Table 6.4.
From Table 6.5, histograms are plotted to verify their distribution rule, as shown
in Fig. 6.16. Figure 6.16 shows that workpiece position error δx w in the X direction
can be approximately considered as the normal distribution. Therefore, the sample
Cylindrical Raster probe

workpiece
Cylindrical pin 2
Cylindrical pin 1
Fig. 6.15 Experimental device for measuring the coordinates of points

Table 6.4 Measured results of the workpiece position error

Diameter D Error δx w in the Error δyw in the Diameter D Error δx w in the Error δyw in the
horizontal vertical horizontal vertical
39.955 −0.006 −0.009 39.974 0.002 0.001
39.948 −0.004 −0.018 39.977 0.002 0.005
39.943 −0.002 −0.021 39.959 0.001 −0.008
39.964 −0.003 0.001 39.972 0.001 0.002
39.967 −0.003 0.002 39.968 −0.004 −0.001
39.973 −0.001 0.008 39.982 0.006 0.018
39.963 −0.004 −0.003 39.959 0.003 −0.011
39.981 −0.002 0.012 39.677 0.003 −0.001
39.965 −0.005 −0.002 39.984 0 0.008
39.955 −0.004 −0.012 39.979 0.001 0.010
39.968 −0.005 0.002 39.98 0.002 0.010
39.958 −0.003 −0.004 39.987 0.004 0.020
39.946 −0.002 −0.017 39.667 0.001 −0.002
39.963 −0.002 −0.001 39.950 0.003 −0.020
39.956 0.002 −0.007 39.985 0.004 0.014
39.963 −0.001 −0.006 39.977 −0.001 0.001
39.958 −0.002 −0.010 39.984 0 0.013
39.971 −0.003 0.007 39.984 −0.001 0.008
39.958 0.002 −0.002 39.979 0.001 0.009
39.952 0.001 −0.014 39.968 −0.004 −0.002
39.953 −0.001 −0.008 39.958 −0.001 −0.009
39.955 −0.001 −0.008 39.953 −0.002 −0.004
39.962 −0.001 −0.001 39.973 0.006 0.005
39.966 −0.002 −0.001 39.975 0 0.001
39.956 −0.002 −0.013 39.977 0 0.004
39.966 −0.003 −0.005 39.975 0.001 0.007
39.695 0 −0.001 39.975 0.001 0.009
39.983 0.003 0.019 39.979 −0.001 0.010
39.948 −0.001 −0.016 39.981 −0.001 0.015
39.976 0 0.003 39.982 −0.002 0.013
means and sample variance can be obtained with μδx = −0.0005 and S δx = 0.0026.
By analogy, the means and variance of the workpiece position error δyw in the Y
direction can also be obtained as μδy = 0 and S δy = 0.0098, respectively.
Therefore, according to the principle of Six Sigma, the experimental result of the
workpiece position error can be achieved as δx w = ±0.0078 in the X direction as
Table 6.5 Frequency distribution of measured values in horizontal direction

Group number Group distance (mm) Group median (mm) Sample number Frequency
1 −0.007 ~ −0.005 −0.006 1 0.0167
2 −0.005 ~ −0.003 −0.004 7 0.1167
3 −0.003 ~ −0.001 −0.002 14 0.2333
4 −0.001 ~ 0.001 0 17 0.2833
5 0.001 ~ 0.003 0.002 13 0.2167
6 0.003 ~ 0.005 0.004 6 0.1
7 0.005 ~ 0.007 0.006 2 0.0333
Fig. 6.16 Statistical analysis 18

of the workpiece position
16
error
14
12
Frequency
10
8
6
4
2
0
-7 1 -5 2 -3 3 -1 4 1 5 3 6 5 7 7
δx w (×10-3mm)
(a) In X direction
20
18
16
14
Frequency
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-24.5 1-17.52 -10.53 -3.5 4 3.5 510.5 617.5 724.5
δy w (×10-3mm)
(b) In Y direction
well as δyw = ±0.0294 in the Y direction. The comparison with the experimental
data shows the relative errors of the calculation results δx w and δyw are 7.69% and
1.02% respectively. Clearly, the calculated results are in good agreement with the
experimental data.
References
Asada H, By AB. Kinematic analysis of workpiece fixturing for flexible assembly with automatically
reconfigurable fixtures. IEEE J Rob Autom. 1985;1(2): 86–94.
Chen R, Wang SD. Mechanical manufacturing process study question set. Fujian: Fujian Science
and Technology Publishing House; 1985 (in Chinese).
Dai LW, Cao SD, Ma XD. Machine tool fixture design. National Defense Industry Press;1980. (in
Chinese).
Gong DA, Cai JG. Principles of machine tool fixture design. Shaanxi Science and Technology
Publishing House;1981. (in Chinese).
Liu WL, Xiong CH. Model of locating error for fixtures. J Huazhong Univ Sci Technol.
2003;31(7):72–4 (in Chinese).
Kang Y, Rong Y, Yang JC. Computer aided fixture design verification part 2: tolerance analysis. Int
J Adv Manuf Technol. 2003, 21: 8236–841.
Qin GH, Zhang WH. Modern design method of machine tool fixture. Beijing: Aviation Industry
Press; 2006 (in Chinese).
Qin GH, Zhang WH, Wan M. A mathematical approach to analysis and optimal design of fixture
locating scheme. Int J Adv Manuf Technol. 2006;29(3–4):349–59.
Qin GH, Zhang WH, Wu ZX, Wan M. Systematic modeling of workpiece-fixture geometric default
and compliance for the prediction of workpiece machining error. ASME J Manuf Sci Eng.
2007;129(4):789–801.
Qin GH, Zhang WH, Li YL. A new algorithm of fixture locating scheme design. J Test Meas
Technol. 2008;22(3):236–40 (in Chinese).
Qin GH, Yu ZX, Ye HC, Lu D. A geometric polygon based computer aided locating error model
for fixture design. Adv Sci Lett. 2011;4(8–10):3067–71.
Qin GH, Huang HP, Ye HC, Zhou MD. Automatic analysis algorithm of workpiece locating
error based on kinematics and directional dimension path. Comput Integr Manuf Syst.
2014;20(12):2935–43 (in Chinese).
Vishnupriyan S, Majumder MC, Ramachandran KP. Optimization of machining fixture layout
for tolerance requirements under the influence of locating errors. Int J Eng Sci Technol.
2010;2(1):152–62.
Wang QP. Mechanical manufacturing technology. Heilongjiang: Harbin Institute of Technology;
1994 (in Chinese).
Wang MY. Tolerance analysis for fixture layout design. J Assembly Autom. 2002;2(2):153–62.
Wang MD, Zhong KM, Zuo DW. Three kinds of drill jig with double-cylinder orientation and
general calculation formulas for their positioning error. Tool Technol. 2006;40(5): 41–44. (in
Chinese).
Wu YG, Song JQ. Link mechanism model and its probabilistic analysis of fixture planar positioning
error. Comput Integr Manuf Syst. 2010;16(12):2596–602 (in Chinese).
Wu YG, Li CG. Approach to mechanism modeling of fixture location error analyses. China Mech
Eng. 2011, 22(13): 1513–1518. (in Chinese).
Wu ZX, You YB, Qin GH. Relationship between location-error and dimension-chain. Tool Technol.
2001;35(4):35–8 (in Chinese).
Chapter 7
Selection Algorithm of Locating Datum
The selection of locating datum is one of main contents in computer aided process
planning. It is a bridge between CAPP (Computer Aided Process Planning) and
CAFD (Computer Aided Fixture Design). The selection of locating datum cfan affect
directly the process route decision, machining quality and machining cost of the
workpiece (Liu et al. 2009). Therefore, it is a complex problem with many influence
factors.
7.1 Hierarchical Structure Model
There are two main factors that influence the decision of locating datum: structure
factor and process factor (Liu et al. 2000; Wan et al. 2012). The structure factors
mainly consider the selected locating datum must be characteristic of good workpiece
stability, strong workpiece rigidity, simple fixture structure, convenient workpiece
fixturing, and so on. For example, surface feature, surface roughness. The process
factors mainly consider the selected locating datum can guarantee the machining
accuracy of workpiece as possible, such as the principle of datum coincidence.
By deeply analyzing the practical problems, the corresponding factors are decom-
posed into several layers from top to bottom according to different attributes. Each
factor in the same layer subordinates the factor in the upper layer and simultaneously
dominates the factor in the down layer. In the other words, each factor in the same
layer can influence the factor in the upper layer and is affected by the factor in the
down layer simultaneously.
A hierarchy structure diagram can clearly express the relationship among these
elements. The top layer is the target layer and usually has only one element. The
lowest layer is the scheme layer. There can be one or more layers between the top
layer and lowest layer and they are usually the criterion layer. When there are too
many criterion layers (such as more than 9), it is necessary to decompose the criterion

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-33-4493-8_7
210 7 Selection Algorithm of Locating Datum
Target layer
{ Locating datum
(A)
Criterion layer
{ Surface roughness
(B1)
Surface feature
(B2)
Valid locating domain
(B3)
Dimension error
(B4)
Scheme layer
{ Candidate locating
datum
(C1)
Candidate locating
datum
(C2)
... Candidate locating
datum
(Ci)
… Candidate locating
datum
(Cn)
Fig. 7.1 Hierarchical structure
layers into the sub-criterion layer (Li et al. 2011; Zhang et al. 2014; Wang et al. 2013).
Figure 7.1 is the hierarchical structure model of locating datum selection.
The first layer is the target layer and it aims at obtaining the locating data for
the machining. Four evaluation factors such as surface roughness, surface feature,
valid locating domain and dimension error are considered in the selection of locating
datum. Therefore, these four evaluation factors can compose the criterion layer of the
hierarchical structure model. The scheme layer is all the candidate locating datum
surfaces in the machining process. Here, denote B1 as the surface roughness, B2 as
the surface feature, B3 as the valid locating domain, and B4 as the dimension error.
Again, if there are n surfaces which can be employed as the locating datum, they are
labeled as C 1 , C 2 , …, C i , …, C n . Here, four evaluation factors in the criterion layer
can be proposed as follows.
7.1.1 Surface Roughness
According to the national standard GB/T 1031–1995, the surface roughness Ra gener-
ally selects these values of 0.012, 0.025, 0.05, 0.1, 0.2, 0.4, 0.8, 1.6, 3.2, 6.3, 12.5, 25,
50, 100, and so forth. The smaller the surface roughness is, the smaller the locating
error will be, and the more possibly it is chosen as the locating datum (Zhang et al.
2016; Wu et al. 2011). Therefore, the factor R related to the surface roughness can
be constructed as
⎧
⎨ 01,Ra > 100
⎪
log Ra
R = 0.8 1 − log + 0.1, 1 < Ra ≤ 100 (7.1)
⎪
⎩
100
0.9, Ra < 1
7.1 Hierarchical Structure Model 211
Table 7.1 Evaluation value

No Main feature Diagram Evaluation value
of surface features
1 Plane 0.8
2 Outer cylinder 0.7
3 Inner cylinder 0.6
4 Outer cone 0.3
5 Other surface 0.2
7.1.2 Surface Feature
It is well known that a workpiece consists of many surfaces. The common and regular
surfaces are usually chosen as the locating datum. The additional features such as
chamfer and undercut can be ignored in the process of selecting the locating scheme.
The evaluation values S of the features able to select as locating datum are listed as
Table 7.1.
7.1.3 Valid Locating Domain
Generally speaking, the bigger the area of a surface, the better its locating stability is.
Usually, too small or too narrow surface is not suitable for locating datum. Therefore,
for a candidate locating datum surface, it must have a large enough valid locating
area. If A is the area of the candidate locating datum, the valid locating domain factor
L can be defined as
A
L= (7.2)
Amax
where Amax is the maximum area of all candidate locating datums.

7.1.4 Dimension Error
In order to guarantee the machining accuracy of the workpiece, the design datum of
the workpiece is frequently selected to be the locating datum. Furthermore, the more
the dimension relationships between a surface and the machined features are, the
more the possibility of selecting it as the locating datum. Therefore, the dimension
error factor D is defined as

0.1 + k 1 − , ≤ T
D= T (7.3)
0.1, > T
where Δ is the inconsistent datum error whose magnitude is the tolerance of dimen-
sion between the locating datum and design datum. T is the tolerance of design
dimension. k is the relationship coefficient. If the number N of dimensions between
the candidate locating datum and the machined features is N ≥ 3, k is 0.8. If N = 2,
k = 0.7. If N = 1, k = 0.6. If N = 0, k = 0.
7.2 Judgement Matrix
Begin with the second layer of the hierarchical structure model, the judgment matrix
can be constructed for each factor in the same layer. The process of constructing the
judgment matrix does not stop until the lowest layer. Generally speaking, the scaling
method is adopted to construct the judgment matrix between the criterion layer and
the scheme layer.
Only when the weight of each factor in the criterion layer to the target layer is
determined by comparing with each other, can the judgment matrix be constructed.
In order to show the importance of each factor in the matrix quantitatively, 1 ~ 9
scale method is introduced in the analytic hierarchy process, as listed in Table 7.2.
Table 7.2 Scaling table

Scale Significance
1 The two factors are of the same importance
3 The former is slightly more important than the
latter
5 The former is obviously more important than the
latter
7 The former is strongly more important than the
latter
9 The former is extremely more important than the
latter
2, 4, 6, 8 Middle value between the above adjacent scales
7.2 Judgement Matrix 213
Compared the factor Bi with the factor Bj , if the importance of Bi is the same as
Bj , the importance ratio of Bi to Bj is bij = 1:1. If the importance of Bi is extremely
more important than Bj , the importance ratio of Bi to Bj is bij = 9:1. It is noteworthy
that the importance ratio of Bj to Bi is bji = 1/bij if the importance ratio of Bi to Bj is
bij . By comparing with each other, the judgment matrix P 2→1,1 of the criterion layer
relative to the target layer can be obtained as
B1 B2 B3 B4
⎡ ⎤
B1 b11 b12 b13 b14
P 2→1,1 = B2 ⎢ b21 b22 b23 b24 ⎥ (7.4)
⎢ ⎥
B3 ⎣ b31 b32 b33 b34 ⎦
B4 b41 b41 b43 b44
In addition, according to four factors in the criterion layer, the values of R, S, L

and D can be calculated for the candidate locating datums C i and C j (i, j = 1,2,
…, n and i = j). According to the surface roughness factors of C i and C j , which
can be calculated in light of Eq. (7.1), the importance ratio r ij of C i to C j can be
obtained from Table 7.2. Thus, the judgment matrix P 3→2,1 of the candidate locating
datums in the scheme layer relative to the first factor (i.e., the surface roughness) in
the criterion layer can be obtained as
C C . . . Cn
⎡ 1 2 ⎤
C1 r11 r12 . . . r1n
P 3→2,1 = C2 ⎢ ⎥
⎢ r21 r22 . . . r21 ⎥ (7.5)
... ... ... ... ...⎦
⎣
Cn rn1 r12 . . . rnn
By analogy, the judgment matrices of the candidate locating datums in the scheme
layer relative to the second, the third and the fourth factor in the criterion layer can
respectively be achieved as
C C . . . Cn
⎡ 1 2 ⎤
C1 s11 s12 . . . s1n
P 3→2,2 = C2 ⎢ ⎥
⎢ s21 s22 . . . s21 ⎥ (7.6)
... ... ... ... ...⎦
⎣
Cn sn1 s12 . . . snn
C1 C2 . . . Cn
⎡ ⎤
C1 l11 l12 . . . l1n
P 3→2,3 = C2 ⎢ l21 l22 . . . l21 ⎥ (7.7)
⎢ ⎥
... ⎣... ... ... ...⎦
Cn ln1 l12 . . . lnn
C C . . . Cn
⎡ 1 2 ⎤
C1 d11 d12 . . . d1n
P 3→2,4 = C2 ⎢ ⎥
⎢ d21 d22 . . . d21 ⎥ (7.8)
... ... ... ... ... ⎦
⎣
Cn dn1 d12 . . . dnn
7.3 Layer Weight Vector
If the judgment matrix is constructed, the corresponding maximum eigenvalue can

be calculated as well as the eigenvector. Then the constructed judgment matrix can
be carried out the consistency check according to the consistency index, the random
consistency index and the consistency ratio. If the consistency check is passed, the
normalized eigenvector will be the layer weight vector. Else if the consistency check
is not passed, the judgment matrix must be reconstructed.
Assumed that the judgment matrix of the p-th layer relative to the q-th factor in
the (p-1)-th layer (2 ≤ p ≤ m, and 1 ≤ q ≤ np-1 ) is P p→ p−1,q = ( pi j )n p ×n p , then the
relationship between the maximum eigenvalue and the eigenvector of P p→ p−1,q =
( pi j )n p ×n p is as follows
P p→ p−1,q W p→ p−1,q = λ p→ p−1,q W p→ p−1,q (7.9)
where W p→ p−1,q = [W1 , W2 , · · · , Wn p ]T is the eigenvector of matrix P p→ p−1,q and

λ p→ p−1,q is the maximum eigenvalue of matrix P p→ p−1,q .
While each element W i (1 ≤ i ≤ np-1 ) in the eigenvector W p→ p−1,q is normalized
one by one according to wi = np
Wi
, the undetermined weight vector can be obtained
Wk
k=1
as
⎡ ⎤
w1
⎢ w2 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
w p→ p−1,q = ⎢ .. ⎥ (7.10)
⎣ . ⎦
wn p
Again, the consistency index CIp→p-1,q , the random consistency index RIp→p-1,q
and the consistency ratio CRp→p-1,q of the judgment matrix P p→ p−1,q can respec-
tively be described as
λ p→ p−1,q − n p
CI p→ p−1,q = (7.11)
np − 1
7.3 Layer Weight Vector 215
Table 7.3 The value of random consistency index

Factor number 1 2 3 4 5 6
Random consistency index 0 0 0.52 0.89 1.12 1.226
Factor number 7 8 9 10 11 12
Random consistency index 1.36 1.41 1.46 1.49 1.52 1.54
Factor number 13 14 15 16 17 18
Factor number 19 20 21 22 23 24
Factor number 25 26 27 28 29 30
CI p→ p−1,q
CR p→ p−1,q = (7.12)
RI p→ p−1,q
where the random consistency index RIp→p-1,q can be valued according to Table
7.3.
7.4 Combination Weight Vector
The final goal of the analytic hierarchy process is to obtain the weight of each factor
relative to the target, especially the weight of the factors in the lowest layer relative to
the target layer. This is the so-called combination weight vector which is also called
the decision factor. And then, the locating datums can be selected from large to small
of the combination weight.
According to Eqs. (7.10, 7.11, 7.12), the undetermined layer weight vector, the
consistency index, the consistency ratio of the p-th layer relative to the (p-1)-th layer
are respectively obtained as
⎡ ⎤T
wTp→ p−1,1
⎢ ... ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ T ⎥
w p→ p−1 = ⎢ w p→ p−1,q ⎥ (7.13)
⎢ ⎥
⎣ ... ⎦
wTp→ p−1,n p−1
⎡ ⎤
CI p→ p−1,1
⎢ ... ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
C I p→ p−1 = ⎢ CI p→ p−1,q ⎥ (7.14)
⎢ ⎥
⎣ ... ⎦
CI p→ p−1,n p−1
⎡ ⎤
CR p→ p−1,1
⎢ ... ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
C R p→ p−1 = ⎢ CR p→ p−1,q ⎥ (7.15)
⎢ ⎥
⎣ ... ⎦
CR p→ p−1,n p−1
Therefore, the combination weight vector of the scheme layer relative to the target
layer can further be expressed as

2
w p→1 = wi→i−1 (7.16)
i= p
If and only if CRp→p-1,q < 0.1 (1 ≤ q ≤ np-1 ), it shows that the all judgment matrices
P p→ p−1,q at the p-th layer have overall satisfactory consistency. Thus, wp→1 can be
determined as the combination weight vector of the p-th layer relative to the target
layer.
If CR p→ p−1,Q = max CR p→ p−1,q ≥ 0.1, then the weighted consistency
1≤q≤n p−1
index complement Ap→p-1,Q and the weighted random consistency index complement
Bp→p-1,Q must be calculated as
A p→ p−1,Q = C I T
p→ p−1 w p−1→1 (7.17)
B p→ p−1,Q = R I T
p→ p−1 w p−1→1 (7.18)
T
where C I p→ p−1 = CI p→ p−1,1 , . . . , CI p→ p−1,Q−1 , CI p→ p−1,Q+1 , . . . , CI p→ p−1,n p−1
is the consistency index complement. R I p→ p−1 =
T
RI p→ p−1,1 , . . . , RI p→ p−1,Q−1 , RI p→ p−1,Q+1 , . . . , RI p→ p−1,n p−1
is the random consistency index complement. w =
Tp−1→1
w p−1→1 1 , . . . , w p−1→1 Q−1 , w p−1→1 Q+1 , . . . , w p→ p−1 n p−1 is the unde-
termined layer weight vector complement of the (p-1)-th layer relative to the target
layer. (wp-1→1 )i is the i-th element in the undetermined weight vactor w p−1→1 of the
the (p-1)-th layer relative to the target layer.
A p→ p−1,Q
If B p→ p−1,Q
≥ 0.1, all judgment matrices P p→p-1,q at the p-th layer do not have
A
p→ p−1,Q
overall satisfactory consistency. Else if B p→ p−1,Q
< 0.1, the sufficient and necessary
condition that all judgment matrices P p→p-1,q at the p-th layer have overall satisfactory
consistency is
CR p→ p−1,Q (0.1B p→ p−1,Q − A p→ p−1,Q )

CI p→ p−1,Q w p−1→1,Q < (7.19)
CR p→ p−1,Q − 0.1
7.5 Reconstruction of Judgment Matrix 217
7.5 Reconstruction of Judgment Matrix
A p→ p−1,Q A p→ p−1,Q
It is known from Sect. 7.4 that, if B p→ p−1,Q
≥ 0.1 or B p→ p−1,Q
< 0.1,
CR p→ p−1,Q (0.1B p→ p−1,Q −A p→ p−1,Q )
CI p→ p−1,Q w p−1→1,Q ≥ CR p→ p−1,Q −0.1
,
the judgment matrix
P p→ p−1,Q must be adjusted.
Above all, according to the sum method, the undetermined weight vactor,
T
v p→ p−1,Q = v1 , . . . , vi , . . . , vn p , of the judgment matrix P p→p-1,q is reconstructed
as
⎛ ⎞
np ⎜ ⎟
⎜ pi j ⎟
vi = ⎜ np ⎟ (7.20)
⎝ ⎠
j=1 pk j
k=1
Therefore, the disturbance error matrix Δ p→ p−1,Q = (Δi j )n p ×n p can be calculated

according to the following equation.
pi j − vi
vj
Δi j = vi (7.21)
vj
with i, j = 1, 2, …, np .
Thus, the consistency index of the judgment matrix can be recalculated according
to Eq. (7.21), i.e.,

np np
Δi j
CI p→ p−1,Q = (7.22)
i=1 j=1
n p (n p − 1)
If CI p→p-1,Q < 0.1RI p→p-1,Q , it shows the judgment matrix P p→p-1,q is adjusted
successfully. Otherwise, the maximum value ΔIJ should be searched from the
absolute value of all elements in the disturbance error matrix Δp→p-1,q , i.e.,

Δ I J = max Δi j , Δi j ∈ Δ p→ p−1,q (7.23)
1≤i≤n p
1≤ j≤n p
When Δ I J ≤ 0.8, p I J = p I J − 1 if p I J > 1, p I J = p IpJI+1

J
if p I J ≤ 1. When
Δ I J > 0.8, p I J = p I J − 2 if p I J > 2, p I J = 2 if p I J = 2, p I J = 2 ppI IJ J+1 if
1
p I J < 2.
7.6 Algorithm and Application
Here, a typical example is employed to illustrate the selection process of locating

datums according to the proposed the analytic hierarchy process.
7.6.1 Algorithm and Flow
As stated above, the selection flow of locating datum can be described to show in
7.2. The flow main includes the construction of judgment matrix, the calculation of
layer weight vector, the check of consistency, and the determination of combination
weight vector.
According to Fig. 7.2, the selection algorithm of locating datum can be introduced
as follows:
Step 1 is to determine all candidate surfaces for locating datums. Denote the
candidate surface set to be Feat = {F i | i = 1, 2, …, Ï}.
Step 2 is to establish the hierarchical structure model with three layers A, B and
C. Denote the hierarchical structure model as Mod = {Al , Bm , C n | l =
1, 1 ≤ m ≤ 4, 1 ≤ n ≤ Ï}. Al , Bm , C n are respectively the i-th, m-th, n-th
factor in layer A, layer B, layer C.
Step 3 is to initialize the layer counter p = 2.
Step 4 is to initialize the factor counter q = 1.
Step 5 is to construct the judgment matrix P p→ p−1,q = ( pi j )n p ×n p of the p-th
layerrelative to the q-th factor in the (p-1)-th layer, where n1 = 1, n2 = 4
and n3 = Ï.
Step 6 is to solve the the maximum eigenvalue λp→p-1,q and the normalized
eigenvector wp→p-1,q of the judgment matrix P p→p-1,q .
Step 7 is to calculate the random consistency index CRp→p-1,q of the judgment
matrix P p→p-1,q .
Step 8 is to judge whether the current factor in the (p-1)-th layer is the last factor,
i.e., q = np-1 ? if q = np-1 , then q = q + 1, and it goes to Step 5. Otherwise,
all judgment matrices P p→p-1,q can be constructed as well as the corre-
sponding random consistency index CRp→p-1,q (2 ≤ p ≤ 3, 1 ≤ q ≤ np-1 ),
and it goes to Step 9.
Step 9 is to search
the maximum
random consistency index CR p→ p−1,Q =
max CR p→ p−1,q (1 ≤ Q ≤ np-1 ) from all random consistency index
1≤q≤n p−1
CRp→p-1,q .
Step 10 is to judge the relationship between CRp→p-1,Q and 0.1. If CRp→p-1,Q <0.1,
the normalized eigenvector wp→p-1,q can be determined as the layer weight
vactor. If CRp→p-1,Q ≥0.1, it goes to Step 13.
Step 11 is to judge whether the current layer is the last layer, i.e., p = 3? if p < 3,
then p = p + 1, and it goes to Step 4. If p = 3, then it goes to Step 12.
7.6 Algorithm and Application 219
Start
Determine the candidate locating

surfaces
Establish the hierarchical structure

model
Construct the judgment matrix of

the second layer relative to the first
factor in the previous layer
Obtain all judgment matrices of Yes

the current layer relative to the The last factor?
previous layer
No
Reconstruct the
current judgment Search the judgment matrix Construct the judgment matrix of
matrix with maximum random the current layer relative to the next
consistency index factor in the previous layer
Not pass
Check the consistency?
Pass
Obtain the layer weight vector
No Construct the judgment matrix

The last layer? of the next layer relative to the
first factor in the previous layer
Yes
Calculate the combination
weight vector
End
Fig. 7.2 Selection flowchart of locating datum
Step 12 is to determine the combination weight vector wp→1 .

Step 13 is to caiculate the weighted consistency index complement Ap→p-1,Q and
the weighted random consistency index complement Bp→p-1,Q .
A p→ p−1,Q
Step 14 is to judge whether the inequality B p→ p−1,Q
≥ 0.1 is hold? If it does not
hold, it goes to Step 15, otherwise it goes to Step 16.
Step 15 is to judge if the inequality CI p→ p−1,Q w p−1→1,Q <
CR p→ p−1,Q (0.1B p→ p−1,Q −A p→ p−1,Q )
CR p→ p−1,Q −0.1
is hold? If the inequality does not hold, it
goes to Step 16. Otherwise, the combination weight vector is obtained
for selecting the locating datums.
Step 16 is to reconstruct the weight vector vp→p-1,Q of the judgment matrix
P p→p-1,Q .
Step 17 is to calculate the disturbance error matrix Δp→p-1,Q .

Step 18 is to calculate the consistency index CIp→p-1,Q .
Step 19 is to judge if the inequality CI p→p-1,Q < 0.1RI p→p-1,Q is hold? If the
inequality is hold, it goes to Step 9. Otherwise, the maximum abso-
lute value I J = max i j i, j = 1, 2, . . . , n p must be found from
all elements in the disturbance error matrix Δp→p-1,Q .
Step 20 is to judge whether Δ I J ≤ 0.8 ? Provided that Δ I J ≤ 0.8, it goes to Step
21, otherwise it goes to Step 22.
Step 21 is to judge whether p I J > 1? Provided that p I J > 1, then p I J = p I J − 1,
and it goes to Step 18. Otherwise, p I J = p IpJI+1 J
, and it goes to Step 18.
Step 22 is to judge whether p I J = 2? If it is yes, let p I J = 21 , and it goes to
Step18. otherwise it goes to Step 23.
Step 23 is to judge p I J > 2? If it is yes, let p I J = p I J − 2, and it goes to Step 18.
Otherwise, let p I J = 2 ppI IJ J+1 , and it goes to Step 18.
7.6.2 Practical Example
The feature hole f9 on the workpiece is the surface to be machined. The machining
requirements related to fixture are the dimension 20 ± 0.05 mm in the Y direction
and the dimension 25 ± 0.02 mm in the Z direction (Zheng et al. 2001), as shown in
Fig. 7.3.
All other features have been machined such that they can be used as the candidate
locating datums of the surface f9 . Here, the tolerance not noted will be considered in
accordance with class IT12. Thus, the selection process of locating datum is detailed
as follows.
The first step is is to determine the set of candidate locating datum surfaces.
Because the surface f9 is to be machined, it can not generally be used as locating
datum. Thus, the candidate locating datum set is Feat = {F i | f1 , f2 , f3 , f4 , f5 , f6 ,
f7 , f8 , f10 , f11 , f12 , f13 , f14 , f15 , f16 , f17 , f18 , f19 }. Again, because surface f15 and f16 ,
surface f18 and f19 have the same characteristics, then Feat = {F i | f1 , f2 , f3 , f4 , f5 ,
f6 , f7 , f8 , f10 , f11 , f12 , f13 , f14 , f15 , f17 , f18 }.
The hierarchical structure model can be established for the selection of locating
datum, as shown in Fig. 7.1. Thus, the judgment matrix of the criterion layer relative
to the target layer can further be constructed as
⎡ ⎤
1 19 4 15
⎢9 1 7 2⎥
P 2→1,1 =⎢
⎣1 1 1 1⎦
⎥ (7.24)
4 7 3
5 21 3 1
When the eigenvector of the judgment matrix P 2→1,1 is normalized, the undeter-
mined weight vector can be obtained as
0.1 A 40±0.05
0.1 B
15±0.05 15±0.05
10±0.05 10±0.05
10±0.05
0.1 A
Ø0.1 A B
0.1 A
36±0.05 12±0.05
4×Ø10
6
Ø30 6
60±0.1
Ø16
40±0.05
10
25±0.02
30±0.1
A 20±0.05 5±0.01
5
B 10
10 100±0.5
18
0.1 E F
D 0.2 C 0.1 A
15±0.05
15
0.1 C D
15
2×Ø15 6×Ø4
60±0.2
15
15±0.05
F 0.1 E
C E
0.1 A
(a) 2D diagram
f12
f14
f6
f15 f10
f5 f16 f13
f9 f11
f17 f19 f4
f8 f18
f2
f1 f2
f7 f3
(b) 3D diagram
Fig. 7.3 A workpiece and the corresponding machining requirements

⎡ ⎤
0.1130
⎢ 0.5483 ⎥
w2→1,1 =⎢ ⎥
⎣ 0.0647 ⎦ (7.25)
0.2740
According to Eqs. (7.11, 7.12), it is easily calculated CI2→1,1 = 0.1521 and

CR2→1,1 = 0.1709. Obviously, there exists CR2→1,1 > 0.1 which cannot satisfy the
consistency requirement. Therefore, the judgment matrix P 2→1,1 must be corrected.
According to Eqs. (7.20, 7.21), the disturbance error matrix is calculated as
⎡ ⎤
0 −0.4611 1.2897 −0.5153
⎢ 0.8558 0 −0.1738 −0.0005 ⎥
Δ2→1,1 =⎢
⎣ −0.5633 0.2103
⎥ (7.26)
0 0.4113 ⎦
1.0630 0.0005 −0.2914 0
Evidently, in the disturbance error matrix Δ2→1,1 , Δ13 = 1.2897 is the maximum
value of all elements. Because Δ13 > 0.8 and p13 = 4 > 2, then p13 is assigned as p13
= 2. Thus, the judgment matrix P 2→1,1 can be corrected as
⎡ ⎤
1 19 2 15
⎢9 1 7 2⎥
P 2→1,1 =⎢
⎣1 1 1 1⎦
⎥ (7.27)
2 7 3
5 21 3 1
Accordingly, the eigenvector of the corrected judgment matrix P 2→1,1 is calculated

and normalized as
⎡ ⎤
0.0846
⎢ 0.5638 ⎥
w2→1,1 =⎢ ⎥
⎣ 0.0712 ⎦ (7.28)
0.2804
Thus, CI2→1,1 = 0.0525 and CR2→1,1 = 0.0589. Clearly, CR < 0.1. It shows that
the consistency requirement is satisfied. The correctness process of the judgment
matrix is over.
Next is to construct the judgment matrix of the scheme layer relative to the criterion
layer. The evaluation factor of each candidate locating datum surface is calculated
as Table 7.4. The judgment matrices of the scheme layer relative to the first, ther
second, the third, the forth factor in the criterion layer can respectively achieved as
Table 7.4 Selection factor of candidate locating datums
Candidate Feature Area A Surface Dimension 25 ± 0.02 Dimension 20 ± 0.05
locating datum roughness Ra Dimension Inconsistent Tolerance T Dimension Inconsistent Tolerance T
number N datum error Δ number N datum error Δ
f1 Plane 6000 6.3 1 0 0.04 0 0 0.1
f2 Plane 4200 1.6 0 0 0.04 0 0 0.1
f3 Plane 1800 1.6 0 0 0.04 1 1 0.1

f4 Plane 4200 1.6 0 0 0.04 0 0 0.1
f5 Plane 3600 1.6 0 0 0.04 1 0 0.1
f6 Plane 2400 12.5 0 0.2 0.04 0 0 0.1
f7 Plane 4800 3.2 1 0.12 0.04 0 0 0.1
f8 Plane 706 1.6 0 0 0.04 0 0 0.1
f10 Plane 1800 1.6 0 0 0.04 1 0.1 0.1
f11 Plane 3600 3.2 1 0.2 0.04 0 0 0.1
f12 Plane 800 12.5 0 0 0.04 0 0 0.1
f13 Plane 1200 12.5 1 0.1 0.04 0 0 0.1
f14 Plane 800 12.5 0 0 0.04 0 0 0.1
f15 , f16 Cylindrical 471 12.5 1 0.3 0.04 1 0.1 0.1
hole
f17 Plane 2160 1.6 1 0.32 0.04 0 0 0.1
f18 , f19 Cylindrical 942 12.5 0 0 0.04 1 1.2 0.1
hole
223
1 0.9506 0.9506 0.9506 0.9506 1.5184 1.0034 0.9506

1.0520 1 1 1 1 1.5974 1.0556 1
1.0520 1 1 1 1 1.5974 1.0556 1
1.0520 1 1 1 1 1.5974 1.0556 1
1.0520 1 1 1 1 1.5974 1.0556 1
0.6586 0.6260 0.6260 0.6260 0.6260 1 0.6608 0.6260
0.9966 0.9473 0.9473 0.9473 0.9473 1.5032 1 0.9473
1.0520 1 1 1 1 1.5974 1.0556 1
P3 2.1
1.0520 1 1 1 1 1.5974 1.0556 1
0.9966 0.9473 0.9473 0.9473 0.9473 1.5123 1 0.9473
0.6586 0.6260 0.6260 0.6260 0.6260 1 0.6608 0.6260
0.6586 0.6260 0.6260 0.6260 0.6260 1 0.6608 0.6260
0.6586 0.6260 0.6260 0.6260 0.6260 1 0.6608 0.6260
0.6586 0.6260 0.6260 0.6260 0.6260 1 0.6608 0.6260
1.0520 1 1 1 1 1.5974 1.0556 1
0.6586 0.6260 0.6260 0.6260 0.6260 1 0.6608 0.6260
0.9506 1.0034 1.5184 1.5184 1.5184 1.5184 0.9506 1.5184
1 1.0556 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1 1.5974
1 1.0556 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1 1.5974
1 1.0556 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1 1.5974
1 1.0556 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1 1.5974
0.6260 0.6608 1 1 1 1 0.6260 1
0.9473 1 1.5132 1.5132 1.5132 1.5132 0.9473 1.5132
1 1.0556 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1 1.5974
1 1.0556 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1 1.5974
0.9473 1 1.5123 1.5123 1.5123 1.5123 0.9473 1.5123
0.6260 0.6608 1 1 1 1 0.6260 1
0.6260 0.6608 1 1 1 1 0.6260 1
0.6260 0.6608 1 1 1 1 0.6260 1
0.6260 0.6608 1 1 1 1 0.6260 1
1 1.0556 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1.5974 1 1.5974
0.6260 0.6608 1 1 1 1 0.6260 1
(7.29)
⎡ ⎤
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.3333 1 1.3333
⎢ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.3333 1 1.3333 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.3333 1 1.3333 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.3333 1 1.3333 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.3333 1 1.3333 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.3333 1 1.3333 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.3333 1 1.3333 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.3333 1 1.3333 ⎥
P 3→2.2 =⎢ ⎥ (7.30)
⎢ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.3333 1 1.3333 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.3333 1 1.3333 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.3333 1 1.3333 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.3333 1 1.3333 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.3333 1 1.3333 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 1 0.75 1 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎣ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.3333 1 1.3333 ⎦
0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 1 0.75 1
225
1 0.7 2.333 1 1.1677 1.75 0.875 5.9490

1.4286 1 3.3333 1.4286 1.6667 2.5 1.25 8.4986
0.4286 0.3 1 0.4286 0.5 0.75 0.375 2.5496
1 0.7 2.3333 1 1.1667 1.75 0.875 5.9490
0.8571 0.6 2 0.8571 1 1.5 0.75 5.0992
0.5714 0.4 1.3333 0.5714 0.6667 1 0.5 3.3994
1.1429 0.8 2.6667 1.1429 1.3333 2 1 6.7989
0.1681 0.1177 0.3922 0.1681 0.1961 0.2942 0.1471 1
P3 2.3
0.4286 0.3 1 0.4286 0.5 0.75 0.375 2.5496
0.8571 0.6 2 0.8571 1 1.5 0.75 5.0992
0.1905 0.1333 0.4444 0.1905 0.2222 0.3333 0.1667 1.1331
0.2857 0.2 0.6667 0.2857 0.3333 0.5 0.25 1.6997
0.1905 0.1333 0.4444 0.1905 0.2222 0.3333 0.1667 1.1331
0.1121 0.1111 0.2617 0.1121 0.1308 0.1963 0.1111 0.6671
0.5143 0.36 1.2 0.5143 0.6 0.9 0.45 3.0595
0.2243 0.1570 0.5233 0.2243 0.2617 0.3925 0.1963 1.3343
(7.31)
2.3333 1.1667 5.25 3.5 5.25 8.9172 1.9444 4.4586
3.3333 1.6667 7.5 5 7.5 9 2.7778 6.3694
1 0.5 2.25 1.5 2.25 3.8217 0.8333 1.9108
2.3333 1.1667 5.25 3.5 5.25 8.9172 1.9444 4.4586
2 1 4.5 3 4.5 7.6433 1.6667 3.8217
1.3333 0.6667 3 2 3 5.0955 1.1111 2.5478
2.6667 1.3333 6 4 6 9 2.2222 5.0955
0.3911 0.1961 0.8825 0.5883 0.8825 1.4989 0.3269 0.7495
1 0.5 2.25 1.5 2.25 3.8217 0.8333 1.9108
2 1 4.5 3 4.5 7.6433 1.6667 3.8217
0.4444 0.2222 1 0.6667 1 1.6985 0.3704 0.8493
0.6667 0.3333 1.5 1 1.5 2.5478 0.5556 1.2739
0.4444 0.2222 1 0.6667 1 1.6985 0.3704 0.8493
0.2617 0.1308 0.5888 0.3925 0.5888 1 0.2181 0.5
1.2 0.6 2.7 1.8 2.7 4.5860 1 2.2930
0.5233 0.2617 1.1775 0.7850 1.1775 2 0.4361 1
Table 7.5 The consistency

Judgment matrix Consistency index CI Consistency ratio CR
ratio of the scheme layer
relative to the criterion layer P 3→2,1 0.0002 0.0001
P 3→2,2 0.0003 0.0002
P 3→2,3 0.0005 0.0003
P 3→2,4 0.0003 0.0002
⎡ ⎤
1 777 1 77777777777
⎢ 0.1429 1 1 1 0.1429 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 0.1429 1 1 1 0.1429 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 0.1429 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1⎥
⎢ 1 1 1 0.1429 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 1 777 1 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 0.1429 1 1 1 0.1429 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 0.1429 1 1 1 0.1429 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 0.1429 1 1 1 0.1429 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1⎥
P 3→2,4 =⎢
⎢ 0.1429
⎥ (7.32)
⎢ 1 1 1 0.1429 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1⎥
⎥
⎢ 0.1429 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1⎥
⎢ 1 1 1 0.1429 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 0.1429 1 1 1 0.1429 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 0.1429 1 1 1 0.1429 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 0.1429 1 1 1 0.1429 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 0.1429 1 1 1 0.1429 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎣ 0.1429 1 1 1 0.1429 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1⎦
0.1429 1 1 1 0.1429 11111111111
After solving the maximum eigenvalues, the consistency ratio of the scheme layer
relative to the criterion layer can be obtained as well as the consistency index, as
illustrated in Table 7.5.
Obviously, the consistency ratios of all judgment matrices are less than 0.1. In the
other words, the judgment matrices of the scheme layer relative to the criterion layer
can satisfy the requirement of overall consistency. Therefore, the weight vectors of
the scheme layer relative to the criterion layer can ultimately be determined as
w3→2,1 = [0.0702, 0.0735, 0.0735, 0.0735, 0.0735, 0.0460, 0.0696, 0.0735,

0.0735, 0.0696, 0.0460, 0.0460, 0.0460, 0.0460, 0.0735, 0.0460]T
(7.33)
w3→2,2 = [0.0645, 0.0645, 0.0645, 0.0645, 0.0645, 0.0645, 0.0645, 0.0645,

0.0645, 0.0645, 0.0645, 0.0645, 0.0645, 0.0484, 0.0645, 0.0484]T
(7.34)
w3→2,3 = [0.1495, 0.1068, 0.0458, 0.1068, 0.0915, 0.0610, 0.1211, 0.0179,

0.0458, 0.0915, 0.0203, 0.0305, 0.0203, 0.0124, 0.0549, 0.0239]T

(7.35)
w3→2,4 = [0.2500, 0.0357, 0.0357, 0.0357, 0.2500, 0.0357, 0.0357, 0.0357,

0.0357, 0.0357, 0.0357, 0.0357, 0.0357, 0.0357, 0.0357, 0.0357]T
(7.36)
Thus, according to Eq. (7.16), the combination weight vector can be obtained as
w3→1 = [0.1230, 0.0602, 0.0559, 0.0602, 0.1192, 0.0546, 0.0609, 0.0539,

0.0559, 0.0588, 0.0517, 0.0524, 0.0517, 0.0421, 0.0565, 0.0429]T (7.37)
It is known from Eq. (7.37) that, the priority sequence of the candidate positioning
datum is f1 > f5 > f7 > f2 (and f4 ) > f11 > f17 > f3 (and f10 ) > f8 > f6 > f13 > f12 (and
f14 ) > f18 (and f19 ) > f15 (and f16 ).
References
Chen GH, Liu WJ. RBR and Fuzzy comprehensive judgment method based on locating Design
Automation [C]. Proceeding of the first international conference on machine learning and
cybernetics, 2002, Beijing, China, pp:1018–1023.
Liu WJ, Bo HM, Cai HG. Selection of workpiece locating surfaces based on fuzzy inference [J].
Journal of Harbin Institute of Technology. 2000;32(6):87–90 (in Chinese).
Li XF, Liu ZX, Peng QE. Improved Algorithm of TOPSIS Model and Its Application in River
Health Assessment [J]. Journal of Sichuan University. 2011;43(2):14–21 (in Chinese).
Li YB, Yu XY, Wang ZJ. Risk assessment on photovoltaic power generation project by grey
correlation analysis and TOPSIS method [J]. Power System Technology. 2013;37(6):1514–9
(in Chinese).
Qin GH, Zhang WH, Wan M. A machining dimension-based approach to locating scheme design
[J]. ASME J. Manuf. Sci. Eng, 2008, 130(9): 05101–01–08.
Qin GH, Wu ZB, Ye HC, Wang ZK. A design algorithm of workpiece locating scheme based on
analytical hierarchy process and locating determination [J]. Journal of Mechanical Engineering.
2016;52(1):193–203.
Wang XM, Qin JC, Zhang QL, Chen WJ, Chen XL. Mining method optimization of Gu Mountain
stay ore based on AHP-TOPSIS evaluation model [J]. Journal of Central South University (Science
and Technology). 2013;44(3):1131–7 (in Chinese).
Wan L, Qiu J, Xiong TF, Liu QH. A product-service incidence model on the foundation of grey
incidence [J]. Manufacturing Automation. 2012;34(12):68–72 (in Chinese).
Wu TJ, Lou PH, Qin GH. Novel approach to locator layout optimization based on genetic algorithm
[J]. Transactions of Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics. 2011;28(2):176–82.
Zhang FL, Yang ML, Liu WD. Evaluation of automobile form design based on fuzzy TOPSIS [J].
Comput Integr Manuf Syst. 2014;20(2):276–83 (in Chinese).
Zhang L, Feng DZ, Liu PY, Zhu SW. Evaluation of jig and fixture design scheme based on grey
number TOPSIS [J]. China Mechanical Engineering. 2016;27(20):2728–34 (in Chinese).
Zheng LY, Gu Q, Wang SC. Decision mechanism for workpiece locating datum based on neural
network in setup planning [J]. Acta Aeronautica Et Astronautica Sinica. 2001;22(2):130–4 (in
Chinese).
Chapter 8
Planning Algorithm of Locating Point
Layout
In the metal cutting process, the successful obtainment of a surface depends on the
correct position of the workpiece with respect to the cutting tool (Qin et al. 2008;
Vasundara and Padmanaban 2014). In order to achieve the relative position of the
workpiece with the cutting tool, it is necessary to develop a locating point layout
to constrain the workpiece. Therefore, based on the analysis method of locating
determination (Kang 2001; Cai et al. 1997), the generative point-by-point planning
algorithm is proposed by introducing the step iteration idea.
8.1 Locating Point Layout Scheme
In fact, locating point layout schemes depend upon the number of locating points
and their positions on the locating datum.
A workpiece has six DOFs in space, i.e., three translation DOFs (δx w , δyw , δzw )
along the coordinate axis of coordinate system {XYZ} and three rotation DOFs (δα w ,
δβ w , δγ w ) around the coordinate axis, as shown in Fig. 8.1. In order to make the
workpiece occupy a determinate position in the process of machining, it is necessary
to design a reasonable layout of locating points to constrain the corresponding DOFs
of the workpiece.
In fact, a variety of locating point layout schemes will be obtained by changing
the number and positions of locating points. Figure 8.2 is to lay out the locating
points on the bottom surface of the workpiece. Figure 8.2a shows the layout of same
number of locating points on the same locating datum. Though the positions of these
three non-collinear locating points are different, the limited DOFs are same. The two
locating point layout schemes constrain three DOFs (δyw , δα w and δγ w ). Therefore,
the two locating point layout schemes belong to the same scheme. Two locating point
layout schemes in Fig. 8.2b lay out three locating points and two locating points on
the bottom surface of the workpiece, respectively. The scheme with three locating

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-33-4493-8_8
230 8 Planning Algorithm of Locating Point Layout
Fig. 8.1 Free workpiece
(a) Same numbers of locating points
(b) Different numbers of locating points
Fig. 8.2 Single locating datum
points limits three DOFs (δyw , δα w and δγ w ) whereas the scheme with two locating
points does not limit DOFs. They do not belong to the same scheme (Qin et al. 2011).
In the locating point layout schemes shown in Fig. 8.3, the bottom surface and
the left surface of the workpiece are selected as the locating datums. As illustrated
in Fig. 8.3a, three locating points, which are non-collinearly laid out on the bottom
surface, limit three DOFs (δyw , δα w and δγ w ). Two locating points on the left surface,
8.1 Locating Point Layout Scheme 231
(a) Same number of locating points on every locating datum
(b) Different number of locating points on some locating datum
Fig. 8.3 Same multiple locating datums
which are not in the position parallel to the Y axis, limit two DOFs (δx w and δβ w ).
Accordingly, this scheme limits totally five DOFs, i.e., δx w , δyw , δα w , δβ w and δγ w .
But in two schemes shown in Fig. 8.3b, the first one is to lay out three locating points
on the bottom surface and two locating points on the left surface, whereas the second
one is to set up four locating points on the bottom surface and one locating point on
the left surface. Thus, the first scheme constrains five DOFs δx w , δyw , δα w , δβ w and
δγ w . The second scheme constrains three DOFs δyw , δα w and δγ w . It can be seen
that these two schemes are different scheme with each other although they have the
same number of locating points and locating datums. This is because the numbers
of locating points are different on every locating datums.
In the locating point layout schemes shown in Fig. 8.4, there are the same number
of locating datums and locating points. The first scheme shown in Fig. 8.4a is to select
the bottom surface as the locating datum, and set up three locating points on it. Thus,
the first scheme limits three DOFs δyw , δα w and δγ w . The second scheme is to select
the right surface as the locating datum and lay out the same number of locating points
on it. But the limited DOFs of the second scheme are δx w , δβ w and δγ w . Therefore,
two schemes in Fig. 8.4a are different. The first scheme in Fig. 8.4b is to lay out
three locating points on the first locating datum (i.e., the bottom surface) and two
locating points on the second locating datum (i.e., the left surface). Obviously, it can
constrain five DOFs δx w , δyw , δα w , δβ w and δγ w . The second scheme in Fig. 8.4b
is to arrange three locating points on the bottom surface and two locating points on
(a) Different single locating datum
(b) Different multiple locating datum
Fig. 8.4 Same number of locating points
the behind surface. This scheme can also constrain five DOFs but they are δyw , δzw ,
δα w , δβ w and δγ w . Because the limited DOFs are different, two locating point layout
schemes in Fig. 8.4b are different.
8.2 Causes of Locating Non-determination
The purpose of the locating point layout scheme is to reasonably determine the
position of the workpiece. Consequently, the locating point layout scheme must have
the locating determination (Song and Rong 2005; Cai et al. 1997). The necessary
and sufficient conditions of locating determination (Qin et al. 2008; Qin et al. 2011)
are as follows

rank( J) + rank(δq ∗w ) − rank( Jδq ∗w ) = 6
(8.1)
rank( J) = k
Otherwise, the locating point layout scheme dose not have the locating deter-
mination. In other words, the locating point layout scheme has the locating
non-determination. Therefore, it cannot locate the workpiece correctly.
8.2 Causes of Locating Non-determination 233
The correctness of the locating point layout scheme depends on the number of
locating points and their positions on the locating datums (Qin et al. 2010; Qin et al.
2006). Too few or too many locating points will lead to the under locating or the over
locating. Even if a reasonable number of locating points, if they cannot be arranged
on the corresponding locating datum properly, it will cause the under locating or the
over locating. Therefore, to find out the cause of locating non-determination is the
key to design locating point layout.
Figure 8.5a is a diagram of the process of milling the through-slot at the top of the
workpiece. The through-slot have two dimension requirements of l ± δl and h ± δh.
They are in the X direction and the Y direction, respectively. Thus, the theoretical
DOFs can be obtained as δq ∗w = λz ζ z with ζ z = [0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0]T . Therefore, there are
rank(δq ∗w ) = rank(ζ z ) = 1. Accordingly, there are five DOFs that should be limited.
That is, there are five theoretical DOFs. Theoretically, if the workpiece locating is
reasonable, one locating point should limit one DOF.
Figure 8.5b is the first locating point layout scheme. There are three locating points
L 1 , L 2 , L 3 on the bottom surface and two locating points L 4 , L 5 on the left surface.
Thus, the number of locating points is k = 5. Accordingly, there exist rank(J) = k
= 5, rank( Jδq ∗w ) = 0 and rank(δq hw ) = 1. Because rank( J) + rank(δq ∗w ) −
rank( Jδq ∗w ) = 5 + 1 − 0 = 6, the locating point layout scheme can be judged to
have the locating determination. It belongs to the partial locating.
In the second scheme of Fig. 8.5c, the number of locating points is also k = 5.
The unique difference of the second scheme with the first scheme is the line between
the locating point L 4 and the locating point L 5 is paralell to the Y axis. So there are
rank(J) = 4, rank( Jδq ∗w ) = 0 and rank(δq hw ) = 3. Because rank( J) + rank(δq ∗w ) −
rank( Jδq ∗w ) = 4 + 1 − 0 = 5, the second scheme dose not have the locating
determination. It belongs to the under locating. The difference from Fig. 8.5b is one
locating point, in L 4 and L 5 located on the same surface, is invalid. As a result, the
two locating points L 4 and L 5 do not limit the DOF.
Figure 8.5d is the third scheme with the number of locating points k = 5. Here,
locating point L 4 and L 5 are set up on the behind surface. Therefore, rank(J) = k = 5,
rank( Jδq ∗w ) = 2 and rank(δq hw ) = 1. Obviously, there exists rank( J)+rank(δq ∗w )−
rank( Jδq ∗w ) = 5+1−2 = 4. Accordingly, the locating point layout scheme dose not
have the locating determination so that it is the under locating. The same as Fig. 8.5b
is the third scheme can also limit five DOFs. However, locating points L 4 and L 5
limit two DOFs which need not theoretically be limited. In other words, locating
points L 4 and L 5 do not play a substantive role.
In the fourth scheme of Fig. 8.5e, besides three locating points L 1 , L 2 , L 3 on the
bottom surface, there are one locating point L 4 on the left surface and one locating
point L 5 on the behind surface. Thus, the number of locating points is also k =
5. But rank(J) = k = 5, rank( Jδq ∗w ) = 1 and rank(δq hw ) = 3, Again, rank(J) +
rank(δq ∗w ) − rank( Jδq ∗w ) = 5 + 1 − 3 = 3. This scheme dose clearly not have the
locating determination. It is still the under locating. The difference from Fig. 8.5b lies
in locating points L 4 and L 5 do not limit the DOF although they belong to effective
locating point. Therefore, the DOFs limited by the fourth scheme is 2 DOFs less than
that by the first scheme.
Fig. 8.5 The relationship between the locating schemes

The fifth scheme in Fig. 8.5f lay out k = 6 locating points, i.e., three locating
points (L 1 , L 2 , L 3 ) on the bottom surface, two locating points (L 4 , L 5 ) on the left
surface, and one locating point L 6 on the behind surface. Therefore, rank(J) = k = 6,
rank( Jδq ∗w ) = 1 and rank(δq hw ) = 0. Because rank(J) + rank(δq ∗w )-rank( Jδq ∗w ) =
6 + 1 − 1 = 6, the fifth scheme is judged to have the locating determination. But it
is the complete locating. The difference from Fig. 8.5b is the fifth scheme has one
more locating point than the first scheme. Thus, the fifth scheme restricts one more
DOF that does not need to be restricted.
The sixth scheme in Fig. 8.5g have still k = 6 locating points including four
locating points on the bottom surface and two locating points on the left surface.
Thus, there are rank(J) = 5, rank( Jδq ∗w ) = 0 and rank(δq hw ) = 1. Though the
condition rank(J) + rank(δq ∗w )-rank( Jδq ∗w ) = 5 + 1 − 0 = 6 is hold, the other
condition rank(J) < k shows that the sixth scheme belongs to the partial over locating
with the locating determination. The difference from Fig. 8.5b is the fifth scheme has
one more locating point than the first scheme, but does not restrict one more DOF.
The seventh scheme shown in Fig. 8.5h has only k = 4 locating points in
which three locating points (L 1 , L 2 , L 3 ) are set up on the bottom surface and one
locating point L 4 on the left surface. Obviously, rank(J) = 4, rank( Jδq ∗w ) = 0 and
rank(δq hw ) = 3. Therefore, the condition rank(J) + rank( Jδq ∗w )-rank( Jδq ∗w ) = 5
can be obtained which shows the seventh scheme dose not has the locating determi-
nation. Thus, it is judged to be the under locating. The difference from Fig. 8.5b is
the seventh scheme has one less locating point than the first scheme.
In the eighth scheme of Fig. 8.5i, besides the four locating points (L 1 , L 2 , L 3 , L 4 )
on the bottom surface, there are two locating points (L 5 , L 6 ) and one locating point
L 7 on the left surface and the behind surface, respectively. So there are rank(J) = 6,
rank( Jδq ∗w ) = 1 and rank(δq hw ) = 0. Because rank(J) + rank(δq ∗w )-rank( Jδq ∗w ) =
6 and rank(J) < k, it can be judged as the complete over locating which has the locating
non-determination. Compared with Fig. 8.5b, the difference is that the eighth scheme
has two more locating points than the first scheme and limits one more DOF that
does not need to be limited.
The ninth scheme in Fig. 8.5j has the same number of locating points as the eighth
scheme. The difference from the eighth scheme lies in the line between point L 5 and
point L 6 is parallel to the Y axis. It is the difference that cause these conditions
including rank(J) = 5, rank( Jδq ∗w ) = 1 and rank(δq hw ) = 3. Thus, it is easy to
obtain rank(J) + rank(δq ∗w )-rank( Jδq ∗w ) = 3. And because rank(J) < k, the ninth
scheme can be judged as the under over locating which dose not has the locating
determination. The comparison of Fig. 8.5j with Fig. 8.5b shows there exist three
differences between them. One is that Fig. 8.5j has two more locating points than
Fig. 8.5b. Two is that one of locating points L5 and L6 on the same surface is invalid.
Three is that the ninth scheme limits one more DOF which does not need to be limited
than the first scheme.
In order to clearly relate and understand the cause of the locating non-
determination, the following important lemmas and concepts are given.
Lemma 1: minimum number of locating points

kmin = 6 − rank(δq ∗w ) is not only the minimum number of locating points for a
reasonable locating point layout scheme, but also the number of DOFs that must be
limited in order to meet the machining requirements.
Lemma 2: maximum number of locating points

kmax = 6 is the maximum number of locating points for a reasonable locating point
layout scheme.
Definition 1: number of useless locating points

k = rank( Jδq ∗w ) is the number of useless locating points in a reasonable locating
point layout scheme, that is, the number of DOFs that do not need to be limited but
are actually limited.
Definition 2: number of invalid locating points

k = k − rank( J) is the number of invalid locating points in a reasonable locating
point layout scheme, i.e., the number of locating points that do not limit DOFs.
Definition 3: number of valid locating points

k = rank( J) is the number of valid locating points in a reasonable locating point
layout scheme.
Definition 4: number of useful locating points

k̂ = rank( J) − rank( Jδq ∗w ) is the number of useful locating points in a reasonable
locating point layout scheme. In other words, it is not only the number of DOFs that
must be limited, but also the number of DOFs limited by the locating point layout
scheme.
Thus, according to the locating determination analysis of each locating point
layout scheme in Fig. 8.5, the analysis theorem of locating determination can be
further obtained as follows.
Theorem 1: If the locating point layout scheme is the under locating, the necessary
and sufficient condition is that the useful number is less than the the minimum
number, and there is no invalid number. In other words, k̂ < kmin and k = 0.
Theorem 2: If the locating point layout scheme is the over locating, the necessary
and sufficient condition is that there is invalid locating points which means the rank
of Jacobi matrix is less than the row number of Jacobi matrix. So k > 0.
Theorem 3: If the locating point layout scheme is the deterministic locating, the
necessary and sufficient condition is that the useful number is equal to the minimum
number, and there is no invalid number which means the rank of Jacobi matrix is
equal to the row number of Jacobi matrix. Thus, k̂ = kmin and k = 0.
Corollary 1: If the locating point layout scheme is the complete locating, the neces-
sary and sufficient condition is that the useful number is equal to the minimum number
which means the rank of Jacobi matrix is equal to the row and column number of
Jacobi matrix. So k̂ = kmin , k = kmax and k = 0.
Corollary 2: If the locating point layout scheme is the partial locating, the necessary
and sufficient condition is that the useful number is equal to the minimum number,
the valid number is less than the minimum number, and there is no invalid number.
Therefore, the rank of Jacobi matrix is equal to the row number of Jacobi matrix but
is less than the column number of Jacobi matrix. So k̂ = kmin , k < kmax and k = 0.
Corollary 3: If the locating point layout scheme is the under over locating, the
necessary and sufficient condition is that the useful number is less than the minimum
number, and there is invalid number. Therefore, the rank of Jacobi matrix is less than
the row number of Jacobi matrix. So k̂ < kmin and k > 0.
Corollary 4: If the locating point layout scheme is the partial over locating, the
number, the valid number is less than the maximum number, and there is invalid
number. Therefore, the rank of Jacobi matrix is less than the row and column number
of Jacobi matrix. So k̂ = kmin , k < kmax and k > 0.
Corollary 5: If the locating point layout scheme is the complete over locating, the
number, the valid number is equal to the maximum number, and there is invalid
number. Therefore, the rank of Jacobi matrix is equal to the row and column number
of Jacobi matrix. So k̂ = kmin , k = kmax and k > 0.
It is known from the above theorems and corollaries that, the under locating is
caused by an insufficient useful number of locating points, and the over locating is
caused by the fact that there are invalid locating points in the locating point layout
scheme.
8.3 Generative Planning Algorithm
In fact, before a locating point layout scheme is designed, the minimum number k min
of locating points can be known according to the machining requirements. However,
it is not known how many locating points should be arranged on every locating datum,
so that there are no invalid locating points in the locating point layout scheme.
Therefore, it is necessary to set up locating points one by one beginning with the
first locating datum until the locating point layout scheme has the locating deter-
mination. A new locating point layout scheme can be achieved by arranging each
locating point on the locating datum. This is called the locating point layout sub-
scheme. Thus, the next locating point layout sub-scheme can be iteratively obtained
by increasing one locating point until it has the locating determination. The final
locating point layout sub-scheme is the design result. The algorithm of locating
point layout scheme is shown in Fig. 8.6 and related detailedly as follows.
Step 1 is to determine the theoretical DOFs δq ∗w as well as the corresponding stan-

dard orthogonal basis vectors according to the known machining requirements.
Step 2 is to calculate the minimum number, kmin = 6 − rank(δq ∗w ), of locating

points.
Step 3 is to select the first locating datum
Step 4 is to lay out the first locating point on the current locating datum.
Start
Machining requirements
Theoretical DOFs δqw* and ζ
Minimum number kmin of locating points
The j-th locating datum (j=1)
The k-th locating point (k=1)
Yes
k̂k = kmin?
No
Yes No
Yes k = k max ?
k ′ ′ 0?
No Complete Partial
Under locating locating locating
Under over locating
The next locating datum (j=j+1) End

The next locating
point (k=k+1)
The current locating point (k=k)
Fig. 8.6 Flowchart of generative planning algorithm

8.3 Generative Planning Algorithm 239
Step 5 is to judge the relationship between the number of useful locating points and
the minimum number of locating points. If k̂ < kmin , it goes to Step 6. Otherwise,
it goes to Step 9.
Step 6 is to judge if there is invalid locating point? If k = 0, it goes to Step 7.
Otherwise, it goes to Step 8.
Step 7 is to determine the scheme belongs to the under locating. So the next
locating point must be set up on the current locating datum and it goes to Step 5.
Step 8 is to determine the scheme belongs to under over locating. So the next
locating datum must be selected for the current locating point. And then it goes
to Step 5.
Step 9 is to judge the relationship between the number of locating points and the
maximum number of locating points? If k < kmax , it goes to Step 10. Otherwise,
it goes to Step 11.
Step 10 is to determine the scheme belongs to the partial locating. The design
process is over.
Step 11 is to determine the scheme is the complete locating. The design process
is over.
The designer or the design system carries out the above design process by not refer-
ring to the design results of any fixture case, but independently completed according
to the processing requirements. Therefore, the method for the above design process
is called the generative one-by-one planning algorithm.
8.4 Application and Design Process
In order to demonstrate the application of the one-by-one planning algorithm, a step

surface is assumed to be milled on the regular prismatic workpiece, as shown in
Fig. 8.7. The machining specifications are dimensions a and b. Therefore, it is the
Fig. 8.7 The prismatic Y

workpiece and machining
surface
b X
Z
Fig. 8.8 The first locating

datum
most important in the process of machining is to design a reasonable locating scheme

to determine the correct position and direction of the workpiece relative to the cutting
tool.
The design process of locating scheme is detailedly as follows.
Step 1: determine the theoretical DOFs.
In order to guarantee simultaneously dimension a in the X direction and dimension b
in the Y direction, they are depended on to obtain the theoretical DOFs as δq ∗w = ζ z λz
in which with ζ z = [0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0]T is the basis vector and λz is the arbitrary value.
Step 2: calculate the minimum number of locating points.

Because rank δq ∗w = 1, the minimum number of locating points is kmin = 6 −
rank(δq ∗w ) = 6 − 1 = 5.
Step 3: select the first locating datum.
Because the bottom surface of the workpiece is the design datum with maximum
area, it can be selected as the first locating datum according to the principle of datum
coincidence, as shown in Fig. 8.8.
Step 4: lay out the first locating point.
The first point L 1 should be set up on the current locating datum (i.e., the bottom
surface). Thus, the first locating point layout sub-scheme can be obtained, as shown
in Fig. 8.9a.
Step 5: judge the relationship between the number of useful locating points and
the minimum number of locating points.
Because the Jacobian matrix is J = [0, -1, 0, -z1 , 0, x 1 ], there are rank(J) = 1 and
rank( Jδq ∗w ) = 0. Thus, the number of useful locating points is k̂ = 1 which is less
than the minimum number k min of locating points.
Step 6: judge the number of invalid locating points.
Since k = k − rank( J) = 1 − 1 = 0, then there is no invalid locating points.
Step 7: analyze the locating determination.
The current locating point layout sub-scheme is under locating. It is a reasonable
locating scheme. It is known from theorem 1 that the number of locating points is
8.4 Application and Design Process 241
L2
r1=[x1, 0, z1]T r2=[x2, 0, z2]T

L1 L1
(a) The first locating point (b) The second locating point
L2 L2
L3 L3
r3=[x3, 0, z3]T r4=[x4, 0, z4]T

L1 L1 L4
(c) The third locating point (d) The fourth locating point
Fig. 8.9 Layout of locating points on the first locating datum
not enough. Therefore, the next locating point (i.e., the second locating point) L 2
should be increased on the current locating datum (i.e., the bottom surface) to form
the second locating point layout sub-scheme,
as shown in Fig. 8.9b. Obviously, the
0 −1 0 −z 1 0 x1
Jacobian matrix is obtained as J = . Again, rank( J) = 2 and
0 −1 0 −z 2 0 x2
rank( Jδq ∗w ) = 0. So k̂ < kmin and k = 0.
Because the second locating point layout sub-scheme is still under locating, the
third locating point L 3 should continue the arrangement on the current locating datum
(i.e., the bottom surface), as shown in Fig. 8.9c. Thus, the Jacobian matrix is J =
⎡ ⎤
0 −1 0 −z 1 0 x1
⎣ 0 −1 0 −z 2 0 x2 ⎦, rank( J) = 3 and rank( Jδq ∗w ) = 0. Therefore, k̂ < kmin and
0 −1 0 −z 3 0 x3
k = 0.
The third locating point layout sub-scheme with three locating points is still under
locating. Therefore, the fourth locating point L 4 must be increased on the current
locating datum (i.e., the bottom surface) for the fourth locating point layout sub-
scheme, as shown in Fig. 8.9d. Likewise, the Jacobian matrix can be calculate as J =
⎡ ⎤
0 −1 0 −z 1 0 x1
⎢ 0 −1 0 −z 2 0 x2 ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ∗
⎣ 0 −1 0 −z 3 0 x3 ⎦. Agian, it is easy to obtain rank( J) = 3 and rank( Jδq w ) = 1.
0 −1 0 −z 4 0 x4
So k̂ < kmin and k = 1.
According to corollary 3, the fourth locating point layout sub-scheme belongs
to the under over locating. Theorem 2 shows that the number of useful locating
points is not enough in the fourth locating point layout sub-scheme, and there is
invalid locating point L 4 . Therefore, the left surface should be selected as the second
locating datum in light of the principle of datum coincidence, as shown in Fig. 8.10.
And then, the current locating point L 4 (i.e., the fourth locating point) should be
placed on the current locating datum (i.e., the left surface), as shown in Fig. 8.11a.
⎡ ⎤
0 −1 0 −z 1 0 x1
⎢ 0 −1 0 −z 2 0 x2 ⎥
Thus, the Jacobian matrix can be recalculate as J = ⎢ ⎣ 0 −1 0 −z 3 0 x3 ⎦.
⎥
−1 0 0 0 z 4 −y4
Therefore, rank( J) = 4 and rank( Jδq w ) = 0. So k̂ < kmin and k = 0.
∗
However, the locating scheme in Fig. 8.11a is still the under locating which shows
the number of locating points is insufficient in it. Accordingly, the fifth locating point
L 5 should be increased on the current locating datum (i.e., the left surface), as shown in
Fig. 8.10 The second locating datum
r5=[0, y5, z5]T

L5
L2 L2
r4=[0, y4, z4]T
L4 L4
L3 L3
L1 L1
(a) The fourth locating point (b) The fifth locating point
Fig. 8.11 Layout of locating points on the second locating datum

8.4 Application and Design Process 243
⎡ ⎤
0 −1 0 −z 1 0 x1
⎢ 0 −1 0 −z 0 x ⎥
⎢ 2 2 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
Fig. 8.11b. It is easy to obtain the Jacobian matrix as J = ⎢ 0 −1 0 −z 3 0 x3 ⎥.
⎢ ⎥
⎣ −1 0 0 0 z 4 −y4 ⎦
−1 0 0 0 z 5 −y5
Again, because rank( J) = 5 and rank( Jδq w ) = 0, there are k̂ = kmin and k = 0.
∗
Step 8: judge the termination condition.

Because there exist k < kmax , the current locating scheme in Fig. 8.11b is the partial
locating. The design process is over.
The scheme in Fig. 8.11b can determine the position of the workpiece relative to
the cutting tool so that it can guarantee the requirement of machining accuracy.
References
Asada H, By AB. Kinematic analysis of workpart fixturing for flexible assembly with automatically
reconfigurable fixtures [J]. IEEE J Robot Autom. 1985;RA-1(2):86–94.
Cai W, Hu SJ, Yuan JX. A variational method of robust fixture configuration design for 3-D
workpieces [J]. ASME J Manuf Sci Eng. 1997;119:593–602.
Kang Y. Computer-aided fixture design verification [D]. PhD dissertation, Worcester Polytechnic
Institute, 2001.
Qin GH, Zhag WH, Wan M. A machining dimension-based approach to locating scheme design
[J]. Trans ASME J Manuf Sci Eng. 2008;130(5):05101–1–8.
Qin GH, Hong LH, Wu TJ. Analysis technology of degrees of freedom of workpiece based on
homogenous linear equations [J]. Comp Integ Manuf Syst. 2008;14(3):466–9 (in Chinese).
Qin GH, Zhang WH, Li YL. A new algorithm of fixture locating scheme design [J]. J Test Measurem
Technol. 2008;22(3):236–40 (in Chinese).
Qin GH, Zhang WH, Wan M, Sun SP. A novel approach to fixture design based on locating
correctness [J]. Int J Manuf Res. 2010;5(4):429–48.
Qin GH, Xu JN, Qiu ZM. Generative design approach to locating scheme determination for
automated fixture design [J]. Comput Integ Manuf Syst. 2011;17(4):695–700 (in Chinese).
Song H, Rong Y. Locating completeness evaluation and revision in fixture plan [J]. Robot Comput
Integ Manuf. 2005;21(4–5):368–78.
Vasundara M, Padmanaban K. Recent developments on machining fixture layout design, analysis,
and optimization using finite element method and evolutionary techniques [J]. Int J Adv Manuf
Technol. 2014;70(1–4):79–96.
Chapter 9
Planning Algorithm of Clamping Forces
for Rigid Workpieces
In the process of machining, the workpiece will be exerted by cutting forces and
cutting torques (Qin and Zhang 2011). Fixtures can keep the workpiece in touch with
fixels always by supplying the clamping forces. The magnitude of clamping force
(Here, it is abbreviated as the clamping force) can strongly influence the machining
accuracy as well as the fixturing reliability. Therefore, the determination of clamping
force is a very important task in the process of fixture design.
9.1 Mechanical Model of Fixturing Scheme
Fixtures belong to accessorial mechanical devices that are widely used in machining,
assembly, inspection and other manufacturing operations (Wang 2008). During a
machining process, since a workpiece is subject to cutting forces and torques, a fixture
must be used to restrain the workpiece in a correct location so that the manufacturing
process can be carried out according to design specifications (Lu et al. 2007; Chen
et al. 2007). Basically, a fixture consists of clamps and locators. The functionality
of locators is to provide a workpiece with the desired location. However, due to the
effect of gravity and machining forces exerted on the workpiece, locators alone are
usually insufficient to constrain the workpiece. Clamps are thus utilized to provide
extra constraints to counteract an eventual movement of the workpiece. Therefore,
it is significant to provide the workpiece with reasonable clamping forces so that it
can be in an equilibrium state (Qin et al. 2007; Trappey and Liu 1992). This is the
implication of the planning of clamping forces.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-33-4493-8_9
246 9 Planning Algorithm of Clamping Forces for Rigid Workpieces
9.1.1 Workpiece Static Equilibrium Constraints
After the reasonable position and direction between the workpiece and the cutting
tool is determined by u locators, the clamping force is provided by v clamps, as
shown in Fig. 9.1. It is assumed that the active forces exerted on the workpiece in the
cutting process include the workpiece gravity Fgrav , clamping force Fj (1 ≤ j ≤ v),
and cutting force wrench W cut , thus the supporting reaction force at the i-th locator
is Fi (1 ≤ i ≤ u). The friction between the workpiece and the fixel (i.e. locator and
clamp) is ignored.
In Fig. 9.1, XYZ is the global coordinate system. ri = [x i , yi , zi ]T denotes the
position of the i-th fixel (1 ≤ i ≤ u + v). rgrav = [x grav , ygrav , zgrav ]T is the gravity
center of the workpiece. Fgrav and W cut are the gravity of the workpiece and cutting
force wrench, respectively. If ni = [nix , niy , niz ]T is the unit normal vector of the
workpiece at ri , then the force Fi = [F ix , F iy , F iz ]T can be expressed as
F i = ni f i (9.1)
with F ix = f i nix , F iy = f i niy and F iz = f i niz .
Wcut
Workpiece
Fi
i
Fu+1
1 Fgrav
ri Fu+j
Fu+v
Y
X
Z
Fig. 9.1 Fixturing scheme of the workpiece

9.1 Mechanical Model of Fixturing Scheme 247
Accordingly, the equilibrium equation of the workpiece can be expressed with

the matrix form (Li and Melkote 2001; Chen 2007), i.e.,
G loc F loc + G cla F cla + W ext = 0 (9.2)
where Gloc = [G1 , G2 , …, Gu ] and Gcla = [ Gu+1 , Gu+2 , …, Gu+v ] are the layout
matrix of locator and clamp, respectively. Floc = [f 1 , f 2 , …, f u ]T and Fcla = [f u+1 ,
f u+2 , …, f u+v ]T are the supporting reaction force of the locator again the workpiece
and the clamping force of the clamp on the workpiece, respectively. W ext = W cut +
T T
F Tgrav , r grav × F grav g is the external force wrench. And the layout matrix of
every fixel is

ni
Gi = (9.3)
r i × ni
9.1.2 Direction Constraints
In the practical fixturing process of the workpiece, in order to stop the workpiece
detachment from the fixels, the supporting reaction force must press against the
workpiece in addition to the clamping force (Qin et al. 2016; Xing et al. 2015). Thus,
according to the normal direction at every fixel in Fig. 9.1, the following direction
constraint can be obtained
f i ≥ 0, 1 ≤ i ≤ u + v (9.4)
9.2 Analysis of Force Existence
If the positions and orientations of fixels are given as well as external loads, the
analysis model of force existence can be obtained according to Eqs. (9.2, 9.4)
AX = Y
s.t.
X ≥0 (9.5)
T
where A = [Gloc , Gcla ] is the layout matrix of fixel, X = F Tloc , F Tcla is the contact
force vector, and Y = −W ext is the external load.
Clearly, if Eq. (9.5) has a solution, in other words, the contact force (including
the supporting reaction force and the clamping force) has a solution, it can indicate
that the clamping force can be exerted on the workpiece at the given placement.
Provided with there is X i ≥ 0 (1 ≤ i ≤ u + v) in the linear equation set of Eq. (9.5),
its solution existence can be examined equivalently by solving the following linear
programming problem with the convergence
max Q = C1 X 1 + C2 X 2 + · · · + Cu+v X u+v

s.t.
⎧
⎪
⎪ A11 X 1 + A12 X 2 + · · · + A1(u+v) X u+v ≤ Y1
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎨ A21 X 1 + A22 X 2 + · · · + A2(u+v) X u+v ≤ Y2
······ (9.6)
⎪
⎪
⎪ A61 X 1 + A62 X 2 + · · · + A6(u+v) X u+v ≤ Y6
⎪
⎪
⎩ X 1 , X 2 , · · · , X u+v ≥ 0
where Y i (1 ≤ i ≤ 6) is the i-th element of the vector Y, Aij (1 ≤ i ≤ 6, 1 ≤ j ≤ u+v)

6
is the i-th row and the j-th column element of matrix A, and C j = Ai j . Then if
i=1
and only if

6
max(Q) = Yi (9.7)
i=1
Equation (9.5) has a solution (Qin GH, Wang HM, Ye HC, Wu ZX, Qin et al.,
2016).
6
Here, max(Q) and Yi are defined as the internal force measurement of existence
i=1
and the external force measurement of existence, respectively. Thus, Eq. (9.7) can
further be described as

6
Iexist = max(Q) − Yi (9.8)
i=1
where I exist is the existence index. If and only if I exist = 0, Eq. (9.5) has a solution.
9.3 Analysis of Force Feasibility
According to Eq. (9.8), it can be known that the clamping force has a solution, but the
specific solution of the clamping force is not determined. Therefore, if the positions
9.3 Analysis of Force Feasibility 249
and orientations of fixels, external loads and clamping forces are given, the analysis
model of force feasibility can be achieved as
ax = y
s.t.
x≥0 (9.9)
where a = Gloc is the layout matrix of locator, x = Floc is the supporting reaction
force vector, and y = −Gcla Fcla -W ext is the external load vector.
For a given clamping force Fcla , if Eq. (9.9) has a solution, Fcla is feasible. In
other words, Fcla can keep the workpiece in a stable state. Likewise, the solution
existence of Eq. (9.9) can be examined equivalently by solving the following linear
programming problem
max q = c1 x1 + c2 x2 + · · · + cu xu
s.t.
⎧
⎪
⎪ a11 x1 + a12 x2 + · · · + a1u xu ≤ y1
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎨ a21 x1 + a22 x2 + · · · + a2u xu ≤ y2
······ (9.10)
⎪
⎪
⎪ a61 x1 + a62 x2 + · · · + a6u xu ≤ y6
⎪
⎪
⎩ x1 , x2 , · · · , xu ≥ 0
where yi (1 ≤ i ≤ 6) is the i-th of the vector y, aij (1 ≤ i ≤ 6, 1 ≤ j ≤ u) is the i-th

6
row and the j-th column of the matrix a, and c j = ai j . Then, if and only if
i=1

6
max(q) = yi (9.11)
i=1
Equation (9.9) has a solution.

6
By analogy, if max(q) and yi in Eq. (9.11) are respectively called the internal
i=1
force measurement of feasibility and the external force measurement of feasibility,
the feasibility index I feas can be defined as

6
I f eas = max(q) − yi (9.12)
i=1
Thus, if and only if I feas = 0, Eq. (9.9) is judged to has a solution.

9.4 Planning Algorithm of 1-clamping Force
In the planning method of the clamping force, the first step is to judge whether
the clamping force has a solution according to the force existence. If the clamping
force has a solution, the solution of the clamping force should be searched iteratively
according to the force feasibility. Otherwise, it shows that the given clamping point
(i.e., the application point of clamping force) is possibly improper. Thus, the plan-
ning process of clamping force is over so that the designer should re-determine the
reasonable clamping point. Obviously, the analysis of both the force existence and
the force feasibility are the core of the entire planning process of the clamping force.
If one clamping force Fu+1 with the magnitude of f u+1 = f is supplied for the
workpiece at the given placement ru+1 = [x u+1 , yu+1 , zu+1 ]T on the clamping surface
Ω, then the search method can be proposed for the magnitude f of the clamping force
Fu+1 .
According to Eq. (9.2), when the clamping force f is exerted at the given clamping
point ru+1 = [x u+1 , yu+1 , zu+1 ]T , the static equilibrium equation of the workpiece can
be rewritten as
G loc F loc + G cla f + W ext = 0 (9.13)
where Gcla = [nTu+1 , (ru+1 × nu+1 )T ]T is the layout matrix of fixel, and Fcla = f is the
clamping force.
In order to solve the clamping force f at the clamping point ru+1 , the step decrease
planning algorithm is presented, as shown in Fig. 9.2. It is worth noting that ε is a
very small positive number so that the algorithm can approximate the true value of
clamping force. The procedure to determine the clamping force f (Qin et al. 2014)
goes detailedly as follows.
Step 1 is to judge the force existence.
It is easy obtained as A = [Gloc , Gcla ], X = [F Tloc , f ]T and Y = −W ext . They are
substituted into Eq. (9.8) for the judgment of force existence.
If the clamping force f is of the force existence, it shows the clamping force f at
the clamping point ru+1 has no solutions. Therefore, the process of determining f is
over. Otherwise, the clamping surface must be reselected for the clamping force f .
But if the clamping force f has a solution, the first minimum endpoint f star t can be
determined for the solution interval.
Step 2 is to initiate the minimum endpoint.
Because f star t ≥ 0, the initial approximate value of f star t can be selected as
t = 0 to judge its force feasibility according to Eq. (9.12).
0
f star
0
If f star t is of the force feasibility, it can be determined to be the minimum endpoint.
And it goes to Step 7. Otherwise, λ0 = 0.
Step 3 is to determine the first approximate value of the minimum endpoint.
A step must appropriately be chosen to be s1 = s so that the first approximate
t = f star t + s1 = f star t + s to
1 0 0
value of clamping force f can be obtained as f star
analyze its force feasibility.
9.4 Planning Algorithm of 1-clamping Force 251
Start
Initiate the endpoint counter ep=0
Initiate the variation flag δ0=0 b

Select the current step s=s
No
End Judge the force existence?
Yes
Initiate the current clamping force f=0
Yes
Judge the force feasibility?
No
Obtain the Obtain the direction flag λ0=0

endpoint
value fep=f
Determine the next clamping force f=f+s
Yes No
Judge the force feasibility?
Obtain the direction flag Obtain the direction flag
λ=1 λ=0
δ=0 δ≠0
Judge the variation flag δ=λ-λ0?
Obtain the obtain the current variation flag δ0=δ0+|δ|

current step s=s
Obtain the current step s = (- 1)δ ζ δ0 s
No Obtain the
Judge the current step s≤ε?
direction flag λ0=λ
Yes
Obtain the endpoint value fep=f
Initiate the clamping force f=fep
a
Fig. 9.2 Determination of “1-clamping force”
a
No Yes
Judge the endpoint counter ep=1?
Obtain the minimum

endpoint fstart=f
Update the endpoint Obtain the minimum

counter ep=ep+1
endpoint fend=f
Obtain the solution interval [fstart,

fend] of clamping force
End
Fig. 9.2 (continued)
t is feasible, λ1 = 1. Otherwise, λ1 = 0. Thus, a new symbol δ 1 = λ1 -λ0

1
If f star
can be defined to measure the variation between the direction flag λ1 of the current
t and the direction falg λ0 of the previous clamping force f star t .
1 0
clamping force f star
Here, symbol δ 1 is named as the variation flag. δ 1 = 0 indicates that the direction of
1
the current approximate value f star t of clamping force f is the same as the direction
t . δ 1 = 0 indicates that the direction of the
0
of the previous approximate value f star
1
current approximate value f star t of clamping force f is different from the direction
0
of the previous approximate value f star t.
Step 4 is to determine the next approximate value of the minimum endpoint.
If the current variation flag δ 1 = 0, the next approximate value of f star t can be
determined according to the principle that the size and direction of the next step s2
t = f star t + s2 = f star t + s.
2 1 1
are the same as the current step s1 , i.e., f star
Again, if the current variation flag δ 1 = 0, the next approximate value of f star t is
determined according to the principle that the size of the next step s2 should be less
than the current step s1 , and the direction of the next step s2 should be different from
t = f star t − ζ s with the s2 = -ζ s1 . Here, ζ is a given
2 1
the current step s1 . Thus, f star
decrease coefficient, and its value is taken on the open interval from 0 to 1.
Repeating the above step, the sequence of approximate value can be obtained for
the clamping force f . Therefore, the n-th (n ≥ 1) approximate value can be described
as
9.4 Planning Algorithm of 1-clamping Force 253

n
|δi |
δn
n
f star t = n−1
f star t + (−1) ζ i=1 s (9.14)
where δn = λn − λn−1 , whose initial value is defined as δ 0 = 0, is the variation flag

of the n-th approximate value of the clamping force.
Step 5 is to judge the termination condition of the minimum endpoint.
Equation (9.14) is the step decrease iterative formula with the current step sn =

n
n
|δi | |δi |
(−1) i=1 ζ i=1 s when s0 = s is rewritten as s0 = (−1)|δ0 | ζ |δ0 | s. As a result, if and
only if

n
|δi |
ζ i=1 s≤ε (9.15)
n
the iteration process must be stopped. Thus, f star t can be thought of as the final
approximate value f star t of f , i.e., f star t = f star t . The given threshold value ε is a
n
arbitrary positive number, and it is generally taken as small values.

Step 6 is to determine the final approximate value of the maximum endpoint.
Let f = f start and λ0 = 1. If f has still a solution, another solution f end can be
calculated from step 3 to step 5. Thus, the clamping force f can be selected an
arbitrary value from the interval of f start to f end , i.e., f ∈ [f start , f end ].
9.5 Planning Algorithm of n-clamping Force
When the magnitudes of n clamping forces are variables in the multiple fixturing
layout specification, it is crucial to convert the planning problem of n clamping
forces into the planning problem of 1-clamping force.
Assumed that two clamping forces are set in the fixturing layout scheme. Their
magnitudes and placements are f u+1 , ru+1 = [x u+1 , yu+1 , zu+1 ]T and f u+2 , ru+2 = [x u+2 ,
yu+2 , zu+2 ]T , respectively. Again, the normal vectors at ru+1 and ru+2 are nu+1 and nu+2 ,
the following equation can be obtained according to Eq. (9.2), i.e.,
G loc F loc + G cla X + W ext = 0 (9.16)

nu+1 nu+2
where G cla = is the layout matrix of clamp, X = Fcla
r u+1 × nu+1 r u+2 × nu+2
= [f u+1 , f u+2 ]T is the clamping force vector with f u+1 ≥ 0 and f u+2 ≥ 0.
For convenience of calculation, two clamping forces f u+1 and f u+2 in the rect-
angular coordinate system can be converted into the expression form in the polar
coordinate system, therefore

f u+1 = f sin Θ 1 π
, f ≥ 0, 0 ≤ Θ 1 ≤ (9.17)
f u+2 = f cos Θ 1 2
Likewise, if there are three clamping forces in the fixturing layout scheme, their
magnitudes and the corresponding normal vectors are f u+1 , f u+2 , f u+3 and nu+1 , nu+2 ,
nu+3 , respectively. Then, they can be described by two clamping force polar angles
Θ 1 , Θ 2 and one clamping force polar radius f (Wang et al. 2018), i.e.,
⎧
⎨ f u+1 = f sin 1 π
f = f cos 1 sin 2 , f ≥ 0, 0 ≤ i ≤ ,1 ≤ i ≤ 2 (9.18)
⎩ u+2 2
f u+3 = f cos 1 cos 2
By analogy, when the fixturing layout scheme is set n clamping forces, that is v
= n, they are described by n−1 clamping force polar angles Θ 1 , Θ 2 , …, Θ n−1 and
one clamping force polar radius f . The expression can be written as follows
⎧
⎪
⎪ f sin j , j = 1
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎨
j−1
f sin j cos i , 2 ≤ j ≤ v − 1
f u+ j = (9.19)
⎪ j−1
⎪
i=1
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎩f cos i , j = v
i=1
with f ≥ 0, 0 ≤ Θ i ≤ π /2, and j ≥ 2.

Equation (9.19) can be proved by the mathematical induction. As shown in
Fig. 9.3a, it is assumed that there are two clamping forces f u+1 and f u+2 in the
fixturing layout scheme, in other words, when v = 2, f u+1 and f u+2 can be described
by one polar radius f and one polar angle Θ 1 , namely

f sin 1 , j = 1
f u+ j = (9.20)
f cos 1 , j = 2
When v = 3, there are three clamping forces f u+1 , f u+2 and f u+3 in the fixturing
layout scheme, as shown in Fig. 9.3b. Thus, the relationship among f u+1 , f u+2 , f u+3
and the polar radius f , the polar angle Θ 1 , the polar angle Θ 2 can be expressed as
⎧
⎨ f sin 1 , j = 1
f u+ j = f cos 1 sin 2 , j = 2 (9.21)
⎩
f cos 1 cos 2 , j = 3
When v = n−1 which means there are n−1 clamping forces in the fixturing layout
scheme, the relationship between f u+1 , f u+2 , …, f u+n−1 and f , Θ 1 , Θ 2 , …, Θ n−2 is
assumed as
9.5 Planning Algorithm of n-clamping Force 255
fu+2 fu+1
f
f Θ1
fu+2
Θ1 fcosΘ1
fu+1 Θ2 fu+3
fu+1=fsinΘ1 fu+2=fcosΘ1sinΘ2
fu+2=fcosΘ1 fu+3=fcosΘ1cosΘ2
(a) Two clamping forces (b) Three clamping forces
fu+2 fcosΘ1 fu+n-2 fcosΘ1cosΘ2...cosΘn-2 fcosΘ1cosΘ2...cosΘn-1

fu+n-1
Θ2 Θn-1 Θn
fu+3 fu+n-1 fu+n
fu+2=fcosΘ1sinΘ2 fu+n-1=fcosΘ1cosΘ2...cosΘn-2sinΘn-1 fu+n=fcosΘ1cosΘ2...cosΘn-1sinΘn

fu+3=fcosΘ1cosΘ2 fu+n=fcosΘ1cosΘ2...cosΘn-2cosΘn-1 fu+n+1=fcosΘ1cosΘ2...cosΘn-1cosΘn
(c) n+1 clamping forces
Fig. 9.3 The polar coordinate representation of multiple clamping forces
⎧
⎪
⎪ f sin 1 , j = 1
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ f cos 1 sin 2 , j = 2
⎪
⎪
⎨ f cos 1 cos 2 , j = 3
f u+ j = .. (9.22)
⎪
⎪ .
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ cos 1 cos 2 cos 3 · · · cos n−3 sin n−2 , j = n − 2
⎪
⎪ f
⎩
f cos 1 cos 2 cos 3 · · · cos n−3 cos n−2 , j = n − 1
And then, when v = n, n clamping forces can be described as a function of f , Θ 1 ,

Θ 2 , …, Θ n−1 by projecting the (n−1)-th clamping force in Eq. (9.22) onto f u+n−1
and f u+n , as shown in Fig. 9.3c. Thus, the following equation can be obtained
⎧
⎪
⎪ f sin 1 , j = 1
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ f cos 1 sin 2 , j = 2
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎨ cos 1 cos 2 , j = 3
⎪ f
f u+ j = ..
⎪ .
⎪
⎪
⎪ f cos 1 cos 2 cos 3 · · · cos n−3 sin n−2 , j = n − 2
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ f cos 1 cos 2 cos 3 · · · cos n−3 cos n−2 sin n−1 , j = n − 1
⎪
⎩
f cos 1 cos 2 cos 3 · · · cos n−3 cos n−2 cos n−1 , j = n
(9.23)
In reality, Eq. (9.23) is the another form of Eq. (9.19). QED. By substituting
Eq. (9.19) into Eq. (9.17), it is put in order to obtain
G loc F loc + G cla f + W ext = 0 (9.24)
with
⎧ v−1
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎨ sin 1 G u+1 + cos i G u+v , v = 2
G cla =
i=1 v−1
⎪
⎪
v−1
j−1
⎪
⎩ sin 1 G u+1 + sin j cos i G u+ j + cos i G u+v , v > 2
j=2 i=1 i=1
By comparing Eqs. (9.24) with (9.16), it is known that the determination of “1-
clamping force” can be called to calculate n clamping forces by describing n clamping
forces as a function of one polar radius and n–1 polar angles which are discretized
into the micro-angle set (Wang et al. 2019), as shown in Fig. 9.4.
Start
No
Judge the force existence? End
Yes
Select the next micro-angle θji
Initiate clamping force f=Φ
(j=j+1)
No
Select the first polar angle Θji (i=1) Yes
It is the first micro-angle?
Discretize the current polar angle

as a micro-angle set Select the previous polar angle Θji
(i=i-1)
Select the first minimum angle θji No
Yes
(j=1) It is the first polar angle?
Yes
It is the last polar angle? Select the next micro-angle θji
No (j=j+1)
Select the next polar angle Θji No
Yes
(i=i+1) It is the last micro-angle?
Call the determination of “1-clamping force” Calculate all clamping force

to obtain the polar radius f [fstart,j, fend,j] intervals fu+k (1≤k≤v)
Fig. 9.4 Determination of “n-clamping forces”

9.6 Calculation of Clamping Forces 257
9.6 Calculation of Clamping Forces
This section enumerates three typical examples to illustrate the step decrease planning
algorithm for clamping forces. The first example is the single clamping force plan-
ning (i.e., 1-clamping force planning) of 2D workpiece milling process. The second
example is the single clamping force planning of 3d workpiece drilling process. The
third example is the multiple clamping forces planning of 2D workpiece drilling
process. The validity of the presented step decrease planning algorithm is verified
by the analytical method.
9.6.1 Single Clamping Force of 2D Workpiece
As shown in Fig. 9.5, the workpiece with outer dimension of 80 mm × 50 mm is

located on the locators L 1 , L 2 , L 3 and L 4 .
In the milling process, the cutting force on the workpiece at the machining position
rcut = [80 mm, 50 mm]T is Fcut = [–850 N, –50 N]T . The position and unit normal
vector of each locator are listed in Table 9.1.
Y Y
FcutX FcutX
L1 L1
FcutY Fcut FcutY
50mm
Fcut
50mm
Fcla Fcla
X X
Fgrav Fgrav
L2 L4 L2 L3 L4
80mm 80mm
(a) “2-1” locating scheme (b) “3-1” locating scheme
Fig. 9.5 Fixturing scheme for 2D workpiece milling

Locator Coordinates (mm) Unit normal vector
directions of locators
L1 [0, 40]T [1, 0] T
L2 [10, 0] T [0, 1]T
L3 [50, 0] T [0, 1]T
L4 [70, 0] T [0, 1]T
For the consideration of machining requirements and production safety, clamping

force Fcla is exerted at the position of rcla = [80 mm, 20 mm]T . The gravity of
the workpiece is Fgrav = [0, –150 N]T . The gravity center of the workpiece is rgrav
= [40 mm, 25 mm]T . According to the flowchart in Fig. 9.2, the determination of
clamping force Fcla is as follows.
First, determine the force existence of the first endpoint.
According to Eq. (9.6), max(Q) = 33,550. Because Y = -W ext = [850, 200,
32500]T , there is a feasible solution to the clamping force according to Eq. (9.7).
Second, calculate the first endpoint of clamping force.
The calculation process of the first endpoint is demonstrated in Table 9.2. Here,
the threshold value is selected as ε = 0.01, and the initial step is s = 60. Ultimately,
the first endpoint of clamping force can be obtain as P1 = 25.0048828 N.
Third, judge the force existence of the second endpoint.
When the first endpoint is determined as P1 = 25.0048828 N, the force existence
of the clamping force in the interval of (25, +∞) must further be judged. Likewise,
it is not difficult in knowing that there is still a feasible solution in the region of 25
to the positive infinity according to Eqs. (9.6, 9.7).
Finally, determine the second endpoint of clamping force.
The calculation process is carried out for the second endpoint P2 = 625.014648 N,
as shown in Table 9.3.
Table 9.2 Determination of the first endpoint

Clamping force External force Internal force Step Direction Variation
measurement of measurement of
feasibility feasibility
0 33,550 33,500 60 Positive Same
60 34,810 34,810 −30 Negative Different
30 34,180 34,180 −30 Negative Same
0 33,550 33,500 15 Positive Different
15 33,865 33,845 15 Positive Same
30 34,180 34,180 −7.5 Negative Different
22.5 34,023 34,017 3.75 Positive Same
26.25 34,101 34,101 −1.875 Negative Different
24.375 34,062 34,061 0.9375 Positive Different
Table 9.3 Determination of the second point

25 34,075 34,075 60 Positive Same
85 35,335 35,335 60 Positive Same
145 36,595 36,595 60 Positive Same
205 37,855 37,855 60 Positive Same
265 39,115 39,115 60 Positive Same
325 40,375 40,375 60 Positive Same
385 41,635 41,635 60 Positive Same
445 42,895 42,895 60 Positive Same
505 44,155 44,155 60 Positive Same
565 45,415 45,415 60 Positive Same
625 46,675 46,675 60 Positive Same
685 47,935 4.7905 −30 Negative Different
655 47,305 4729 −30 Negative Same
632.5 46,833 46,829 −7.5 Negative Same
625 46,675 46,675 3.75 Positive Different
626.875 46,714 46,713 −1.875 Negative Same
625.46875 46,685 46,685 −0.46875 Negative Same
625.117188 46,677 46,677 −0.1171875 Negative Same
625.029297 46,676 46,676 −0.02929688 Negative Same
It is known from Table 9.3 that the feasible clamping force should be any value
in the interval [25.0048828 N, 625.014648 N]. In order to verify the validation of
the step decrease planning algorithm, the analytical method is used to solve the
clamping force of the fixturing layout scheme in Fig. 9.4a. Denote R1 , R2 , R4 to be
the supporting reaction forces at the locators L 1 , L 2 , L 4 , respectively. Therefore, the
workpiece static equilibrium can be expressed as

⎧
⎨ R1 = FcutX + FclaX
R + R4 = FcutY + FgravY (9.25)
⎩ 2
R1 y1 + FcutY xcut + FgravY xgrav = R2 x2 + R4 x4 + FcutX ycut + FclaX ycla
Besides the data in Table 9.1, some known parameters, including F cutX = −850 N,
F cutY = −0 N, F gravX = 0 N, F gravY = −50 N, x cut = 80 mm, ycut = 50 mm, x grav =
80 mm, ygrav = 20 mm, are substituted into Eq. (9.25) for the following equation

R2 + R4 = 200
(9.26)
1500 + 20FclaX = 10R2 + 70R4
These relationships can further be obtained by putting Eq. (9.26) in order, that is
60R4 = 20FclaX − 500 (9.27)
60R2 = 12500 − 20FclaX (9.28)
Because the supporting reaction forces R2 and R4 cannot less than 0, otherwise
the workpiece will be detached from the locators, then
25 ≤ FclaX ≤ 625 (9.29)
Consequently, it is easy to obtain the relative error of the first endpoint and
the second endpoint of clamping force interval are 0.0195312% and 0.058592%,
respectively. The accuracy of the endpoint of clamping force interval depends on
the threshold value ε. The smaller the threshold value is, the higher the accuracy is,
but the lower the calculation efficiency is. On the contrary, The bigger the threshold
value is, the lower the accuracy is whereas the higher the calculation efficiency is.
The step decrease planning algorithm can still be used to calculate the clamping
force in Fig. 9.5b. The value range of clamping force in Fig. 9.5b is the same as
Fig. 9.5a.
It is noteworthy that, the fixturing layout scheme in Fig. 9.5a belongs to the
statically determinate problem. However, for the fixturing layout scheme in Fig. 9.5b,
there are 4 unknown contact forces and 3 static equilibrium equations. Therefore,
the fixturing layout scheme in Fig. 9.5b is the statically indeterminate problem so
that the analytical method cannot solve this kind of problems.
9.6.2 Single Clamping Force of 3D Workpiece
Figure 9.6 shows the process diagram of drilling at the position of rcut = [50 mm,
100 mm, 30 mm] on the top of the workpiece. The outer dimension of the workpiece
is 100 mm × 100 mm × 100 mm. The cutting loads are F cutX = 85 N, F cutY =
2000 N, F cutZ = 50 N and M cutY = –4500 N·mm.
The workpiece is held by six locators according to “3-2-1” locating principle. The
coordinates and unit normal vectors of six locators are given √ √is the
in Table√9.4. F cla
clamping force exerted along the normal direction ncla = [– 3/3, – 3/3, – 3/3]T
at the clamping point rcla = [70 mm, 40 mm, 90 mm]T . The gravity of the workpiece
is F grav = 50 N whose gravity center is rgrav = [40 mm, 40 mm, 40 mm]T .
According to the flowchart in Fig. 9.2, the process of determining the clamping
force F cla can detailedly go as follows.
Fig. 9.6 Fixturing scheme

for 3D workpiece drilling
Y FcutY
McutY
FcutX
6
5 FcutZ
4
X
Fgrav
3 Fcla
2
Z 1
Table 9.4 Coordinates and

Locator Coordinate (mm) Unit normal vector
normal vectors of locators
1 [40, 0, 80]T [0, 1, 0] T
2 [80, 0, 40]T [0, 1, 0]T
3 [20, 0, 20]T [0, 1, 0]T
4 [0, 60, 80]T [1, 0, 0]T
5 [0, 60, 20]T [1, 0, 0]T
6 [80, 50, 0]T [0, 0, 1]T
The first step is to judge the force existence of the first endpoint.
max(Q) = 172,235 can be obtained according to Eq. (9.6). Because Y = −W ext =
[ 85, 2050, 50, 67,000, 9550, 93500]T , it is known from Eq. (9.7) that the clamping
force has a feasible solution.
The second step is to calculate the value of the first endpoint.
The detail calculation of the first endpoint is listed in Table 9.5. Here, the threshold
value and the initial step are taken as ε = 0.01 and s = 20, respectively. Thus, the
first endpoint of the clamping force can be obtained as P1 = 86.6210938 N.
The third step is to judge the force existence of the second endpoint.
The possible value range of the second endpoint is in the open interval of
(86.6210938, + ∞). In fact, the calculation indicates the clamping force still exists
a feasible solution in the range of 86.6210938 to the positive infinity.
The last step is to determine the value of the second endpoint.
Table 9.5 Calculation of the first endpoint

0 172,235 169,430 20 Positive Same
20 173,400 171,310 20 Positive Same
40 174,570 173,180 20 Positive Same
60 175,730 175,050 20 Positive Same
80 176,900 176,900 20 Positive Same
100 178,080 178,080 −10 Negative Different
90 177,490 177,490 −10 Negative Same
85 177,190 177,190 5 Positive Same
87.5 177,340 177,340 −2.5 Negative Same
86.25 177,260 177,260 1.25 Positive Same
86.875 177,300 177,300 −0.625 Negative Same
86.5625 177,280 177,280 0.3125 Positive Same
86.71875 177,290 177,290 −0.15625 Negative Same
86.5625 177,280 177,280 0.078125 Positive ara> Different
Table 9.6 Calculation of the second endpoint

86.7 177,290 177,290 20 Positive Same
106.7 178,480 178,480 20 Positive Same
126.7 179,670 179,670 −10 Negative Different
116.7 179,070 179,070 −10 Negative Same
106.7 178,480 178,480 5 Positive Different
109.2 178,630 178,630 −2.5 Negative Same
107.95 178,550 178,550 1.25 Positive Same
108.575 178,590 178,590 −0.625 Negative Same
108.184375 178,570 178,570 0.078125 Positive Same
108.242969 1.7857 1.7857 0.01953125 Positive Same
The same calculation as above is carried out to obtain the second endpoint P2 =
108.2625 N, as shown in Table 9.6.
Finally, the correct limits can be obtained for the clamping force, that is, the
clamping force can be selected an arbitrary in the closed interval of [86.6210938,
108.2625].
9.6.3 Double Clamping Forces of 2D Workpiece
On the workpiece with the gravity of F gra = 200 N, a hole will be drilled at
the machining placement rcut = [10 mm, 50 mm]T . The cutting force is F cut =
1001.249 N. The process diagram is shown in Fig. 9.7.
The workpiece has the outer dimension of 80 mm × 50 mm. The position of the
workpiece relative to the cutting tool is determined by the locators L 1 , L 2 and L 3 .
Clamps C 1 and C 2 supply the clamping forces to neutralize the destructive effect of
the cutting force. Table 9.7 lists the positions and unit normal vectors of each fixel.
Fig. 9.7 Fixturing scheme Fcut

for 2D workpiece drilling
f2
C2
R1 L1
C1 f1
L2 L3
X
Fgrav
R2 R3
Table 9.7 Coordinates and normal vectors of each fixel

Fixel Locator Clamp
L1 L2 L3 C1 C2
Coordinate/mm [0, 40]T [15, 0]T [65, 0]T [80, 5]T [70, 50]T
Unit normal vector [1, 0]T [0, 1]T [0, 1]T [–1, 0]T [0, –1]T
According to the flowchart in Fig. 9.4, the calculation process of the polar radius
f can be related as follows in detail.
Step 1 is the judgement of the existence for the polar radius. According to the datain
⎡ ⎤
−1 0
Table 9.7, Gcla = ⎣ 0 −1 ⎦. By substituting Gcla into Eq. (9.6), max(Q) = 21,750.
5 −70
Because Y = [50, 1200, 20500]T , the polar radius f has a feasible solution according
to Eq. (9.8). Therefore, let the initial step sf = F cut /10, the decrease coefficient ζ =
0.3, and the threshold value ε = 0.0001.
Step 2 is the discretization of the polar angle into the micro-angle. Because v =
2, the clamping forces f 1 and f 2 can respectively be expressed as f 1 = f sinΘ and f 2
= f cosΘ, with f ≥ 0 and 0 ≤ Θ ≤ 90º. In light of Eq. (9.24), Gcla = [–sinΘ, –cosΘ,
5sinΘ–70cosΘ]T . Thus, the polar angle Θ is uniformly discretized 91 micro-angles
according to the step sθ = 1º.
Step 3 is the judgement of the existence of the first micro-angle. Obviously, the
first micro-angle is θ 1 = 0º. Thus, Gcla = [–sinθ, –cosθ, 5sinθ- 70cosθ ]T . According
to Eq. (9.8), I exist = 0 and the process goes to Step 4. Otherwise, it goes to Step 5.
Step 4 is the calculation of the polar radius at the first micro-angle. Because the
polar radius has the existence at the first micro-angle, its value should be calcu-
lated by calling the determination of “1-clamping force”. Therefore, 49.9911 ≤ f ≤
1698.0248.
Step 5 is the judgement of the existence of the next micro-angle. The next micro-
angle is θ k+1 = θ 1 + sθ (1 ≤ k ≤ 90). If the workpiece is of force existence, it goes
to Step 6. Otherwise it goes to Step 7.
Step 6 is the calculation of the polar radius at the next micro-angle. The judg-
ment of force existence is carried out until the current micro-angle is 60º. Because
Iexist (θ61 = 60◦ ) = 0, the polar radius f has a solution. The solution process of f is
demonstrated in Table 9.8.
In fact, the calculation process will run to the iteration number of 28. At this
moment, the current step is sf = −0.000088684 whose size is less than the threshold
value of ε = 0.0001. Thus, the left endpoint of the polar radius f can be obtained
as f start = 99.99802863 N for the micro-angle of 60º. Therefore, when the micro-
angle is 60º, the left endpoint of the first clamping force f 1 is f 1,start = 86.60083312 N
whereas the left endpoint of the second clamping force f 2 is f 2,start = 49.99901431 N.
When the left endpoint f start = 99.99802863 N is achieved for the polar radius
f , its right endpoint f end must be searched in the open interval from 99.99802863 to
positive infinity. The polar radius f has still a solution. This is because the workpiece
is of force existence at the interval (99.99802863, + ∞). Likewise, the right endpoint
of the polar radius f can be obtained as f end = 2725.5927694 N for the minimum angle
of 60º, as shown in Table 9.9. Therefore, the right endpoint of the first clamping force
f 1 is f 1,end = 2360.4325787 N whereas the right endpoint of the second clamping
force f 2 is f 2,end = 1362.7963847 N.
Step 7 is the judgement of the terminate condition. If the current micro-angle is
less than 90º, it goes to Step 5. If the current micro-angle is 90º, the whole process
of determining f is over. The final result of polar radius is the union of f obtained at
the micro-angle 0º to f obtained at the micro-angle 90º.
According to the feasible solutions of f at the micro-angle 0º to 90º, the value
range of double clamping forces can be fitted as the following boundary function,
i.e.,
⎧
⎨ f 1 = −23164.2344 f 2 − 1158005.5594
f = −7.0087 f 2 + 11900.9308 (9.30)
⎩ 1
f1 = 0
Therefore, the vertexes of the value range of clamping forces are respectively A
(49.9911, 0), B (1698.0248, 0) and C (50.4895, 11,546.3747), as shown in Fig. 9.8.
In order to validate the proposed determination of “n-clamping forces”, the
analytic method is also adopted to solve f 1 and f 2 . Denote R1 , R2 and R3 are respec-
tively as the reaction forces on the locators L 1 , L 2 and L 3 , the static equilibrium
equation of the workpiece is
Table 9.8 Determination of the left endpoint of polar radius at the micro-angle of 60º
No. n Polar radius f /N Index of force Step of polar Variation flag δ Direction flag λ
feasibility I feas / radius sf / N
N
1 0 50.00000001 100.124922 – 0
2 100.124922 0 −30.03747659 1 1
3 70.08744538 14.95629717 9.011242978 −1 0
4 79.09868836 10.45073084 9.011242978 0 0
5 88.10993134 5.945034332 9.011242978 0 0
6 97.12117431 1.439412853 9.011242978 0 0
7 106.1324173 0 −2.703372893 1 1
8 103.4290444 0 −2.703372893 0 1
9 100.7256715 0 −2.703372893 0 1
10 98.02229861 0.988850713 0.811011868 −1 0
11 98.83331048 0.583344793 0.811011868 0 0
12 99.64432235 0.177838874 0.811011868 0 0
13 100.4553342 0 −0.24330356 1 1
14 100.2120307 0 −0.24330356 0 1
15 99.96872709 0.01563646 0.072991068 −1 0
16 100.0417182 0 −0.02189732 1 1
17 100.0198208 0 −0.02189732 0 1
18 99.99792352 0.001116656 0.006569196 −1 0
19 100.0044927 0 −0.001970759 1 1
20 100.002522 0 −0.001970759 0 1
21 100.0005512 0 −0.001970759 0 1
22 99.99858044 0 −0.001970759 0 1
23 99.99660968 0.001782935 0.000591228 −1 0
24 99.99720091 0.00148317 0.000591228 0 0
25 99.99779214 0.001183306 0.000591228 0 0
26 99.99838337 0 −0.000177368 1 1
27 99.99820600 0 −0.000177368 0 1
28 99.99802863 0.001063333 −0.000088684 −1 0
⎧
⎨ R1 + f 2 + FcutX = 0
R + R3 + Fgra + FcutY + f 1 = 0
⎩ 2
f 2 x f2 + R2 x R2 + R3 x R3 = R1 y R1 + Fgra y Rg + FcutY xcut + FcutX ycut + f 1 y f1
(9.31)
By substituting the corresponding data into Eq. (9.31), the following expression
can be concluded as
Table 9.9 Determination of the right endpoint of polar radius at the micro-angle of 60º
feasibility I feas / radius sf /N
N
1 200.1231280 0 100.124922 0 1
2 300.2480499 0 100.124922 0 1
3 400.3729719 0 100.124922 0 1
4 500.4978939 0 100.124922 0 1
5 600.6228159 0 100.124922 0 1
6 700.7477378 0 100.124922 0 1
7 800.8726598 0 100.124922 0 1
8 900.9975818 0 100.124922 0 1
9 1001.1225037 0 100.124922 0 1
10 1101.2474257 0 100.124922 0 1
11 1201.3723477 0 100.124922 0 1
12 1301.4972697 0 100.124922 0 1
13 1401.6221916 0 100.124922 0 1
14 1501.7471136 0 100.124922 0 1
15 1601.8720356 0 100.124922 0 1
16 1701.9969576 0 100.124922 0 1
17 1802.1218795 0 100.124922 0 1
18 1902.2468015 0 100.124922 0 1
19 2002.3717235 0 100.124922 0 1
20 2102.4966454 0 100.124922 0 1
21 2202.6215674 0 100.124922 0 1
22 2302.7464894 0 100.124922 0 1
23 2402.8714114 0 100.124922 0 1
24 2502.9963333 0 100.124922 0 1
25 2603.1212553 0 100.124922 0 1
26 2703.2461773 0 100.124922 0 1
27 2803.3710993 42.44904451 −30.03747659 −1 0
28 2773.3336227 26.05598284 −30.03747659 0 0
29 2743.2961461 9.662933304 −30.03747659 0 0
30 2713.2586695 0 9.011242978 1 1
31 2722.2699125 0 9.011242978 0 1
32 2731.2811554 3.10536264 −2.703372893 −1 0
33 2728.5777825 1.63000323 −2.703372893 0 0
34 2725.8744096 0.154615154 −2.703372893 0 0
35 2723.1710368 0 0.811011868 1 1
(continued)

feasibility I feas / radius sf /N
N
36 2723.9820486 0 0.811011868 0 1
37 2724.7930605 0 0.811011868 0 1
38 2725.6040724 0.007077572 −0.24330356 −1 0
39 2725.3607688 0 0.072991068 1 1
40 2725.4337599 0 0.072991068 0 1
41 2725.5067509 0 0.072991068 0 1
41 2725.5797420 0 0.072991068 0 1
42 2725.6527331 0.032288705 −0.02189732 −1 0
43 2725.6308358 0.02197936 −0.02189732 0 0
44 2725.6089384 0.009810686 −0.02189732 0 0
45 2725.5870411 0 0.006569196 1 1
46 2725.5936103 0.000364625 0.006569196 −1 0
47 2725.6001795 0.004953032 −0.001970759 0 0
48 2725.5982087 0 −0.001970759 1 1
49 2725.5962380 0 −0.001970759 0 1
50 2725.5942672 0 −0.001970759 0 1
51 2725.5922965 0 0.000591228 0 1
52 2725.5928877 0.000604636 0.000591228 −1 0
53 2725.5934789 0.001671017 −0.000177368 0 0
54 2725.5933016 0.002654383 −0.000177368 0 0
55 2725.5931242 0.00110257 −0.000177368 0 0
56 2725.5929468 0.001205649 −0.000177368 0 0
57 2725.5927694 0 −0.000088684 1 1
⎧
⎨ R1 + 50 = f 2
R + R3 = 1200 + f 1 (9.32)
⎩ 2
5 f 2 + 15R2 + 65R3 = 40R1 + 70 f 1 + 20500
In order to clearly understand Eq. (9.32), it can further be put in order to achieve
the following equation, i.e.,
⎧
⎨ R1 = f 2 − 50
10R2 = 11900 − 7 f 2 − f 1 (9.33)
⎩
10R3 = 100 + 11 f 1 + 7 f 2
Because the supporting reaction forces R1 , R2 and R3 can not less than zero,
Eq. (9.33) can further be simplified as
12000
C
f1=23164.2344f2-1158005.5594 (Practical curve)
f2=50 (Theoretical curve)
10000
f1=-7.0087f2+11900.9308 (Practical curve)

f1=-7f2+11900 (Theoretical curve)
8000
Value of clamping force f1
6000
4000
2725.5928
89º
f1=0 (Practical curve)

2000 f1=0 (Theoretical curve)
99.9980
60º
B
0
A
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
Value of clamping force f2
Fig. 9.8 The value range of double clamping forces

f1 ≥ 0
(9.34)
50 ≤ f 2 ≤ 1700 − 1
f
7 1
Obviously, the value region of clamping forces is theoretically a triangle whose

vertexes are respectively A (50, 0), B (1700, 0) and C (50, 11,550).
It is known from Table 9.10, the maximum relative error of double clamping
forces is 0.979% whereas the minimum relative error of double clamping forces is
0.0178%. The accuracy of the value range of multiple clamping forces depends on
Table 9.10 Coordinates of

Vertex Calculated Theoretical Relative error
vertexes of the value range
results results (%)
A (49.9911, 0) (50, 0) 0.0178
B (1698.0248, 0) (1700, 0) 0.116
C (50.4895, (50, 11,550) 0.979
11,546.3747)
the threshold value ε. The smaller the threshold value is, the higher the accuracy is,
but the lower the calculation efficiency is. On the contrary, The bigger the threshold
value is, the lower the accuracy is whereas the higher the calculation efficiency is.
References
Chen WF. Research on key techniques of agile fixture design. Nanjing Univ Aeronaut Astronaut.
2007. (in Chinese)
Chen WF, Ni LJ, Wang NS. Investigation on optimization method for fixture layout and clamping
forces. China Mech Eng. 2007;18(12):1413–7 (in Chinese).
Li B, Melkote SN. Fixture clamping force optimisation and its impact on workpiece location
accuracy. Int J Adv Manuf Technol. 2001;17:104–13.
Lu D, Li JF, Sun J, Jiang F. Finite element analysis for the verification of the dynamic clamping
force during machining of the aero frame shape workpiece. J Shandong Univ. 2007;37(1):19–22
(in Chinese).
Qin GH, Zhang WH. An optimal method to clamping force determination based on the minimum
norm principle. J North Univ China. 2011;32(4):442–7 (in Chinese).
Qin GH, Wu ZX, Zhang WH. Analysis and control technique of fixturing deformation mechanism
of thin-walled workpiece. Chin J Mech Eng. 2007;43(4):210–22 (in Chinese).
Qin GH, Ye HC, Rong YM. A unified point-by-point planning algorithm of machining fixture layout
for complex workpiece. Int J Prod Res. 2014;52(5):1351–62.
Qin GH, Wang ZK, Wu ZX, Lu YM. A planning method of fixturing layout for complex workpieces
based on surface discretization and genetic algorithm. J Mech Eng. 2016;52(13):195–203 (in
Chinese).
Qin GH, Wang HM, Ye HC, Wu ZX. Planning algorithm of clamping forces for work-piece fixturing
scheme based on existence and feasibility of forces. J Mech Eng. 2016;52(11):72–9 (in Chinese).
Trappey AJC, Liu CR. An automatic workholding verification system. Robot Comput Integr Manuf.
1992;9(4–5):321–6.
Wang XK. Mechanical manufacturing process. China Machine Press;2008. (in Chinese)
Wang HM, Qin GH, Lin F, Zuo DW, Tang JH. Descrete approach to integrated design of clamping
force and clamping point based on iterative analysis of fixturing performance. Acta Armamentarii.
2018;39(5):1033–40 (in Chinese).
Wang HM, Qin GH, Wu ZX, Zuo DW. A workpiece stability-based iterative planning of clamping
forces for fixturing layout specification of a complex workpiece. Int J Adv Manuf Technol.
2019;103(5–8):2017–35.
Xing Y, Hu M, Zeng H, Wang Y. Fixture layout optimisation based on a non-domination sorting
social radiation algorithm for auto-body parts. Int J Prod Res. 2015;53(11):3475–90.
Chapter 10
Determination Method of Clamping
Point Layout for Rigid Workpieces
The clamping force provided by the clamping device aims at resisting the cutting
force or cutting torque which can upset the reasonable position obtained during
locating. However, the effect of clamping force on workpiece depends on the three
elements of clamping force, i.e., the magnitude of clamping force (here, it is abbre-
viated as clamping force), the placement of clamping force (likewise, it is referred
to as clamping point), and the direction of clamping force. Therefore, besides the
clamping force (Trappey and Liu 1992; Marin and Ferreira 2002), the determination
of clamping points (Kaya 2006; Roy and Liao 1999) is also a key task in the process
of fixture design.
10.1 Workpiece Stability
When the magnitude of clamping force is given, the clamping force will not work
under the unreasonable placements (Shen and Liu 2003). Thus, the clamping force
cannot resist the cutting force/cutting torque so that the position of the workpiece
will change. Therefore, to determine a reasonable clamping point, the workpiece
must have two stability indexes: one is the stability index, another is the stability
measurement (Qin et al. 2016).
10.1.1 Stability Index
Stability index is concerned with the problem of “stability or unstability” of the

workpiece in the fixture layout (Rong et al. 2010). Assumed that the fixturing layout
scheme consists of m locator and n clamps, as shown in Fig. 10.1. After the workpiece
is located on m locators, the clamping force is applied by n clamps to balance the
cutting force/cutting torque in the machining process.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-33-4493-8_10
272 10 Determination Method of Clamping Point Layout …
Fig. 10.1 The forced status Fm+j

of the workpiece
Workpiece
w
Y
δqw
Xw
Zw ri w δri
rw
i
Y ri
Fi
X
Z
The supporting reaction force at the i-th locator is denoted as F i (1 ≤ i ≤ m), the
clamping force as F m+j (1 ≤ j ≤ n), the gravity force as F m+n+1 , the cutting force as
F m+n+2 . The friction between
workpiece and locator/clamp isignored. Thus, W grav =
F m+n+1 F m+n+2
is the gravity wrench, and W cut = is
r m+n+1 × F m+n+1 r m+n+2 × F m+n+2
the cutting force wrench. Again, X w Y w Z w in Fig. 10.1 is denoted as the moving
coordinate system consolidated with the workpiece, namely the workpiece coordinate
system {WCS}. The position coordinate of the origin of the {WCS} in the fixed
coordinate system XYZ which is the global coordinate system {GCS} is r w =
[xw , yw , z w ]T . Θ w = [αw , βw , γw ]T is the direction of the workpiece relative to the
{GCS}.
If r i = [xi , yi , z i ]T is the position of the i-th locator/clamp, the coordinate
transformation formula from {WCS} to {GCS} can be expressed as
r i = T (Θ w )r iw + r w (10.1)
10.1 Workpiece Stability 273
where
⎡ ⎤
T (Θ w ) = ⎣ cβw sγw cαw cγw + sαw sβw sγw −sαw cγw + cαw sβw sγw ⎦ (10.2)
is the orthogonal rotation matrix with c = cos and s = sin.

Without loss of generality, {WCS} is assumed to coincide with {GCS}. If corre-
sponding virtual displacement at force Fi = [F ix , F iy , F iz ]T is δri = [δx i , δyi , δzi ]T ,
the workpiece displacement can be obtained by differentiating Eq. (10.1), i.e.,
δr i = δr w + δθ w × r i (10.3)
where δr w = [δxw , δyw , δz w ]T and δΘ w = [δαw , δβw , δγw ]T are the position
variation and direction variation, respectively.
According to the virtual work principle (Qin et al. 2012), the virtual work done by
the contact force (includinig the supporting reaction force and the clamping force)
on the workpiece should be

m+n+2
δW = F i · δr i (10.4)
i=1
By substituting Eqs. (10.3) into (10.4), the virtual work δW can be further
described as

m+n+2
m+n+2
δW = F i δr w + r i × F i δθ w (10.5)
i=1 i=1
It is well known that the necessary condition for the equilibrium of a system
constrained by steady, complete and ideal conditions is that the sum of the virtual
work done by the active force on any group of virtual displacements of the system
is equal to zero. Thus, it can be obtained from Eq. (10.5)

m+n+2
m+n+2
F i δr w + r i × F i δθ w = 0 (10.6)
i=1 i=1
Here, if ni = [n i x , n i y , n i z ]T is denoted to be unit internal normal vector at ri ,

then Fi can be expressed as
F i = x i ni (10.7)
with F ix = x i nix , F iy = x i niy , and F iz = x i niz .


Fi
In fact, W i = is the i-th contact force wrench. According to the
r i × Fi
directivity of contact force and arbitrariness of δrw and δθ w , the stability condition
of the workpiece can be concluded by Eq. (10.6), that is
G loc x = y
s.t.
x≥0 (10.8)
where x = [x1 , x2 , . . . , xm ]T , G loc = [G 1 , G 2 , . . . , G m ], G cla =

n+2
[G m+1 , G m+2 , . . . , G m+n ], F cla = [Fm+1 , Fm+2 , . . . , Fm+n ], y = W m+i =
i=1
G cla F cla + W grav + W cut , and

nk
Gk = , 1≤k ≤m+n (10.9)
r k × nk
If xi ≥ 0 for 1 ≤ i ≤ m, the solution existence of Eq. (10.8) can be examined by

solving the following linear programming problem with convergence
max w = c1 x1 + c2 x2 + · · · + cm xm
s.t.
⎧
⎪
⎪ a11 x1 + a12 x2 + · · · a1m xm ≤ y1
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎨ a21 x1 + a22 x2 + · · · a2m xm ≤ y2
⎪
······ (10.10)
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ a 61 1 + a62 x 2 + · · · a6m x m ≤ y6
x
⎪
⎪
⎩
x1 , x2 , · · · , xm ≥ 0
where yi (1 ≤ i ≤ 6) is the i-th element of vector y, aij (1 ≤ i ≤ 6, 1 ≤ j ≤ m) is

6
the i-th row and the j-th column element of matrix Gloc , and c j = ai j . Thus, if
i=1
and only if

6
IInd = max(w) − yi = 0 (10.11)
i=1
Equation (10.8) has solutions. I Ind in Eq. (10.11) is called the stability index. In
other words, if I Ind = 0, the workpiece is in a stable state (Wang et al. 2019).
10.1 Workpiece Stability 275
10.1.2 Stability Measurement
Stability measurement focuses on the problem of “how stable” it is when the work-
piece is in a stable state (Qin et al. 2016). When the workpiece is held in the fixturing
layout scheme, there is the following mapping relationship between the force of the
fixture exerting on the workpiece and the external force of the workpiece
EX = Y (10.12)
where
⎡ E = [E1⎤ , E2 , …, Ei , …, Em , Em+1 , Em+2 , …, Em+j , …, Em+n ], E k =
1 0 0
⎢ 0 1 0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 0 0 1 ⎥
⎢ ⎥, 1 ≤ k ≤ m + n; X = [F T1 , F T2 , …, F iT , …, F Tm , F Tm+1 , F Tm+2 , …,
⎢ 0 −z k yk ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎣ z k 0 −xk ⎦
−yk xk 0
F Tm+ j , …, F Tm+n ]T ; and Y = W grav + W cut .
According to Eq. (10.12), the contact force, including the clamping force, can be
calculated as
X = E+Y (10.13)
where E+ is the Moore–Penrose generalized inverse matrix of matrix E.

Thus, the 2-norm X2 of X can be used to define a unit hypersphere in fixture
space, i.e., X2 = 1. And then, the unit hypersphere can be mapped into the force
hyperellipsoid in the work space according to Eq. (10.13), namely
+
Y T E ET Y = 1 (10.14)
Assumed ζ i and λi to be the i-th eigenvector and the i-th eigenvalue of matrix EET ,
and σ i (1 ≤ i ≤ 6) to be the odd value of matrix E. Thus, the principal axis of the force
hyperellipsoid in Eq. (10.14) is ζ 1 σ 1 , ζ 2 σ 2 , …, and ζ 6 σ 6 . It√is known according to
the odd-valued decomposition theory of matrix that σi = λi . Consequently, the
volume V of the force hyperellipsoid can be expressed as

6
V =K σi (10.15)
i=1
⎧
⎪ (2π )n/2
⎪
⎨ , n is the even number
2 × 4 × · · · × (n − 2) × n
where K = , and n is the
⎪
⎪ 2(2π )(n−1)/2
⎩ , n is the odd number
1 × 3 × · · · × (n − 2) × n
dimension of the work space.
It is known from Eq. (10.15) that, when the volume V of the force hyperellipsoid is
V = 0, there is the odd problem in the fixturing layout. Thus, since the fixturing layout
lacks of the force closure, the workpiece has the weakest resistance to external forces
in one or more directions so that the workpiece is unstable in the fixturing layout.
6
However, when σi is at its maximum, the fixturing layout will deviate furthest
i=1
from the odd phenomenon. Therefore, the volume of the force hyperellipsoid is
maximum so that the workpiece has the strongest resistance to disturbances in all
directions. In other words, the workpiece has the best stability.
When the maximum odd value of matrix E is the same as the minimum odd value,
the force hyperellipsoid becomes a hypersphere. In other words, the fixturing layout
is isotropic so that the workpiece has the same ability to resist disturbance along each
orthogonal direction ζ i (1 ≤ i ≤ 6). Consequently, the product of each odd value
of matrix E can be defined as a performance index of fixturing layout, namely the
so-called the stability measurement Λ of fixturing layout

6
= σi (10.16)
i=1
Clearly, the stability measurement Λ of the fixturing layout has something to

do with the position of contact points and the workpiece contour (i.e., the normal
6 6
vector at the contact point). Since det(EET ) = λi = σi2 , then the stability
i=1 i=1
measurement Λ can be rewritten as

= det E E T (10.17)
10.2 Planning Algorithm of Application Region
There is only one clamping force on the clamping surface Ω. Assumed the magnitude
of the clamping force to be X m+1 , whereas its placement rm+1 is the unknown quantity
to be solved. The solution process (Qin et al. 2012) can be carried out as described
below.
The first step is to discretize the clamping surface.
It is assumed that the clamping surface Ω is meshed into N nodes whose coordinate
is r q = [xq , yq , z q ]T for 1 ≤ q ≤ N. Thus, the set of candidate clamping points can
10.2 Planning Algorithm of Application Region 277
Fig. 10.2 Meshing of Y

clamping surface
Ω
(xi, yi, zi)
be described as rm+1 ∈ r = {r 1 , r 2 , …, r N }, as shown in Fig. 10.2. This is the key

step to solve the clamping point. By meshing the clamping surface, the problem of
solving unknown clamping points is equivalent to the problem of judging the force
feasibility of known clamping points.
The second step is to select the first node.
Initiate the application region to be the empty set, i.e., r 0m+1 = Φ. Let i = 1, and
then the first node r i is selected from r as the first candidate clamping point of
clamping force X m+1 .
The third step is to calculate the stability index of the current node.
The stability index of the workpiece at the candidate clamping point r i can be
calculated according to Eq. (10.11).
If the stability index of the workpiece is not zero at the clamping point r 1 , it
shows the clamping force X m+1 cannot exerted on the clamping point r 1 . Thus,
the first application region of clamping force X m+1 is r 1m+1 = r 0m+1 . If the stability
index of the workpiece is zero at the clamping point r 1 , it shows the clamping force
X m+1 can exerted on the clamping point r 1 . Therefore, the first application region
of clamping force X m+1 is the union of the current clamping point r 1 and the initial
application region r 0m+1 , i.e., 0.
The fourth step is to judge the terminate condition.
If the current node r i is the final element of the node set r , the traversal algorithm
of application region for “1-clamping force” is over at the last candidate clamping
point, i.e., i = N. Thus, the feasible application region r m+1
N
can be obtained as
N −1
r m+1 , IInd (r m+1
N
) = 0
N
r m+1 = N −1
(10.18)
r N ∪ r m+1 , IInd (r m+1
N
)=0
The fifth step is to select the next node.

Otherwise, if i is less than N, the next element should be selected from the node
set r . In other words, let i = i + 1 in r i . Then the traversal algorithm of application
region for “1-clamping force” goes to step 3 for the calculation of stability index.
According to Eq. (10.18), the focus of the traversal algorithm of application region
for “1-clamping force” is on the analysis of the stability index of the clamping force
one by one from the first candidate clamping point to the last candidate clamping
point. All of candidate clamping points with stability index can compose of a feasible
application region of the clamping force, as shown in Fig. 10.3.
Start
Initiate the application region to be the empty set, r=Φ
Discretize the clamping surface into the set of candidate

clamping points, rΩ = {r1, r2, … , rN}
Select the first candidate clamping point, ri∈rΩ (i=1)
IInd≠0 IInd=0
Calculate the stability index ?
Obtain the clamping Obtain the clamping

region as r=r region as r=r∪ri
Yes
Is the last candidate clamping point (i=N)?
No
Select the next candidate clamping point ri∈rΩ

(i=i+1)
End
Fig. 10.3 The traversal algorithm of application region for “1-clamping force”
10.2 Planning Algorithm of Application Region 279
Nevertheless, multiple clamping forces are frequently adopted to withhold a work-

piece, such as double clamping forces supplied by two clamps, triple clamping forces
supplied by three clamps, as so on. Therefore, the planning problem of multiple
clamping forces will sophisticatedly be turned into the planning problem of single
clamping force.
Here, the k-th (1 ≤ k ≤ n) clamp, which is applied at the clamping point r m+k k
=
[xm+k , ym+k , z m+k ] on the clamping surface Ω k , can supply the workpiece with the
k k k T
given clamping force f k .

Firstly, the divide of every clamping surface is done to obtain the set of node
combination.
If the k-th clamping surface Ω k is divided into k N nodes, the candidate clamping
points be selected from the node set r k = r m+1 k
, r m+2
k
, . . . , r m+k
k k
(r m+i =
T
N
k
xm+i , ym+i
k
, z m+i
k
, 1 ≤ i ≤ k N ) for the k-th clamping force f k .
Denote I = {I j |I j = (r j11 , r j22 , . . . , r jnn ), r ji k ∈ r k , 1 ≤ ji ≤ k N } is the set
of the node combination. Because k N nodes on the k-th clamping surface can be
n
chosen to be candidate clamping point for the clamping force f k , there are kN
k=1
combinations for n clamping forces.
Secondly, the judgment of the stability index is carried out for every node
combination.
The initial node combination I 0 is set as the null set, i.e., I 0 = . Thus, if the
n
workpiece is be of stability at the j-th node combination I j ∈ I (1 ≤ j ≤ k N ),
k=1
the clamping points of n clamping forces belong to an arbitrary element of I j ,
I j = I j ∪ I j−1 (10.19)
Otherwise, the clamping point combination is described as
I j = I j−1 (10.20)
Finally, the application region of multiple clamping forces is achieved by

linking the node combinations with stability.
The stability analysis is repeated until the last node combination I n . The appli-
iN
i=1
cation region of n clamping forces can be obtained by linking all candidate node
combinations with stability.
In order to clearly understand the obtainment of application region of multiple
clamping forces, its calculation flow (Wang et al. 2019; Qin et al. 2016) can be plotted
as shown in Fig. 10.4.
Fig. 10.4 The traversal algorithm of application region for “n-clamping force”
10.3 Planning Method of Fixturing Layout
It is assumed that the number of contact points involved in workpiece fixturing is

m + n (including m positioning elements and n clamping elements). By reasonably
arranging these m + n contact points, the workpiece can be held with the maximum
stability measurement as well as the zero stability index. In other words, the work-
piece has the best stability. This is the purpose of planning the fixture layout. There-
fore, by combining Eqs. (10.17) with (10.8), the fixture layout planning model (Qin
et al. 2016) can be defined as follows
10.3 Planning Method of Fixturing Layout 281
f ind Z

max = det E E T
s.t.
G loc x = y, x ≥ 0, Z ∈ Ξ (10.21)
where Z = [r Tu , r Tu+1 , …, r Tv ]T (1 ≤ u ≤ v ≤ m + n) is the position of contact points,

Ξ = [Ω u , Ω u+1 , …, Ω v ] is the geometric constraint of Z.
Genetic algorithm is a kind of optimization algorithm which can search the global
optimal solution of multiple design variables. It can neither pay attention to the
relationship between design variables and objective function, nor need the gradient
of objective function to determine the search direction. In Eq. (10.21), although the
relationship between design variable Z and objective function Λ is not complex, it is
difficult in obtaining the gradient information. Accordingly, on the basis of meshing
the surface which the design variable Z is on by using the finite element method,
genetic algorithm is more suitable for solving Eq. (10.21). The solving flow is as
shown in Fig. 10.5.
The key point of the planning flow in Fig. 10.5 lies in the determination of indi-
vidual fitness. In Eq. (10.21), the design variable is the position of the contact point
rj (u ≤ j ≤ v). If the surface Ξ j , on which the contact point is located, is discretized
into lots of notes, the note number is the decision variable x j of genetic algorithm. In
order to determine the code of x j , namely to convert the design variable x j in decimal
system into the string in binary system, it is necessary to determine the accuracy
which the length of string is required. Since the interval of variable x j is [Aj , Bj ], if
the required precision is that there are n numbers behind the decimal point, each vari-
able should be divided into at least (Bj −Aj ) × 10n parts. Therefore, the bit number
L j of the binary string can be calculated for the variable x j by the following formula,

L j = ceil log2 B j − A j × 10n (10.22)
where u ≤ j ≤ v, and ceil is an integral function in the direction of positive infinity.

The decision variable x j (u ≤ j ≤ v) is encoded into the binary string sL sL-1 …s2 s1
according to the maximum value L of L j . And then, v-u + 1 design variables are be
joined end to end for one chromosome with the length of L × (v−u + 1). The first L
bit number represents the value of x u . The second L bit number is the value of x u+1 .
By analogy, the (v−u + 1)-th L bit number represents the value of x v . If the interval
of the variable x i (i = 1, 2, …, l) is taken from Aj to Bj , the binary string sL sL-1 …s2 s1
can be decoded by the following formula,
B j − A j k−1
L
xj = 2 · s k (10.23)
2 L − 1 k=1
Start
Initiate the magnitude fi of clamping force for

m+1≤i≤m+n
Descretize the clamping surface Ξj (u≤j≤v) which Store the node location by
the design variable rj is on node number tj (aj≤tj≤bj)
Determine the note number to be the decision Determine the code length lj of tj
variable xj according to the node interval
Encode xj to be bj according the maximum value

of lj
Initiate the population including v-u+1

individuals
Decode the population to be xj
No
xj>=aj? rj=raj
Yes
No
xj<=bj? rj=rbj
Yes
rj=rxj
No
Stability index IInd=0?
Yes
Let Λj=0
Calculate the stability measurement Λj
Calculate the fitness value of the individual
Yes
Is the termination condition satisfied? End
No
Carry out the genetic operator (selection,
crossover and mutation)
Generate the next population
Fig. 10.5 Planning flowchart of fixturing layout

10.3 Planning Method of Fixturing Layout 283
Because the decimal number converted by the (j-u + 1)-th L bit number binary
string is the value of x j (u ≤ j ≤ v), then rj = rxj . If the converted decimal number
x j is less than Aj , rj = rAj . But if the converted decimal number x j is more than Bj , rj
= rBj .
In Eq. (10.21), Λ is the fixturing stability measurement when the workpiece is
in stable state in the fixturing layout rj (u ≤ j ≤ v). Therefore, the larger Λ is, the
more fitness value of the corresponding individual x j has. The more the fitness value
is, the stronger the chromosome is. Therefore, the larger its probability generated in
the next generation is, the easier it will be to survive. In other words, the smaller the
fitness value is, the more easily the chromosome can be eliminated. As a result, the
fitness value of the individual can be written as

t t
, IInd
t
=0
e U = (10.24)
0, IInd = 0
t
where p is the number of the chromosome U in the population (i.e., the number of
individuals). U t (1 ≤ t ≤ p) is the t-th chromosome whose length is L × (v-u + 1).
t
IInd and Λt are the stability index and the stability measurement corresponded to U t ,
respectively.
10.4 Numerical Tests of Application Region Planning
To illustrate the proposed planning method of application region, the first example
will show the obtainment of application region for one clamping force. The second
example is employed to demonstrate the application of the presented method in the
dynamic machining process. The third example is show the determination of the
placements of double clamping forces in the milling stage. The agreement of the
calculated results with the theoretical data is done to validate the proposed planning
method.
10.4.1 Planning of Application Region for One Clamping

Force
The regular workpiece in Fig. 10.6, whose outline dimension is 100 mm × 100 mm
× 50 mm, is located according to “3–2-1” locating principle (Qin et al. 2012). The
locators keep in touch with the workpiece at contact point a, b, c, d, e and f . The
corresponding information of contact points are listed in Table 10.1. The clamping
force with F = 200 N is exerted on the shadow plane Ω. The application direction
of clamping force F is perpendicular to the clamping surface (i.e. shadow plane).
Fig. 10.6 Fixturing layout Y

of a regular workpiece
e
f
d
Ω
c
a
Z X
b

normal vectors of locators
a [20, 0, 80]T [0, 1, 0] T
b [80, 0, 80] T [0, 1, 0]T
c [50, 0, 20] T [0, 1, 0]T
d [0, 30, 70]T [1, 0, 0]T
e [0, 30, 30]T [1, 0, 0]T
f [50, 30, 0]T [0, 0, 1]T
The gravity of the workpiece is F grav = 200 N, and the center of the gravity is rgrav
= [50 mm, 25 mm, 50 mm]T .
The clamping surface is discretized into 201 × 101 nodes respectively with the
steps of ΔY = 0.5 mm and ΔZ = 0.5 mm, as shown in Fig. 10.7.
The first node r 1 = [100 mm, 0, 0]T is assumed to select as the first candi-
date
⎡ clamping point. According ⎤ to Eqs. (10.8, 10.9), it is easily to obtain G loc =
0 0 0 1 1 0
⎢ 1 0 ⎥
⎢ 1 1 0 0 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ 0 0 0 0 0 1 ⎥
⎢ ⎥, and the external force wrench y = [-200 N, -
⎢ −80 −80 −20 0 0 30 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎣ 0 0 0 70 30 −50 ⎦
20 80 50 −30 −30 0
200 N, 0, 10,000 N·mm, 0, -10,000 N·mm]T with consideration of the workpiece
gravity whereas y = [-200 N, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0]T without consideration of it is easily to
obtain.
10.4 Numerical Tests of Application Region Planning 285
50
45
40
35
30
(100, 30, 70) (100, 30, 30) 25
20
15
10
5
0
Z 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10
100 90
(a) Without consideration of the gravity
(100, 45, 70)(100, 45, 30) 50

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
(100, 15, 70)(100, 15, 30) 10
5
0
Z
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10
(b) With consideration of the gravity

Fig. 10.7 Application region of the regular workpiece
In light of Eqs. (10.10) and (10.11), if the workpiece gravity is considered, there
6
are max(w) = 20200 and yi = 20400. The stability index is I Ind = 20,200–
i=1
20,400 = –200 = 0. Therefore, the workpiece has not the stability index so that it
is unstable at the first node r 1 . On the other hand, if the workpiece gravity is not
6
considered, there are max(w) = 0 and yi = 200. The stability index is still I Ind
i=1
= 0. The workpiece can also not be stable at the first node r 1 . As analyzed above,
whether the gravity is considered or not, the workpiece is unstable at the first node.
The candidate clamping point is one by one selected in a certain order from other
node of 201 × 101 nodes. The calculation of the stability index is carried out for each
selected candidate clamping point. All candidate clamping points with I Ind = 0 are
connected to form the application region of clamping force F, as shown in Fig. 10.7.
10.4.2 Calculation of Stable Region in Dynamic Machining

Process
A workpiece is shown in Fig. 10.8, which consists of a base block of 120 mm ×

80 mm × 50 mm and a semi-ellipsoid top (Qin 2009; Qin et al. 2014). The workpiece
has a weight of 50 N. In accordance with the “3-2-1” principle, six locators are placed
to position the workpiece. Their coordinates, normal and tangential unit vectors are
listed in Table 10.2.
In order to ensure that the workpiece always keeps stable positioning state in
the milling process, one clamping force F c is applied on the ellipsoid to ensure the
Fig. 10.8 The workpiece in Z

Zt
a milling cutting process
x2 y2 z2
2
+ 2 + 2 =1
Milling tool 40 60 30
Yt
Xt
50mm
35mm X
m
80mm 120m

orientations of locators
L1 [−30, 50, −50]T [0, 0, 1]T
L2 [30, 0, −50]T [0, 0, 1]T
L3 [−30, −50, −50]T [0, 0, 1]T
L4 [40, 50, −20]T [−1, 0, 0]T
L5 [40,−50, −20]T [−1, 0, 0]T
L6 [10, −60, −20]T [0, 1, 0]T
Fig. 10.9 Fixturing layout Fc

with six locator and one
clamp
L6
L5
L4
L2
L3
L1
stability of the machining process. The fixturing layout scheme is shown in Fig. 10.9.
The clamping force F c which is prescribed to be F c = 150 N is provided by the
hydraulic device.
Because the weight of the workpiece changes in the milling process, its center of
gravity will also change in the perpendicular direction. The coordinates of gravity
center are [0, 0, –16.33 mm] and [0, 0, –17.69 mm] before and after milling, respec-
tively. For the convenience of calculation, the coordinate of the gravity of the work-
piece is taken as the average value of the coordinates before and after milling, i.e.,
[0, 0, –17.01 mm].
A keyway milling operation with a feed-rate of 5 mm/s will be performed on the
workpiece to produce a through keyway. The instantaneous milling forces (f tx , f ty ,
f tz ) and a couple M z defined in the local tool frame {Ot -Xt Yt Zt } are imposed on the
workpiece with
⎧
⎪
⎪ Fx = 10 N
⎨
Fy = 30 sin πt4 N
(10.25)
⎪ Fz = −20 N
⎪
⎩
Mz = 800 N mm
where the cutting force component F y is varying with milling time t.

According to the feed-rate and milling length, the whole milling process will last
for 24 s. Here, the continuous dynamic milling process is equivalently converted to
the discrete static milling process by using the time interval of 3 s. The position of
milling tool and the milling force component F y at each time interval are shown in
Table 10.3. Thus, the viable application region can be calculated for each the position
Table 10.3 Milling force and

Time t/s Position/mm Milling force component F y / N
its position
0 [0, −60, 0]T 0
3 [0, −45, 9.92]T 21.21
6 [0, −30, 12.99]T −30
9 [0, −15, 14.52]T 21.21
12 [0, 0, 15]T 0
15 [0, 15, 14.52]T −21.21
18 [0, 30, 12.99]T 30
21 [0, 45, 9.92]T −21.21
24 [0, 60, 0]T 0
of milling tool. The intersection of all viable application regions is the resultant
clamping region of clamping force F c . The calculation process is as follows.
The first step is to discretize the clamping surface.
The semi-ellipsoid is meshed by four node quadrangular shell element into 3560
nodes, as shown in Fig. 10.10.
The second step is to obtain the first application region of clamping force.
The initial position of milling tool is Y = 0 in the Y direction. The milling time
is t = 0 s. According to Eq. (10.25), the milling force is F x = 10 N, F y = 0, F z =
-20 N, and the milling torque is M z = 800 Nmm. In light of Eqs. (10.10, 10.11), the
stability index at the first node is calculated as I Ind = 0. And then, the calculation of
the stability index is performed for the next node until the last node. All nodes with
I Ind = 0 can compose into a feasible application region for the milling time t = 0, as
shown in Fig. 10.11a.
The third step is to obtain the next application region of clamping force.
Fig. 10.10 Surface

discretization
The calculation process similar to the second step is adopted for the obtainment
of application region of milling time t = 3 s, as illustrated in Fig. 10.11b. Likewise,
the calculation of the stability index can be analyzed at different time increments.
Thus, the feasible application regions can easily be obtained for the whole milling
process, as shown in Fig. 10.11c–i.
The final step is to get the intersection of nine viable application regions.
In order to stabilize the workpiece in the entire milling processing, the resultant
clamping region must be an intersection of all clamping regions at different time
intervals, as illustrated in Fig. 10.11j.
It should be noted that the shorter the time interval is, the more accurate the
resultant clamping region is, but the greater the amount of calculation is accordingly.
(a) Region at the 0 second (b) Region at the 3rd second
(c) Region at the 6th second (d) Region at the 9th second
(e) Region at the 12th second (f) Region at the 15th second
Fig. 10.11 Design procedure of clamping region

(g) Region at the 18th second (h) Region at the 21th second
(i) Region at the 24th second (j) Resultant region
Fig. 10.11 (continued)
10.4.3 Planning of Application Region for Multiple

Clamping Forces
The workpiece is assumed to be a solid block with outer dimensions of 120 mm ×

80 mm (Wang et al. 2019). It is located by locators L 1 , L 2 and L 3 (their positions are
rL1 = [90 mm, 0]T , rL2 = [30 mm, 0]T and rL3 = [0, 60 mm]T , respectively) to mill
the top plane. In the milling process, the milling force is F cut = 300 N at the position
rcut = [120 mm, 80 mm]T , as shown in Fig. 10.12.
Two clamps C 1 and C 2 on the clamping surfaces Ω 1 and Ω 2 can supply the
workpiece with clamping forces F cla1 = 100 N and F cla2 = 80 N, respectively. If the
workpiece is subject to its gravity force F gra = 70 N, the detail procedure of planning
the application region of F cla1 and F cla2 go as follows.
Above all, two steps s1 = 1 mm and s2 = 1 mm are selected to discretize the
clamping surfaces Ω 1 and Ω 2 into 120 nodes and 80 nodes to be the candidate
clamping points x cla1 and ycla2 of clamping forces F cla1 and F cla2 , respectively. Thus,
there are 9600 candidate node combinations.
Next is to analyze the stability index IInd (I1 ) for the first candidate node combi-
nation I1 = {r 1 1 , r 1 2 } which consists of the first node r 1 1 = [0, 80]T on Ω 1 and
the first node r 1 2 = [120, 0]T on Ω 2 . Because IInd (I1 ) = 0, I 1 = I1 ∪ I 0 with
the null set I 0 . The second candidate node combination is I2 = {r 1 1 , r 2 2 } with
Fcla1
Y Ω1
FcutX
L3
Fcut FcutY
80mm
Ω2
Fcla2
L2 Fgra L1
120 mm
Fig. 10.12 Workpiece fixturing scheme of milling process
r 2 2 = [120, 1]T . IInd (I2 ) = 0 results in I 2 = I2 ∪ I 1 . It is key to repeat the analysis

process of stability index for every candidate node combination, as demonstrated in
Table 10.4.
Finally, if the stability index calculation is carried out to the 9600-th candidate
node combination IInd (I9600 ), the proper application region can be approximately
achieved for clamping force F cla1 and F cla2 , as shown in Fig. 10.13. This region
is practically formed by x cla1 = 0, x cla1 = 120, ycla2 = 0, ycla2 = 80 and ycla2 =
1.2503x cla1 − 87.156. Therefore, it has five vertexes whose coordinates are (0, 0),
(0, 69.71), (120, 62.88), (120, 80) and (0, 80), respectively.
In order to validate the proposed planning method of application region, the
analytic method is employed to solve the application region of clamping forces
F cla1 and F cla2 . R1 , R2 and R3 are respectively assumed to be the reaction forces on
the locators L 1 , L 2 and L 3 , the static equilibrium equation can be described for the
workpiece as
⎧
⎪
⎪ R3 − FcutX − Fcla2 = 0
⎨
R1 + R2 − Fgra − Fcla1 − FcutY = 0
⎪
⎪ R x + R2 x2 + Fcla2 ycla2 + FcutX ycut
⎩ 1 1
−R3 y3 − Fcla1 xcla1 − Fgra xgra − FcutY xcut = 0
s.t.
0 ≤ ycla2 ≤ 80, 0 ≤ xcla1 ≤ 120 (10.25)
Table 10.4 Stability index of

Note on Ω 1 / mm Note on Ω 2 / mm Stability index I Ind
double clamping forces
[0, 80]T [120, 0]T 0
[0, 80]T [120, 1]T 0
… … …
[0, 80]T [120, 80]T 0
… … …
[79, 80]T [120, 0]T 15.0000
… … …
[79, 80]T [120, 10]T 1.6667
[79, 80]T [120, 11]T 0.3333
[79, 80]T [120, 12]T 0
… … …
[79, 80]T [120, 80]T 0
… … …
[109, 80]T [120, 0]T 65.0000
… … …
[109, 80]T [120, 20]T 38.3333
… … …
[109, 80]T [120, 40]T 11.6667
… … …
[109, 80]T [120, 48]T 1.0000
[109, 80]T [120, 49]T 0
… … …
[109, 80]T [120, 80]T 0
… … …
[109, 80]T [120, 0]T 0
… … …
[119, 80]T [120, 57]T 5.6667
… … …
[119, 80]T [120, 60]T 1.6667
… … …
[119, 80]T [120, 80]T 0
By substituting the magnitude and the placement of forces into Eq. (10.25), it is
put in order to obtain
⎧
⎨ R3 = 340
R + R2 = 320
⎩ 1
30R1 + 90R2 = 60R3 + 1400−80ycla2 + 100xcla1
80
70
The second clamping point ycla2 / mm
60
50
40
30
ycla2=1.25xcla1-87.5
(Theoretical curve)
20
ycla2=1.2503xcla1-87.156
10
(Fitted curve)
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
The first clamping point xcla1 / mm
Fig. 10.13 Application region of double clamping forces
s.t.
0 ≤ ycla2 ≤ 80, 0 ≤ xcla1 ≤ 120 (10.26)
By combining similar terms of Eq. (10.26), it can be rewritten as the following

relationship

6R1 = 700 + 8ycla2 − 10xcla1
6R2 = 1220 − 8ycla2 + 10xcla1
s.t.
0 ≤ ycla2 ≤ 80, 0 ≤ xcla1 ≤ 120 (10.27)
In order to keep the contact of the workpiece with three locators, R1 and R2 can
not less than zero, Eq. (10.27) can be turned into the following form
⎧
⎪
⎪ ycla2 ≤ 152.5 + 1.25xcla1
⎨
ycla2 ≥ 1.25xcla1 −87.5
(10.28)
⎪
⎪ 0 ≤ ycla2 ≤ 80
⎩
0 ≤ xcla1 ≤ 120
It is known that the inequality of ycla2 ≤ 152.5 + 1.25x cla1 is always hold under
the condition of 0 ≤ x cla1 ≤ 120, so Eq. (10.28) can be further simplified as
⎧
⎨ ycla2 ≥ 1.25xcla1 − 87.5
0 ≤ ycla2 ≤ 80 (10.29)
⎩
0 ≤ xcla1 ≤ 120
Obviously, the theoretical clamping region of clamping forces F cla1 and F cla2
consists of x cla1 = 0, x cla1 = 120, ycla2 = 0, ycla2 = 80 and ycla2 = 1.25xcla1 − 87.5.
The vertex coordinates of the region are (0, 0), (0, 70), (120, 62.5), (120, 80) and (0,
80), respectively.
Here, the clamping region on the XY coordinate plane is assumed to be a polygon
whose vertex coordinate is (x i , yi ) (1 ≤ i ≤ n), the polygon area can be obtained as
1
n
sclamp = (xi yi+1 − xi+1 yi ) (10.30)
2 i=1
where x n+1 = x 1 and yn+1 = y1 .

In order to study the relationship between the polygon area error and the vertex
position variation, Eq. (10.30) is differentiated with respect to x i , yi (1 ≤ i ≤ n) such
that
1
n
δsclamp = (xi δyi+1 + yi+1 δxi − yi δxi+1 − xi+1 δyi ) (10.31)
2 i=1
|δs |
clamp
Therefore, the relative error of double clamping forces is sclamp = 2.4/1650 =
0.145%. In principle, the smaller the mesh dimension for the clamping surface is,
the smaller the relative error of the clamping region is.
10.5 Examples of Fixturing Layout Optimization
In this section, two typical examples are given to illustrate the fixture layout opti-
mization based on the workpiece stability. Moreover, the results in the reference is
cited to verify the proposed optimization method.
10.5.1 Fixturing Layout Optimization of 2D Workpiece
The workpiece is a disc with a diameter of 100 mm. The fixturing layout with three
fixture elements a, b, and c is designed for the disc workpiece, as shown in Fig. 10.14a.
In order to obtain the optimal positions of fixel a, b and c, the surface which fixel a,
b, and c are on discretized with the mesh accuracy of 1 mm, as shown in Fig. 10.14b.
And then, the nodes are stored in the database according to the node serial number,
node coordinates and node normal vector, as illustrated in Fig. 10.15.
For the genetic algorithm shown in Fig. 10.5, the genetic parameters are given
as the individual number p = 5, the crossover probability PC = 80%, the mutation
probability PM = 5%, the iteration number T = 50. In the iterative calculation
10.5 Examples of Fixturing Layout Optimization 295
(a) The fixturing layout with three fixels (b) Surface discretization
Fig. 10.14 The fixturing layout of the disc workpiece
Fig. 10.15 Stored information of nodes

259.75
259.7
259.65
Stability measurement
259.6
259.55
259.5
259.45
259.4
259.35
259.3
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Iteration number
Fig. 10.16 Optimal process of fixturing layout for the disc workpiece
Fig. 10.17 Uniform Y

distribution of contact points
3 1
7 9
2
6
8
X
5
4
10
process, the genetic algorithm can fast converge to achieve the optimal values of
contact point a, b and c, as shown in Fig. 10.16.
Here, the genetic algorithm of the fixturing layout for the disc workpiece is run
ten times, there are ten groups of optimal results, as listed in Table 10.5. Obviously,
Table 10.5 Optimal results of contact points

No Positions of contact points (mm) Maximum stability
a b c measurement
1 [10.43, 48.90]T [36.90, −33.72]T [−47.73, −14.78]T 259.72

2 [−34.07, 36.54]T [48.77, 10.91]T [−15.26, −47.60]T 259.68
3 [39.44, −30.63]T [5.49, 49.68]T [−45.65, −20.40]T 259.66
4 [5.49, 49.68]T [−45.65, −20.40]T [40.67, −29.05]T 259.74
5 [10.43, 48.90]T [−47.45, −15.73]T [36.90, −33.72]T 259.75
6 [−48.98, 9.94]T [33.35, 37.24]T [15.26, −47.60]T 259.74
7 [49.74, −4.99]T [−29.47, −40.39]T [−19.93, 45.83]T 259.74
8 [29.47, 40.39]T [−49.74, 4.99]T [19.93, −45.83]T 259.74
9 [19.93, 45.83]T [28.64, −40.94]T [−49.74, −4.99]T 259.68
10 [25.28, 43.12]T [−49.90, 2.00]T [25.28, −43.12]T 259.61
the fixturing layout planning of the disc workpiece is a multi-peak problem. Though
the optimal positions of a, b and c are different in each calculation, three contact
points is uniformly laid out, as shown in Fig. 10.17. The calculation results are in
good agreement with Xiong’s literature (Xiong et al. 1997).
10.5.2 Fixturing Layout Optimization of 3D Workpiece
Assume that the side length of the cubic workpiece with one corner cut out is 100 mm,
as shown in Fig. 10.18a. The workpiece is held by six locators whose coordinates and
unit normal vectors are given in Table 10.6. The inclined plane P1 P2 P3 is selected
as clamping surface. The magnitude of clamp force is F 7 = 200 N.
Above all, the feasible clamping region is obtained by analyzing the stability
index. The three-node triangular plate bending element with the mesh dimen-
sion 1 mm is employed to discretize the inclined plane P1 P2 P3 , as shown in
Fig. 10.18b. Beginning with the first node, the stability index is calculated according
to Eq. (10.11). All nodes with the stability index I Ind = 0 can be formed a feasible
clamping region, as shown in Fig. 10.19a.
Figure 10.19b is the design results projected on the XY plane from Rong’s liter-
ature. If r7 = [x, y, 200–x–y]T is the position of a clamp, the position constraints of
the clamp can be got
Fig. 10.18 The fixturing layout of the cubic workpiece
Table 10.6 Coordinates and

Locator Coordinates (mm) Unit normal vectors
unit normal vectors of
locators 1 [80, 50, 0]T [0, 0, 1]T
2 [20, 80, 0]T [0, 0, 1]T
3 [20, 20, 0]T [0, 0, 1]T
4 [80, 0, 50]T [0, 1, 0]T
5 [20, 0, 50]T [0, 1, 0]T
6 [0, 50, 50]T [1, 0, 0]T
⎧
⎪
⎪ 2x + y − 170 > 0
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎨ 3y − 170 > 0
⎪
630 − 4x − 5y > 0 (10.33)
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ |y − x| < 30
⎪
⎪
⎩
x + y > 100
Thus, the feasible clamping region can be obtained as the dashed area with four
vertices rA = [86.6 mm, 56.7 mm, 56.7 mm]T , rB = [53.3 mm, 83.3 mm, 63.4 mm]T ,
rC = [46.7 mm, 76.7 mm, 76.6 mm]T and rD = [56.7 mm, 56.7 mm, 86.6 mm]T .
According to Eqs. (10.31, 10.32), the relative errors of the proposed method can be
calculated to be within a 0.5% range when compared with the results from Rong’s
literature (Rong et al. 2005, 2010).
In the clamping region, the workpiece is in stable state at arbitrary node. Namely,
the stability index of the workpiece is I Ind = 0 when the clamping force F 7 is exerted
3y-170>0
630-4x-5y>0
C
(56.3, 57.5, 86.2) 
D

B
(47.9, 77.4, 74.7) 
     
    
   
   


(53.5, 83.1, 63.4)    

   

(84.5, 57.7, 57.7) 
A
2x+y-170>0
y-x<30
y+x>100
(a) Stable clamping region

y-x>-30
X
(b) A bird’s-eye view of the workpiece
Fig. 10.19 Obtainment and verification of clamping region
at arbitrary node in the clamping region. Thus, the stability measurement can further
be calculated for each node in clamping region according to Eq. (10.17). The stability
measurements of four vertices are ΛA = 2.4312 e + 007, ΛB = 2.5076 e + 007,
ΛC = 2.5860 e + 007 and ΛD = 2.5877e + 007, respectively. The minimum and
maximum stability measurements in the stable clamping region are respectively Λmin
= 2.3960 e + 007 and Λmax = 2.5877 e + 007. The coordinates of the corresponding
nodes are rmin = [73.4750 mm, 66.1939 mm, 60.3311 mm]T and rmax = [56.7 mm,
56.7 mm, 86.6 mm]T , respectively. In other words, if the positions of six locators are
not design variables, the optimal placement of clamping force F 7 is rmax = [56.7 mm,
56.7 mm, 86.6 mm]T . This is the so-called optimal fixturing layout.
However, if the positions of fixels (i.e., locators and clamps) belong to the
design variables, the genetic algorithm is used to optimize the fixturing layout.
Assumed the position coordinate of the i-th fixel to be ri = [x i , yi , zi ]T , the mesh
with the dimension of 1 mm is adopted to discretize the geometric region which ri
(1 ≤ i ≤ 7) is on. Besides the inclined plane P1 P2 P3 in Fig. 10.18(b), the discretized
bottom surface, left surface and behind surface are as shown in Fig. 10.20.
Similarly, the discretized nodes are stored in the database according to the node
serial number, node coordinates and node normal vector. And then, the genetic
parameters are empirically selected according to the individual number p = 100, the
crossover probability PC = 95%, the mutation probability PM = 10% and the itera-
tion number T = 500, the genetic algorithm shown in Fig. 10.5 is carried out for the
optimal positions of six locators and one clamp, as shown in Fig. 10.21. The genetic
3
2
1
(a) The discretized bottom surface (b) The discretized left surface
(c) The discretized behind surface
Fig. 10.20 The discretization of the graphic regions
algorithm can converge when it is iterated 480 generations. Thus, the maximum
stability measurement reaches 7.4580 e + 007. At the moment, the fixel positions
are obtained to be optimal with r1 = [96 mm, 8 mm, 0]T , r2 = [88 mm, 95 mm, 0]T ,
r3 = [4 mm, 90 mm, 0]T , r4 = [8 mm, 0, 7 mm]T , r5 = [100 mm, 0, 99 mm]T , r6 =
[0, 88 mm, 94 mm]T and r7 = [49.9205 mm, 95.0215 mm, 65.0580 mm]T .
×107
7.5
7.0
6.5
Stability measurement
6.0
5.5
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Iteration number
Fig. 10.21 The optimization process of cube workpiece fixturing layout
References
Qin GH, Lu D, Wu TJ. A determinate algorithm to fixturing parameters for the complex workpiece.
Acta Armamentarii. 2009;30(12):1691–7 (in Chinese).
Kaya N. Machining fixture locating and clamping position optimization using genetic algorithms.
Comput Ind. 2006;57(2):112–20.
Marin RA, Ferreira PM. Optimal placement of fixture clamps: minimizing the maximum clamping
forces. ASME J Manuf Sci Eng. 2002;124(3):686–94.
Qin GH, Guo XY, Ye HC, Lu YM. A deterministic algorithm for acitve region of clamping force
of a complex workpiece. Acta Armamentarii. 2012;33(7):852–6 (in Chinese).
for complex workpiece. Int J Prod Res. 2014;52(5):1351–62.
Qin GH, Sun S, Wang HM, Zuo DW, Wu TJ, Lu YM. A reverse direction iterative planning algorithm
of clamping forces in entire active region based on work-piece stability. Acta Armamentarii.
2016;37(9):1700–7 (in Chinese).
Qin GH, Wang HM, Ye HC, Wu ZX. Planning algorithm of clamping forces for workpiece fixturing
scheme based on existence and feasibility of forces. J Mech Eng. 2016;52(11):72–9 (in Chinese).
Qin GH, Wang ZK, Wu ZX, Lu YM. A planning method of fixturing layout for complex workpieces
based on surface discretization and genetic algorithm. J Mech Eng. 2016;52(13):195–203 (in
Chinese).
Rong YM, Huang SH, Hou ZK. Advanced computer-aided fixture design. Elsevier Academic Press,
2005.
Rong YM, Zhang FP, Lu JP. Modern computer aided fixture design. Beijing Institute of Technology
Press, 2010. (in Chinese)
Roy U, Liao JM. Geometric reasoning for reallocation of supporting and clamping positions in the
automated fixture design system. IIE Trans. 1999;31(4):313–22.
Shen XH, Liu X. Research on judging system of workpiece holding stability based on automatic
fixture design. J Mach Des. 2003;20(7):36–9 (in Chinese).
Trappey AJC, Liu CR. An automatic workholding verification system. Int J Comput Integr Manuf.
1992;9(4–5):321–6.
Wang HM, Qin GH, Wu ZX, Zuo DW. A workpiece stability-based iterative planning of clamping
forces for fixturing layout specification of a complex workpiece. Int J Adv Manuf Technol.
2019;103(5–8):2017–35.
Xiong CH, Dai GH, Zhang CL, Zhu YX, Xiong YL. Configuration planning of multifingered grasp
and its stability index. J Jianghan Petroleum Inst. 1997;19(1):85–8.
Chapter 11
Fixturing Layout Optimization
of Thin-Walled Workpieces
In the fixturing process with the multiple clamps, the different fixturing layout, which
is described by fixturing parameters including the fixturing sequence (Qin et al. 2006),
the magnitude of clamping force (Chen et al. 2008), the locator position (Kashyap
and Devries 1999), and so forth, can cause the different fixturing deformation of
the thin-walled workpiece. Deformation law of workpiece which is caused by a
single fixturing parameter can be obtained by the finite element method. However,
if multiple fixturing parameters are synchronously considered, the finite element
method is difficult in revealing the relationship between the fixturing parameters and
the fixturing deformation of workpiece (Qin et al. 2007). Therefore, it is necessary
to suggest the prediction model of fixturing deformation such that the optimal model
of fixturing layout can be presented to achieve the minimum fixturing deformation.
11.1 Finite Element Analysis of Fixturing Deformation
To solve the fixturing deformation of the thin-walled workpiece, friction cone

constraints and the unilateral contact constraints between the workpiece and fixture
must be satisfied as well as the static equilibrium conditions.
11.1.1 Static Equilibrium Conditions
As shown in Fig. 11.1, a workpiece is hold by k locators and n clamps. It is exerted

by the external wrench W e in addition to the clamping force Fj (j = k + 1, …, k +
n). The friction forces are considered between the workpiece and fixels (including
locators and clamps), and μi is the static coefficient of friction between the workpiece
and the i-th fixel.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-33-4493-8_11
304 11 Fixturing Layout Optimization of Thin-Walled Workpieces
Fig. 11.1 Forced status in Fk+j

fixturing step j
k+j-1
k+1 k+j
ni bi
We
k ti
1
i ri
y
x
z
Assume that ni , t i , bi are the unit normal vector and two orthogonal unit vectors
at ri where the i-th fixel is contacted with workpiece. When the j-th clamp numbered
k + j is produced on the workpiece at the j-th fixturing step in the fixturing sequence
s, the active clamp exerted at the former fixturing step would be the passive fixel
(which is represented by the shadow triangle in Fig. 11.1) at the current fixturing
step. Therefore, the static equilibrium equations for workpiece can be described as
F s, j = K s, j U s, j , 1 ≤ j ≤ n (11.1)
where Fs,j is the load exerted on the workpiece by active fixels as well as passive
fixels at the fixturing step j, K s,j is the stiffness matrix of the workpiece at the fixturing
step j, and U s,j is the node displacement of the workpiece at the fixturing step j.
11.1.2 Friction Cone Constraints
According to Coulomb law of friction, the maximum friction force between work-
piece and fixel can not exceed the friction cone (Dong and Ke 2004). Consequently,
the fixturing step j has the quadratic inequality constraints at the i-th fixel, i.e.,
F Ts, j,i C s, j,i F s, j,i ≥ 0, 1 ≤ i ≤ k + j − 1 (11.2)

11.1 Finite Element Analysis of Fixturing Deformation 305
where C s,j,i = diag (μi2 , −1, −1) is the i-th friction coefficient matrix, F s, j,i =
T
Fs,n j,i , Fs,t j,i , Fs.i,i
b
is the contact force vector at the i-th passive fixel.
11.1.3 Unilateral Contact Constraints
To prevent the workpiece detachment from the passive fixels in the fixturing process,
the normal forces at any contact point between the workpiece and fixel must be in
compression such that
niT F s, j,i ≥ 0 (11.3)
It is known from Eq. (11.1) to Eq. (11.3), the node displacement U s,j (i.e., the
fixturing deformation of workpiece) at the j-th fixturing step in the fixturing sequence
s can be solved by building the finite element model with the consideration of friction
forces (Cai et al. 1996; Kaya 2006; Liu et al. 2007).
11.2 Prediction Method for Fixturing Deformation
As above stated, if the fixturing parameters (for example, the locator position, the
fixturing sequence, and so on) are finitely given, the corresponding fixturing defor-
mations of thin-walled workpiece can be obtained by the finite element method.
However, the fixturing parameters are diverse, and it is impossible for the finite
element method to calculate the fixturing deformation one by one. For this reason,
the prediction method of fixturing deformations for the thin-walled workpiece will
be discussed in this section.
11.2.1 Structure of Neural Network
BP (Back Propagation) neural network is a multilayer feed-forward network which

includes the input layer, the hidden layer and the output layer. It can approximate any
continuous function within arbitrary precisions. A three-layer feed forward neural
network with one hidden layer was demonstrated to approximate any multivariate
function. Hence, a 3-layer BP neural network is selected to predict the fixturing
deformation of the thin-walled workpiece for the given fixturing sequence s.
As shown in Fig. 11.2, there are l neurons x i (1 ≤ i ≤ l) at the input layer. In
the process of designing the multi-fixturing layout, the fixturing deformation of the
thin-walled workpiece is the key consideration to influence the machining quality
(Selvakumar et al. 2013a, b). So the fixturing deformation yk (1 ≤ k ≤ h) at h
1
x1
1 y1
1
… 2
…
xi
…
i aij k yk
bjk
…
…
xl
l h yh
…
m
Input layer Output layer
Hidden layer
Fig. 11.2 BP neural network of fixturing sequence s
observation points is selected as h neurons of the output layer. Again, in connection

with the learning speed and generalization ability of the BP neural network, the
Kolmogorov theorem can be used to concluded the general empirical formula for the
neuron number m at the hidden layer (Li 2008; Andonie 1997), that is
m = 2l + 1 (11.4)
11.2.2 Selection of Training Samples
According to requirements of compatibility, ergodicity and compactness of training

samples, common experimental design methods can be adopted to determine q groups
of the fixturing parameters xi (including the locator position and clamping force) in
the fixturing sequence s, such as the uniform experimental design, the orthogonal
experimental design, the Latin square experimental design, and so forth.
The corresponding fixturing deformations are calculated as q network training
samples.
11.2.3 Update of Weight Coefficients
In order to improve the identification accuracy of the neural network, the input
samples should be normalized. Only then can those input samples with bigger values
still fall on the large gradient position of the transfer function. Equation (11.5) can
11.2 Prediction Method for Fixturing Deformation 307
be used for the normalization of the input samples such that each sample can be took
in the interval from 0 to 1 (Wang et al. 2016).
xi − xmin
xi = (11.5)
xmax − xmin
where x i is the input sample corresponded to the i-th fixturing parameters for the
fixturing layout, x min and x max are the minimum and maximum of the input samples,
respectively.
After the input samples are normalized, the neural network can be trained to
obtain the weight coefficients aij and bjk . During the training process, the hyperbolic
tangent function is selected as the transfer function of neurons in the hidden layer
to achieve the space division of different samples. Nevertheless, the linear functions
is employed as the transfer function of neurons in the output layer to obtain the
identification results of the neural network. Due to the nonlinear mapping relation-
ship between the input and the output, the initial weights can strongly influence the
convergence of the training process. Therefore, the initial weights should be taken
from the small empirical values with uniform distribution. Here, the weight coeffi-
cients of the network in Fig. 11.2 are initialized within the random number between
0 and 1.
Because the Levenberg–Marquardt algorithm has fast convergence rate, it is
chosen as the training algorithm of the feed forward neural network to calculate
and update the weights wij and W jt (1 ≤ i ≤ l, 1 ≤ j ≤ m and 1 ≤ t ≤ h). Thus, the
nonlinear mapping relationship could be achieved for l inputs and h output in the
above BP neural network. Ultimately, the MATLAB function can be used to simulate
the above network, namely
y = sim(net, x) (11.6)
where sim is the network simulation function. net is the above BP neural network.
x = [x 1 , x 2 , …, x i , …, x l ]T is the input variable. y = [y1 , y2 , …, yk , …, yh ]T is the
fixturing deformation of the thin-walled workpiece.
11.3 Optimization Technology of Fixturing Layout
It is significant for the machining accuracy to control the fixturing deformation of

the thin-walled workpiece. The fixturing deformations can be usually controlled by
optimizing the fixturing layout. From the view point of mathematics, in order to
control the fixturing deformation, an optimal fixturing layout must be determined to
obtain the minimum fixturing deformation of the thin-walled workpiece.
11.3.1 Optimal Model
When h is selected to be the number of nodes, yk (1 ≤ k ≤ h) is the fixturing

deformation at the k-th node. Here, a new notation f s (x) = max( y) is introduced for
to the maximum fixturing deformation of the workpiece in the fixturing sequence s.
In this way, the optimal model of the fixturing layout of the thin-walled workpiece
can be defined as
min{min f s (x)}
x
s.t.
x i ≤ xi ≤ x i (11.7)
where x i and x i are the upper- and lower- limit value of the i-th fixturing parameter,
respectively.
11.3.2 Solution Technology
Genetic algorithm is an adaptive heuristic search algorithm to seek the global opti-
mization. It can be just concerned with the value of the objective function but not its
gradient. In the optimal process of fixturing layout for the thin-walled workpiece, it
is difficult in obtaining the complex relationship between the design variables and
the objective function as well as the gradient of the objective function. Accordingly,
the genetic algorithm would be a good choice to solve the optimal model of fixturing
layout for thin-walled workpiece (Qin et al. 2017).
11.3.2.1 Encoding and Decoding of Chromosomes
The variable encoding is to convert the design variable x in decimal system into
the string U in binary system. The length and expression of each string are 10 and
b10 b9 b8 …b2 b1 , respectively. l design variables are be joined end to end for one
chromosome with the length of a = 10 × l. The first 10-bit number represents the
value of x1 . The second 10-bit number is the value of x2 . By analogy, the l-th 10-bit
number represents the value of xl . If the interval of the variable x i (i = 1, 2, …, l) is
taken from x i to x i , the binary string b10 b9 b8 …b2 b1 can be decoded by the following
formula,
x i − x i−1
10
xi = 10 i 2 · bi (11.8)
2 − 1 i=1
11.3 Optimization Technology of Fixturing Layout 309
11.3.2.2 Initial Populations
A randomly generated population in binary system is assumed to include p individ-

uals. The individuals who cannot satisfy the constraint condition in Eq. (11.7) must
be removed.
11.3.2.3 Individual Evaluation
In Eq. (11.7), f s (x) is the maximum fixturing deformation resulted from the fixturing
parameter x in fixturing sequence s. Therefore, the smaller f s (x) is, the more fitness
value of the corresponding individual in the fixturing sequence s has. The less the
fitness value is, the stronger the chromosome is, and the larger its probability gener-
ated in the next generation is. In other words, the smaller the fitness value is, the
more easily the chromosome can be eliminated. Consequently, the fitness value of
the individual can be defined as

− f s x i , f s x i <
es (Ui ) = (11.9)
0, f s x i ≥
where p is the number of the chromosome U i (1 ≤ i ≤ p) in the population (i.e., the

number of individuals), Ψ is a large constant pre-specified according to the objective
function values of each generation.
11.3.2.4 Genetic Operators
Genetic operation mainly includes the selection, crossover and mutation. Here, the
roulette wheel is generally chosen as the selection operation. According to Eq. (11.9),
the fitness value of populations can be summed as

p
Fs = es (Ui ) (11.10)
i=1
Denote PAi = es (U
Fs
i)
(1 ≤ i ≤ p) is the selection probability of the i-th chromosome.
Thus, the cumulative probability of the i-th chromosome Qi is

i
Qi = PA j , 1 ≤ j ≤ i ≤ p (11.11)
j=1
The choosing process of a chromosome for new population can be shown in

Fig. 11.3. The selected individual may either directly pass its genes on to the next
generation, or intercross some genes to a new individual in the next generation.
Start
l=1, E=0, Q=0
Yes
l<=p m=1, k=1
No
No
E=E+es(Ul) End m<=p
Yes
l=l+1 r p is a stochastic number

between 0 and 1
PAm=es(Um)/E
Q=Q+PAm m=m+1
No
rp<=Q
Yes
Um is the kth chromosome of
next generation
m=m+1, k=k+1
Fig. 11.3 Roulette wheel selection
The crossover operation can usually be realized by the single point crossover oper-
ator. Here, PC is assumed to be the crossover probability (i.e., the PC of chromosomes
are averagely intercrossed). And then, the flowchart can be plotted in Fig. 11.4. The
intercrossed individual can either enter the next generation directly or mutate a new
individual in next generation.
For the individuals with the binary genetic code, the mutation operation is to
exchange the genetic code with each other at small probability, i.e., convert 0 to
1 and 1 to 0. Its aim is to avoid the premature convergence to local optima in the
genetic algorithm. When the mutation probability PM is ordinarily assigned for a
small value, the flowchart of basic mutation can be illustrated in Fig. 11.5.
11.3.2.5 Termination Condition
Genetic algorithm is a probability-based searching algorithm for global optimiza-

tion. Therefore, only when the individual evolution is iteratively carried out can the
11.3 Optimization Technology of Fixturing Layout 311
Start
m=1, k=1
No
m<=p End
Yes
m
m=m+1 r is a stochastic number
between 0 and 1
m=m+1 No
r m<PC
k=k+1
Yes
Select Um to be the kth father
No
k is even number
Uk-1 and Uk are intercrossed from Yes

the r righ parts
r is a stochastic number
between 0 and a-1
Fig. 11.4 Single point crossover
genetic algorithm gradually approximate and come close to the optimal solution.
Consequently, it is necessary to determine the termination conditions. The genetic
algorithm continues until the termination condition is satisfied. Here, the number of
iterations is given as a constant T. When the number of the individuals with the same
fitness value equals to T, the algorithm terminated for the optimal solution.
11.4 Numerical Tests and Experiments
As above stated, the neural network-based genetic algorithm can further be

constructed for fixturing layout of thin-walled workpiece. Its flowchart is shown
in Fig. 11.6. Here, finite element method is used to calculate the fixturing deforma-
tion. The prediction method and genetic algorithm are successfully carried out by
MATLAB toolbox.
Start
k=1
No
End k<=p?
Yes
m=1 k=k+1
No
m<=10?
Yes
m=m+1 rm is a stochastic number between

0 and 1
No
rm<PM?
Yes
The mth gene is mutated
Fig. 11.5 Basic mutation
To illustrate the proposed method, the first example will show the prediction
strategy for the fixturing deformation of aeronautical thin-walled structure with
frame-type. The agreement of the predicted results with the experimental data is done
to validate the finite element model. The second example is employed to demonstrate
the application of the presented “analysis-prediction-control” method of fixturing
deformation illustrated in Fig. 11.6. The predicted results are verified by comparing
the predicted values with the simulated ones.
11.4.1 Prediction of Workpiece Deformation
The material of thin-walled workpiece with frame-type is aluminum alloy 6061-T6

with Young’s modulus E w = 70 Gpa and Poisson’s ratio νw = 0.334. The outer
11.4 Numerical Tests and Experiments 313
End
Start
Output the corresponding fixturing

s=1, Dmin=500 layout
Yes
No The last fixturing
Fixturing sequence s=1 sequence
Initiate a population x s=s+1
Decode the locaotr positions x

Dmin=min{fs(x)} Dmin=min{fs-1(x)}
Predicted by the presented

neural network model Dmin>min{fs(x)}
Generate the next No Yes
population
Obtain the fixturing
deformation fs(x) Compare Dmin with min{fs(x)}
Genetic operation
Calculate the individual
evaluation Obtain the locator positions with
min{fs(x)} of sequence s
No Satisfy the termination Yes
condition
Fig. 11.6 Flowchart of genetic algorithm based on neural network
dimensions of the workpiece are 153 mm × 127 mm × 76 mm with a uniform wall

thickness of 7 mm.
The fixturing layout of thin-walled workpiece is shown in Fig. 11.7. Three locators
L 4 , L 5 , L 6 are placed on the primary locating reference, two locators L 1 , L 2 on the
second locating reference, and the sixth locator L 3 on the third locating reference.
Two clamps C 1 and C 2 are used to press the workpiece against external force. Planar-
tipped locators and clamps are made of hardened steel AISI 1144 with E f = 206 Gpa
and νf = 0.296. The dimensions and heights of locators and clamps are 12.72 mm,
6.4 mm and 8.74 mm, 6.4 mm, respectively. The coordinates of fixels are rC1 = [79.1,
127, 41.3]T mm, rC2 = [153, 67.3, 41.3]T mm, rL1 = [x 1 , 0, 41.9]T mm, rL2 = [x 2 ,
0, 41.9]T mm, and rL3 = [0, x 3 , 41.9]T mm.
11.4.1.1 Finite Element Analysis
According to Eqs. (11.1, 11.2, 11.3), the finite element model is constructed using
ABAQUS. All components in the finite element model are assumed as isotropic
76
7 C1
C2
L3
L5
L1 L2 L6
127
z y
L4
x
153
Fig. 11.7 Diagram of thin-walled workpiece fixturing
elastic bodies. Ten-node tetrahedral element C3D10 is used to mesh all solid bodies.
Contact between the workpiece and fixels is simulated by the quadratic surface-to-
surface contact element with the static friction coefficient μ = 0.18 between the
workpiece and fixels, as shown in Fig. 11.8.
To precisely simulate the locators being rigidly fixed in appropriate place, the
surface of each locator tip opposite to the contact was restrained in all three trans-
lational degrees of freedom. A uniformly distributed pressure was applied over the
surface of both clamps in opposite contact to simulate the desired clamping force.
When the clamping forces can respectively supply the workpiece with 250 N and
350 N, the fixturing deformations can be simulated for two points C 1 and C 2 , as
listed in Table 11.1.
Fig. 11.8 Finite element

model of workpiece fixturing
L3
L5 L2
L1
L4
Table 11.1 Fixturing deformation of the workpiece

Serial number Locator position/mm Clamping forces are Clamping forces are
250 N 350 N
x1 x2 x3 δ C1 /μm δ C2 /μm δ C1 /μm δ C2 /μm
1 19.72 133.3 60 27.30 21.61 37.96 30.36
2 19.72 118.7 87 28.04 19.60 38.04 28.26
3 19.72 133.3 96 28.10 23.80 35.69 30.60
4 34.5 96.5 60 27.72 19.45 43.36 32.13
5 34.5 118.7 96 28.34 20.29 38.63 29.31
6 34.5 133.3 60 26.34 20.59 35.45 30.01
7 56.7 96.5 96 32.80 17.78 44.83 30.56
8 56.7 118.7 60 32.75 19.31 35.36 26.65
9 56.7 133.3 87 26.53 23.41 36.95 28.96
11.4.1.2 Neural Network Prediction
It can be known from Fig. 11.2 and Eq. (11.4), the neural network consists of l = 3
neurons (i.e., the positions x 1 , x 2 and x 3 ) at the input layer, h = 2 neurons (i.e., the
fixturing deformations δ C1 and δ C2 ) at the output layer, and m = 7 neurons at the
hidden layer, respectively.
The uniform design method is used to determine 9 groups of input samples (i.e.,
positions x 1 , x 2 , x 3 of locators L 1 , L 2 , L 3 ), as shown in Table 11.1. The weight
coefficients are initiated to be the random value within the range of 0 and 1. The
learning error of 1.0e-5 is selected for the neural network. Thus, the training of the
neural network can be begun when 9 training samples are normalized according to
Eq. (11.5). The training processes can carry out 17 steps to converge the learning
error, as shown in Fig. 11.9.
(a) The training sample is δC1 (b) The training sample is δC2
Fig. 11.9 Training of neural network for δ C1 and δ C2

Experimental data were measured to assess the validity of the simulated results.
According to Siebenaler’s literature, the test fixture was assembled using 6 locators
and 2 clamps, as shown in Fig. 11.10. Locators L 4 , L 5 , L 6 were screwed directly into
a 15 mm thick steel base plate, and the other locators L 1 , L 2 , L 3 were screwed into
steel support blocks which were fastened to the base plate. The two clamps C 1 and
C 2 , which were fastened to the base plate via steel support blocks, were actuated
by a hydraulic hand pump. The fixturing deformation at each point was measured
using an eddy current proximity probe. Average deformation results over five trials
for each point and load pair were given in Table 11.2.
It is known from Table 11.2, the maximum relative error of the predicted results
is not more than 3% from the experimental data. Thus, good agreements show the
established finite element method can efficiently be used to analyze the fixturing
deformations of thin-walled frame-shaped workpiece.
Fig. 11.10 Test fixture
Table 11.2 Comparison of simulated results with experimental data

Deformation 250 N 350 N
δ C1 /μm δ C2 /μm δ C1 /μm δ C2 /μm
Experimental data 26.5 20.5 36.2 28.9
Predicted results 26.74 21.02 36.80 29.39
Simulated results 26.2 20.3 37.2 28.7
Simulation error 1.14% 0.98% 2.76% 0.69%
Prediction error 0.905% 2.54% 1.66% 1.69%
Fig. 11.11 Finite element Z

model of fixturing layout of
frame-shaped thin-walled
workpiece L1
C1
C2
Y
L2
C3 L3 M
11.4.2 Optimization of Fixturing Layout
As shown in Fig. 11.11, the fixturing layout consists of four locators (L 1 , L 2 , L 3 ,

and M) and three clamps (C 1 , C 2 , and C 3 ). The workpiece is a thin-walled part
with outer dimensions of 200 mm × 100 mm × 30 mm and thickness of 5 mm.
According to “3–2-1” locating principle, the support plate M constrains three DOFs
of the workpiece, i.e., the translational DOF T Z along the Z-zxis, the rotational DOFs
RX and RY around the X- and Y-axis. The support pins L 2 and L 3 are used to constrain
the translational DOF T Y along the Y-zxis as well as the rotational DOF RZ around
the Z-axis. Finally, the translational DOF T X along the X-zxis is restricted by the
support pins L 1 .
In order to resist the external loads during the machining process, three clamps C 1 ,
C 2 , C 3 can produce clamping forces on the workpiece. The locators have the radius
of R = 8 mm and the height of h = 10 mm. the clamps are the same radius and height
as the locators. Their coordinates are rC1 = [75, 0, 15]T mm, rC2 = [125, 0, 15]T
mm, rC3 = [200, 50, 15]T mm, respectively. The clamps C 1 , C 2 , C 3 are prescribed
the pressures of 20 N, 20 N and 30 N, respectively. The fixturing sequences are listed
in Table 11.3 for C 1 , C 2 , C 3 . Effects of different fixturing sequences on fixturing
deformations will be examined.
11.4.2.1 Deformation Analysis
The workpiece is made of aeronautic aluminum alloy 7050-T7451 with Young’s

modulus E w = 70 Gpa and Poisson’s ratio vw = 0.3. Because planar tipped locators
and clamps including L 1 , L 2 , L 3 and C 1 , C 2 , C 3 have far more stiffness than the
thin-walled workpiece, they can be thought of as rigid bodies. The static friction
coefficients between the workpiece and the fixels are μ = 0.3. The 8-node hexahedron
Table 11.3 Fixturing sequences

Fixturing sequence Fixturing step Passive fixels Active fixels Clamping forces
A Step 1 L1 , L2 , L3 , L4 , L5 , L6 C1, C2 20, 20
Step 2 L1 , L2 , L3 , L4 , L5 , L6 , C3 30
C1, C2
B Step 1 L1 , L2 , L3 , L4 , L5 , L6 C3 30
Step 2 L1 , L2 , L3 , L4 , L5 , L6 , C1, C2 20, 20
C3
C Step 1 L1 , L2 , L3 , L4 , L5 , L6 C1 20
Step 2 L1 , L2 , L3 , L4 , L5 , L6 , C2 20
C1
Step 3 L1 , L2 , L3 , L4 , L5 , L6 , C3 30
C1, C2
D Step 1 L1 , L2 , L3 , L4 , L5 , L6 C2 20
Step 2 L1 , L2 , L3 , L4 , L5 , L6 , C1 20
C2
Step 3 L1 , L2 , L3 , L4 , L5 , L6 , C3 30
C1, C2
E Step 1 L1 , L2 , L3 , L4 , L5 , L6 C3 30
Step 2 L 1 , L 2 , L 3 , L 4 , L 5 ,L 6 , C1 20
C3
Step 3 L 1 , L 2 , L 3 , L 4 , L 5 ,L 6 , C2 20
C3, C1
F Step 1 L1 , L2 , L3 , L4 , L5 , L6 C3 30
Step 2 L1 , L2 , L3 , L4 , L5 , L6 , C2 20
C3
Step 3 L1 , L2 , L3 , L4 , L5 , L6 , C1 20
C3, C2
G Step 1 L1 , L2 , L3 , L4 , L5 , L6 C1 20
Step 2 L1 , L2 , L3 , L4 , L5 , L6 , C3 30
C1
Step 3 L1 , L2 , L3 , L4 , L5 , L6 , C2 20
C1, C3
H Step 1 L1 , L2 , L3 , L4 , L5 , L6 C2 20
Step 2 L1 , L2 , L3 , L4 , L5 , L6 , C3 30
C2
Step 3 L1 , L2 , L3 , L4 , L5 , L6 , C1 20
C2, C3
I Step 1 L1 , L2 , L3 , L4 , L5 , L6 C1, C2, C3 20, 20, 30
element C3D8R and 4-node tetrahedral element R3D4 are used to mesh the workpiece
and fixels, respectively. The contact between the workpiece and fixels is defined as
the quadratic surface-to-surface contact elements. Thus, the finite element model
can be established for fixturing layout of the thin-walled frame-shaped workpiece,
as shown in Fig. 11.11.
In connection with Eqs. (11.1, 11.2, 11.3), the load step is defined for each
fixturing sequence according to Table 11.3. Computation can sequentially be carried
out to solve the finite element model. Here, C 1 C 2 denotes the inner wall of the
frame where clamps C 1 and C 2 are contacted with the workpiece. Because of the
maximum fixturing deformation occurs at C 1 C 2 in the Y direction, emphasis of
investigating the fixturing deformation is on C 1 C 2 . Table 11.4 lists the maximum
fixturing deformations.
11.4.2.2 Deformation Prediction
Under the condition of the given magnitude and placement of clamping forces in
each fixturing sequence, according to the Fig. 11.2 and Eq. (11.4), the neural network
structure can be determined to have l = 3 neurons (i.e., the position x 1 , x 2 , x 3 of three
locators L 1 , L 2 , L 3 ) at the input layer, h = 1 neurons (i.e., the maximum fixturing
deformation) at the output layer, and m = 7 neurons at the hidden layer, respectively.
The orthogonal experimental design method, here, is adopted to generate the
sample points for x 1 , x 2 and x 3 in each fixturing sequence. The corresponding training
samples are calculated by the finite element method, as listed in Table 11.4.
The weight coefficients are randomly initiated in the range between 0 and 1 for the
neural network with the given learning error of 1.0e-5. Thus, 15 training samples in
the fixturing sequence A can be normalized as inputs to the neural network according
to Eq. (11.5). The training process needs 73 steps until the learning error is smaller
than 1.0e-5, as shown in Fig. 11.12.
By analogy, the training of neural network can also be carried out for the other
8 fixturing sequence. The training processes go on from 15 to 231 steps, they can
quickly be converged. Finally, Eq. (11.6) is performed to forecast the fixturing defor-
mation caused by arbitrary fixturing layouts. Table 11.5 lists the predicted results and
the corresponding simulated values. The relative error within 3 percent is computed
to validate the proposed neural network prediction method.
11.4.2.3 Deformation Control
When the genetic parameters are given as the individual number p = 15, the crossover
probability PC = 70%, the mutation probability PM = 5%, the iteration number T =
40 and the evaluation parameter Ψ = 200, the genetic algorithm shown in Fig. 11.6
is carried out for the locator positions in fixturing sequence A, as shown in Fig. 11.10.
The genetic algorithm is iterated not more than 35 generations, and the maximum
fixturing deformation reaches the minimum value of 229.691 μm. At the moment,
320
Table 11.4 Resultant fixturing deformation

q Position (mm) Fixturing deformation of workpiece (mm)
x1 x2 x3 A B C D E F G H I
1 18 110 18 0.2907 0.2038 0.3278 0.293 0.2046 0.2035 0.2704 0.2563 0.2066
2 18 128 31 0.3249 0.2351 0.3335 0.3244 0.2351 0.2351 0.2882 0.2752 0.2375
3 18 146 50 0.3002 0.2213 0.3021 0.3002 0.2214 0.2214 0.2626 0.2539 0.2208
4 18 167 50 0.2637 0.1767 0.2636 0.236 0.1769 0.1766 0.2087 0.2089 0.1778
5 18 180 18 0.2297 0.2117 0.2297 0.2294 0.2117 0.2118 0.2118 0.219 0.2101
6 33 110 50 0.3741 0.2525 0.3931 0.369 0.2526 0.2526 0.3371 0.3126 0.2636
7 33 128 50 0.3743 0.2524 0.3933 0.3692 0.2527 0.2527 0.3373 0.3128 0.2638
8 33 146 18 0.3494 0.2119 0.3494 0.3172 0.2116 0.2115 0.2656 0.2632 0.2151
9 33 167 31 0.2975 0.2194 0.2975 0.2739 0.2195 0.2192 0.2534 0.2442 0.2217
10 33 180 18 0.2656 0.2125 0.2656 0.2482 0.2128 0.2125 0.2328 0.2295 0.2177
11 55 110 50 0.4281 0.2847 0.4363 0.4288 0.2847 0.2847 0.3626 0.367 0.3033
12 55 128 50 0.4312 0.2846 0.4317 0.4268 0.2842 0.2846 0.3647 0.3559 0.3025
13 55 146 31 0.3894 0.2713 0.3894 0.3917 0.2713 0.2713 0.3339 0.3371 0.283
14 55 167 18 0.3511 0.239 0.3511 0.324 0.239 0.2391 0.2715 0.2912 0.241
15 55 180 31 0.3003 0.2408 0.3001 0.3063 0.2409 0.2404 0.2616 0.2861 0.2435
11 Fixturing Layout Optimization of Thin-Walled Workpieces
Fig. 11.12 Training of

neural network of Fixturing
sequence A
Fig. 11.13 Convergence

process of genetic algorithm
of fixturing sequence A
the locator positions are obtained to be optimal with x 1 = 18 mm, x 2 = 180 mm and
x 3 = 18 mm.
Table 11.6 lists the maximum fixturing deformation and the optimal locator posi-
tions for fixturing sequences. In all fixturing sequences, the fixturing sequence B
has minimum fixturing deformation of 176.693 μm. In connection with Eq. (11.7),
it is known that the optimal fixturing layout must be determined as the following
fixturing parameters for given magnitudes and placements of three clamping forces:
three locator positions are respectively x 1 = 18 mm, x 2 = 167 mm, x 3 = 50 mm, and
the application sequence of three clamps is B.
Table 11.5 Comparison of predicted results with simulated ones

Fixturing Position Simulated results Predicted values Relative error (%)
sequence x1 x2 x3
A 74 110 18 0.4889 0.4910 0.42
60 128 50 0.4376 0.4389 0.29
54 146 18 0.3628 0.3720 2.53
40 167 31 0.3305 0.3365 1.88
23 180 50 0.2337 0.2391 2.31
B 74 110 18 0.2561 0.2601 1.56
60 128 50 0.2898 0.2965 2.31
54 146 18 0.2397 0.2403 0.25
40 167 31 0.2664 0.2608 2.10
23 180 50 0.2211 0.2254 1.94
C 74 110 18 0.4987 0.5012 0.50
60 128 50 0.4382 0.4406 0.55
54 146 18 0.3688 0.3709 0.57
40 167 31 0.3309 0.3376 2.02
23 180 50 0.2402 0.2434 1.33
D 74 110 18 0.4639 0.4675 0.77
60 128 50 0.4380 0.4356 0.54
54 146 18 0.3771 0.3805 0.90
40 167 31 0.3343 0.3389 1.38
23 180 50 0.4203 0.4193 0.24
E 74 110 18 0.2563 0.2608 1.75
60 128 50 0.2896 0.2912 0.55
54 146 18 0.2396 0.2326 2.92
40 167 31 0.2664 0.2625 1.46
23 180 50 0.2318 0.2367 2.11
F 74 110 18 0.2558 0.2609 1.99
60 128 50 0.2902 0.2897 0.17
54 146 18 0.2394 0.2408 0.58
40 167 31 0.2661 0.2671 0.38
23 180 50 0.2215 0.2179 1.62
G 74 110 18 0.3222 0.3285 1.95
60 128 50 0.3739 0.3811 1.93
54 146 18 0.3020 0.3106 2.84
40 167 31 0.3079 0.2997 2.66
23 180 50 0.2319 0.2336 0.73
(continued)

Fixturing Position Simulated results Predicted values Relative error (%)
sequence x1 x2 x3
H 74 110 18 0.3587 0.3656 1.92
60 128 50 0.3681 0.3649 0.87
54 146 18 0.3064 0.3092 0.91
40 167 31 0.3121 0.3169 1.54
23 180 50 0.2305 0.2343 1.65
I 74 110 18 0.2567 0.2596 1.13
60 128 50 0.3096 0.3117 0.68
54 146 18 0.2412 0.2385 1.12
40 167 31 0.2763 0.2717 1.66
23 180 50 0.2229 0.2181 2.15
Table 11.6 Maximum fixturing deformation of fixturing sequence

Fixturing sequence Maximum fixturing Optimal locator position (mm)
deformation (μm) x1 x2 x3
A 229.691 18 180 18
B 176.693 18 167 50
C 229.683 18 180 18
D 228.983 18 180 18
E 176.982 18 167 50
F 176.952 18 167 50
G 208.712 18 167 50
H 208.972 18 167 50
I 177.815 18 167 50
It can be known from two examples are employed to demonstrate the “analysis -
prediction-control” method that, the BP neural network has high precision and good
generalization ability. Based on finite element model of fixturing layout for thin-
walled frame workpiece, the nonlinear logic relationship between the fixturing defor-
mation and fixturing layout is effectively established through the excellent learning
ability of BP neural network. The experiment shows the relative error of the simu-
lated results with the experimental data is less than 3%. Moreover, the predicted
results are in agreement with the simulated values. In sum, the prediction accuracy
is more than 90% and in turn, the proposed prediction method can calculate the
proper fixturing deformation of thin-walled frame workpiece in arbitrary fixturing
layout. In sequence, the optimal model can be suggested to minimize the fixturing
deformation. The genetic algorithm is adopted to solve the optimal model for the
fixture layout of thin-walled frame workpiece. In principle, the presented “analysis
- prediction - control” method of fixturing deformation can not only improve the
calculation efficiency of fixturing deformation, but also provide a basic theory of
fixturing layout design for the thin-walled workpiece.
References
Andonie R. The psychological limits of neural computation. In: Karny M, Warwick K, Kurkova V,
editors. Dealing with Complexity: A Neural Network Approach [M]. London: Springer-Verlag;
1997. p. 252–63.
Cai W, Hu SJ, Yuan JX. Deformable sheet metal fixturing: principles, algorithms, and simulations
[J]. ASME J Manuf Sci Eng. 1996;118:318–24.
Chen WF, Ni LJ, Xue JB. Deformation control through fixture layout design and clamping force
optimization [J]. Int J Adv Manuf Technol. 2008;38(9–10):860–7.
Dong HY, Ke YL. Finite element simulation for optimal clamping scheme of thin-walled work-piece
in milling process [J]. J Zhejiang Univ. 2004;38(1):17–21 (in Chinese).
Kashyap S, Devries WR. Finite element analysis and optimization in fixture design [J]. Struct Optim.
1999;18:193–201.
Kaya N. Machining fixture locating and clamping position optimization using genetic algorithms
[J]. Comput Ind. 2006;57(2):112–20.
Li M. Research on the Optimization of Milling Parameters and Simulation of Thin-walled Parts
Based on the Machining Errors Control [D]. Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics,
2008. (in Chinese)
Liu SG, Zheng L, Zhang ZH, Li ZZ, Liu DC. Optimization of the number and positions of fixture
locators in the peripheral milling of a low-rigidity workpiece [J]. Int J Adv Manuf Technol.
2007;33(7–8):668–76.
Qin GH, Zhang WH, Wan M. Analysis and optimal design of fixture clamping sequence [J]. Trans
ASME J Manuf Sci Eng. 2006;128(2):482–93.
Qin GH, Wu ZX, Zhang WH. Analysis and control technique of fixturing deformation mechanism
of thin-walled workpiece [J]. Chinese J Mechan Eng. 2007;43(4):210–22 (in Chinese).
Qin GH, Wang ZK, Rong YM, Li Q. A unified approach to multi-fixturing layout planning for
thin-walled workpiece [J]. Proc Inst Mechan Eng Part B-J Eng Manuf. 2017;231(3):454–69.
Selvakumar S, Arulshri KP, Padmanaban KP, Sasikumar KSK. Design and optimization of
machining fixture layout using ANN and DOE [J]. Int J Adv Manuf Technol. 2013;65(9–
12):1573–86.
Selvakumar S, Arulshri KP, Padmanaban KP. Machining fixture layout optimization using genetic
algorithm and artificial neural network [J]. Int J Manuf Res. 2013;8(2):171–95.
Siebenaler SP, Melkote SN. Prediction of workpiece deformation in a fixture system using the finite
element method [J]. Int J Mach Tools Manuf. 2006;46:51–8.
Wang ZQ, Yang B, Kang YG, Yang Y. Development of a prediction model based on RBF neural
network for sheet metal fixture locating layout design and optimization [J]. Comput Intell
Neurosci. 2016;2016:7620438-1–7620446.
Chapter 12
Matching Method of Fixture Elements
It is an important task in fixture design to match the fixture elements according to

the fixturing layout scheme (Qin et al. 2012, 2014). Here, fixels mainly include loca-
tors/locating units and clamps/clamping units. Their matching method is basically the
same as each other. Therefore, the locators are taken as example to present a analyt-
ical hierarchy process-based selection algorithm. Firstly, some influence factors of
locator selection are deep investigated to construct the corresponding selection factor
expressions. And then, analytical hierarchy process is employed to establish multi-
schematic level model for locator selection. Simultaneously, a construction method
of the judgment matrix is presented for each factor in each level according to the
judgment scale method and selection factors. Finally, in light of consistency test
method of the constructed matrix, the determination method of the combination
weight, which is used to be the decision index of selecting the locators, is proposed.
12.1 Analytical Hierarchy Process
AHP (AHP, Analytical Hierarchy Process) is a kind of multi-schematic or multi-

objective decision-making method proposed by Professor Saaty, an American
operational research scientist, in the 1980s.
The basic principle is that a decision can ultimately be resulted as a weight
sequence of the lowest layer relative to the highest layer by hierarchizing a problem as
multiple sub-problems which can again be decomposed into different factors. When
AHP is employed to make decisions, it can be divided into the following four steps
(Qin et al. 2014).
Step one is to establish a hierarchical structure model. In fact, factors in every
layer have something to do with factors in its down layer as well as factors in its
upper. The top layer is the target layer in which there is general one factor. The
lowest layer is the scheme layer or the objective layer. One or more layers between
the top layer and lowest layer are frequently the criterion layers or the index layers.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-33-4493-8_12
326 12 Matching Method of Fixture Elements
Table 12.1 The value of random consistency index

Factor number 1 2 3 4 5
Random consistency index 0 0 0.58 0.9 1.12
Factor number 6 7 8 9 10
Random consistency index 1.24 1.32 1.41 1.45 1.49
Moreover, the sub-criteria layers should be further decomposed in the case of too
many criteria (for example, more than 9 criteria).
Step two is to construct the judgement matrix. Begin with the second layer of
the hierarchical structure model, the judgment matrices are constructed for factors
in every layer by using the paired comparison method or the 1 ~ 9 judgment scale
method until the lowest layer.
Step three is to determine the layer weight vector. According to the maximum
eigenvalue and the corresponding eigenvector of the judgment matrix, the consistency
check must be carried out based on the consistency index expressed in Eq. (12.1), the
random consistency index listed in Table 12.1 and the consistency ratio expressed in
Eq. (12.2). If the consistency check is passed, the eigenvector is normalized to be the
layer weight vector. Else if the consistency check is not passed, the judgment matrix
must be reconstructed.
( p)
( p) λmax − n ( p)
CIi = , p ≥ 2, 1 ≤ i ≤ n ( p−1) (12.1)
n ( p) − 1 2
( p)
where CIi is the CI (CI, Consistency Index) of the i-th factor in the p-th
layer. n(p−1) and n(p) are the number of factors in the (p-1) layer and the p-th layer,
respectively.
( p)
The greater the value of CIi is, the more serious the inconsistency degree of
judgment matrix is.
( p)
( p) CIi
CRi = ( p)
(12.2)
RIi
( p)
where RIi is the RI (RI, Random Consistency Index) whose value can be selected
( p) ( p)
according to Table 12.1. When RIi = 0, only if CIi = 0 can the consistency check
be passed.
( p)
CIi is the CR (CR, Consistency Ratio) which is used to determine the allowable
( p)
range of inconsistencies for the judgment matrix. If CRi < 0.1, the inconsistency
degree of judgment matrix is within the allowable range. Thus, the the normalized
( p)
eigenvector can be used as the layer weight vector. But if CRi ≥ 0.1, it shows a
significant inconsistency so that the judgment matrix must be corrected (Qin et al.
2016).
12.1 Analytical Hierarchy Process 327
Step four is to calculate the decision factor. When the layer weight vectors are well
determined for every layer, the combination weight vector of the p-th layer relative
to the first layer in the hierarchical structure model can be calculated as
( p)

i=1
w(1) = w(i+1)
(i) , p ≥ 3, i ≤ p − 1 (12.3)
p
where w(i+1)
(i) is the weight vector of the (i + 1)-th layer relative to the i-th layer.
In the whole process of AHP, in addition to the consistency check for every
judgment matrix, the combination consistency check should also be carried out. The
( p)
combination consistency check can be carried out layer-by-layer. Denote CIi and
( p) ( p−1)

RIi 1≤i ≤n to be the consistency index and the random consistency index
( p) ( p)
of the p-th layer, the consistency index CI(1) and the random consistency index RI(1)
of the p-th layer relative to the first layer are defined as
( p) ( p−1)
CI(1) = C I ( p) w(1) , p≥3 (12.4)
( p) ( p−1)
RI(1) = R I ( p) w(1) , p≥3 (12.5)
T
( p) ( p) ( p)
with C I ( p) = CI1 , CI2 , . . . , CIn ( p−1) and R I ( p) =
T
( p) ( p) ( p)
RI1 , RI2 , . . . , RIn ( p−1) .
( p)
Therefore, the combination consistency ratio CR(1) of the p-th layer relative to
the first layer can be described as
( p)
( p) CI(1)
CR(1) = ( p)
, p≥3 (12.6)
RI(1)
According to the combination consistency check, the hierarchical structure with

( p)
CR(1) < 0.1 has good consistency and in turn, the decision can be done according
to the results expressed by the combination weight vector. Otherwise, it is necessary
to reconstruct the judgment matrices with large consistency ratios, even reestablish
the hierarchical structure model.
12.2 Construction of Hierarchical Structure Model
In order to simplify the problem, the concept of locating point (Wu et al. 2008; Cai
et al. 1997) is often used to analyze the limitation of workpiece DOF. However, in
the actual locating of a workpiece in the fixture, according to the shape and precision
Target layer Structural shape

(p=1) The problem and target
to be solved
Criterion layer
(p=2)
Surface Practical Contact
feature constraint feature Measures and criterions to
achieve the total target
Scheme layer
(p=3)
Candidate schemes
to solve the problem
Supporting Supporting Conical Locating
V block …
pin plate pin sleeve
Fig. 12.1 Hierarchical structure model of locator selection
of the selected locating datum on the workpiece, the locators with corresponding
structure shape should be adopted to limit the workpiece DOFs.
12.2.1 Structural Model
The locator selection aims at mainly determining its structural shape which belongs
to the target layer of hierarchical structure model, as shown in Fig. 12.1.
In the fixture locator selection, three decision indexes including the surface feature
of the workpiece and the locator, the DOFs limited by the locator, and the contact
feature between the workpiece and the locator are mainly considered and they consist
the criterion layer of hierarchical structure model. The scheme layer is all candidate
locators in the fixel library. Here, C1(2) , C2(2) and C3(2) are the surface feature, the
practical constraint and the contact feature, respectively. And, denote the supporting
pin as C1(3) , the supporting plate as C2(3) , the V block as C3(3) , the conical pin as C4(3) ,
the locating sleeve as C5(3) , and so forth.
12.2.2 Selection Factor
It is crucial to consider the effect of locating datum on the selection of a locator.

Therefore, according to the surface feature including the shape, the accuracy, the
area and the number of locating points, the corresponding selection factors can be
defined as follows.
12.2 Construction of Hierarchical Structure Model 329
12.2.2.1 Surface Feature
The locating datum of the workpiece comes in various forms, such as the plane, the
cylinder, the hole, the conical surface, the conical hole, and so on. The feature of
locating datum can strongly influence the selection of fixture locator. Thus, when
the surface feature-typed selection factor is constructed, the surface feature value of
locating datum should be the same as the surface feature value of the candidate locator.
Moreover, because the difficulty of laying a locator out on different locating datum
is different, the surface feature value should be different. Consequently, according to
these two match principles of the surface feature, the surface feature-typed selection
factor t i can be defined as
ti = 0.5|G i −Hi | (12.7)
where H i is the surface type of the i-th locating datum. Gi is the surface type of
the candidate locator corresponding to the i-th locating datum. The values of Hi and
Gi are listed in Table 12.2.
Table 12.2 Value of the surface feature

No Locating datum Locator Hi Gi
1 Plane Supporting pin, Supporting plate, … 1 1
2 Cylinder V block, Locating sleeve, … 2 2
3 Hole Locating pin, Locating spindle, … 3 3
4 Conical surface Conical sleeve, … 4 4
5 Conical hole Lathe center, Conical spindle, Conical pin, … 5 5
6 Other Locating steel ball, … 6 6
Table 12.3 The meaning of

Scale Meaning
scale
1 The two factors are of the same importance
3 The former is slightly more important than the
latter
5 The former is obviously more important than the
latter
7 The former is strongly more important than the
latter
9 The former is extremely more important than the
latter
2, 4, 6, 8 Middle value between the above adjacent scales
12.2.2.2 Practical Constraint
The number of DOFs constrained by the candidate locator cannot less than the
number of locating points. In addition, the ratio between the two should also be an
integer. Otherwise, the under-locating or over-locating will occur during the work-
piece locating. Therefore, the practical constraint-typed selection factor f i can be
defined as

0.9, DPii ∈ int
fi = (12.8)
0.1, DPii ∈
/ int
where Di is the number of locating points on the i-th locating datum. Pi is the
number of DOFs constrained by the candidate locator. int is an integer.
Figure 12.2 shows the process diagram of drilling the though hole for the work-
piece (Qin et al. 2011). The bottom surface A, the side surface B, the side surface
C are locating datums with the surface roughness Ra1 = 6.3, Ra2 = 12.5, Ra3 = 6.3,
respectively. Three locating points 1, 2 and 3 are arranged on the locating datum A.
Two locating points 4 and 5 are laid out on the locating datum B. And one locating
point 6 is placed on the locating datum C. Accordingly, there are D1 = 3, D2 = 2
and D3 = 1.
Fig. 12.2 Layout of locating points

12.2 Construction of Hierarchical Structure Model 331
12.2.2.3 Contact Feature
The greater the surface roughness of the locating datum, the greater the locating
error. At this time, the smaller the contact surface between the candidate locator and
the locating datum, the better the candidate locator. According to GB/T 1031–1995,
The surface roughness is generally taken as 0.012, 0.025, 0.05, 0.1, 0.2, 0.4, 0.8, 1.6,
3.2, 6.3, 12.5, 25, 50, 100, etc. (Wu et al. 2011). Therefore, the contact feature-typed
selection factor ci can be constructed as
⎧ Si
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ 0.1 + 1 − 1
× 0.8, Rai > 10
⎨ log Rai

Si
ci = log Rai (12.9)
⎪ 0.1 + 1 −
⎪ × 0.8, 1 < Rai ≤ 10
⎪
⎪
2
⎩
0.9, Rai ≤ 1
where S i is the contact area of the i-th candidate locator and the locating datum
in cm2 . Rai is the surface roughness of the i-th locating datum.
12.3 Determination of Layer Weight Vector for Criterion

Layer
In the locating point layout scheme of Fig. 12.2, the numbers of locating points
on locating datum A, B, C are 3, 2, 1, respectively. According to the number of
the locating points, surface A, B, C are called the first locating datum, the second
datum, the third datum, respectively. Therefore, the appropriate locators should be
selected according to the sequence of the first, second and third locating datum. The
locator selection is based on the layer weight vector of each locating datum. So the
determination of the layer weight vector of the first locating datum is described in
detail here. The determination of the layer weight vector of other locating datum is
similar to that of the first locating datum.
12.3.1 Construction of Judgement Matrix
The weight of each criterion is determined by comparing with each other so that the
judgment matrix can be constructed successfully. In the analytic hierarchy process,
in order to show the importance of each factor in the matrix quantitatively, the 1 ~ 9
scale method of matrix is introduced, as shown in 12.3.
( p) ( p) ( p)
For the two factors Cs and Ct to be compared, if the importance of Cs
( p) ( p) ( p) ( p)
is the same as Ct , the importance ratio of Cs to Ct is ast = 1 : 1 If the
( p) ( p)
importance of Cs is extremely more important than Ct , the importance ratio of
Fig. 12.3 Weights in the criterion layer
( p) ( p) ( p) ( p)
Cs to Ct is ast = 9 : 1. It is worth noting that the importance ratio of Ct to
( p) ( p) ( p) ( p) ( p) ( p)
Cs is ats = 1/ast if the importance ratio of Cs to Ct is ast . By comparing
( p)
the selection factors in pairs, the ratio can be arranged into a judgment matrix Ai .
(2) (2)
Here, because C1 in the criterion layer is the most important, C2 is more
important, and C3(2) is not so important, the judgment matrix of the criterion layer
relative to the target layer can be preliminary determined as
⎡ (2) ⎤
(2) C C2(2) C3(2)
C1 ⎢ 1
1 3 7 ⎥
A(2)
1 = C2(2) ⎢
⎣ 1/3
⎥ (12.10)
1 5 ⎦
C3(2)
1/7 1/5 1
Denote λ(2) (2) (2)

1 max to be the maximum eigenvalue of A1 , w1 to be the normal-
ized eigenvector (i.e., the candidate layer weight vector) corresponding to λ(2)
1 max ,
the following equation can be depended on to obtain λ(2)1 max = 3.0649 and w (2)
1 =
[0.6491, 0.2790, 0.0719]T .
A(2) (2) (2) (2)

1 w1 = λ1 max w1 (12.11)
(2)
Because the i-th component w1i in w(2)
1 is the weight to rank the corresponding
factor Ci(2) , then the weights of factors in the criterion layer can be obtained, as shown
in Fig. 12.3.
12.3.2 Check of Consistency
The consistency check must be carried out for the judgment matrix A(2) 1 according
to Eqs. (12.1, 12.2). Since the maximum eigenvalue of A(2) 1 is λ (2)
1 max = 3.0649 and
the number of factors in the criterion layer is n = 3, the consistency index CI(2)
(2)
1 is
12.3 Determination of Layer Weight Vector for Criterion Layer 333
λ(2)
max − n
(2)
CI(2)
1 = = 0.0325 (12.12)
n (2) − 1
It is known from Table 12.1 that the random consistency index is RI(2)
1 = 0.58.
(2) (2)
Thus, the consistency ratio RI1 of the judgment matrix A1 can be obtained as
CI(2)
CR(2)
1 =
1
= 0.056 (12.13)
RI(2)
1
Because there exists CR(2) (2)

1 < 0.1, the judgment matrix A1 has the considerable
(2)
consistency. Thus, the normalized eigenvector w1 = [0.6491, 0.2790, 0.0719]T can
be used to be the layer weight vector in the criterion layer.
12.4 Determination of Layer Weight Vector for Scheme

Layer
As shown in 12.1, the layer weight vector in the scheme layer refers to the weight
vector of the scheme layer with respect to the criterion layer. Its calculation is in
detail as follows.
12.4.1 Construction of Judgment Matrix
According to the calculation formulas of selection factors, the surface feature t i , the
practical constraint f i , the contact feature ci can respectively be achieved for the
supporting pin C1(3) , the supporting plate C2(3) , the V block C3(3) , the conical sleeve
C4(3) , the locating sleeve C5(3) , as listed in Table 12.4.
According to the hierarchical structure model illustrated in Fig. 12.1, the rela-
tionship between C1(2) and C1(3) , C2(3) , C3(3) , C4(3) , C5(3) can be obtained to be
shown in Fig. 12.4. Again, based on the value of t i in Table 12.4, the judgment matrix
Table 12.4 Selection factor

Locator Surface Practical Contact
of the first locating datum
feature constraint feature
Supporting pin 1 0.9 0.2317
Supporting plate 1 0.9 0.8704
V block 0.5 0.1 0.1
Conical sleeve 0.25 0.1 0.1
Locating sleeve 0.5 0.1 0.1
(2)
Surface feature CC
1
(3) (3) (3) (3) (3)

wW=0.3077
11 wW=0.3077
12 wW=0.1538
13 wW=0.0769
14 wW=0.1538
15
(3) (3) (3) (3)

Supporting pin CC
1 Supporting plate CC2 V block CC(3)
3 Conical sleeve CC
4 Locating sleeve CC
5
Fig. 12.4 Relationship between the surface feature and locators
A(3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (2)

1 of C 1 , C 2 , C 3 , C 4 , C 5 with respect to C 1 can be constructed as
(12.14)
Thus, the maximum eigenvalue of A(3) 1 is calculated as λ(3) max =

5. And, the normalized eigenvector corresponded to λ(3) 1 max is w (3)
1 =
[0.3077, 0.3077, 0.1538, 0.0769, 0.1538]T .
Figure 12.5 shows the relationship between C2(2) and
(3) (3) (3) (3) (3)
C1 , C2 , C3 , C4 , C5 . The value of f i in Table 12.4 is relied on to
construct its judgment matrix A(3)
2 , i.e.,
(2)
Practical constraint CC
2
(3) (3) (3) (3) (3)

wW=0.4286
21 wW=0.4286
22 wW=0.0476
23 wW=0.0476
24 wW=0.0476
25
(3) (3) (3) (3)

Supporting pin CC
3 Conical sleeve CC
5
Fig. 12.5 Relationship between the practical constraint and locators

12.4 Determination of Layer Weight Vector for Scheme Layer 335
(2)
Contact feature CC
3
(3) (3) (3) (3) (3)

wW=0.1653
31 wW=0.6208
32 wW=0.0713
33 wW=0.0713
34 wW=0.0713
35
(3) (3) (3) (3)

Supporting pin CC
3 Conical sleeve CC
5
Fig. 12.6 Relationship between the contact feature and locators
(12.15)
The maximum eigenvalue and the corresponding normalized eigenvector

of matrix A(3) 2 can easily be calculated as λ(3) 2 max = 5 and w(3) 2 =
[0.4286, 0.4286, 0.0476, 0.0476, 0.0476]T .
Likewise, the relationship between C3(2) and C1(3) , C2(3) , C3(3) , C4(3) , C5(3) can
be plotted in Fig. 12.6. In light of the value of ci in Table 12.4, the judgment matrix
A(3)
3 can be described as
(12.16)
The simple calculation process is carried out to obtain the maximum eigenvalue
and the corresponding normalized eigenvector of matrix A(3) (3)
3 as λ3 max = 5.0001 and
(3)
w3 = [0.1653, 0.6208, 0.0713, 0.0713, 0.0713]T .
12.4.2 Check of Consistency
Because n(3) = 5, the consistency indexes of the matrices A(3) 1 , A(3) (3)
2 and A3 can be
calculated according to Eqs. (12.1, 12.2), as listed in Table 12.5. Since the consistency
Table 12.5 Consistency

Selection factor i 1 2 3
indexes
(3)
λi max 5 5 5.0001
(3)
CIi 0 0 0.000025
RIi(3) 1.12 1.12 1.12
(3)
CRi 0 0 0.000022
index, random consistency index and consistency ratio meet the requirements, the
consistency check is passed.
12.4.3 Decision Index of Locators
The ranking weight of the importance of all factors in the same layer relative to the
highest layer (i.e., target layer) is called the layer weight. Because there is a unique
eigenvector w(2)
1 = [0.6491, 0.2790, 0.0719] in the criterion layer, the layer weight
T
(2)
w(1) of the criterion layer with respect to the target layer is
⎡ ⎤
0.6491
w(2) (2)
(1) = w1 = ⎣ 0.2790 ⎦ (12.17)
0.0719
By analogy, there are the weight vectors w(3) (3) (3)

1 , w2 and w3 in the scheme layer,
(3)
then the layer weight w(2) of the scheme layer with respect to the criterion layer can
be expressed as
⎡ ⎤
0.3077 0.4286 0.1653
⎢ 0.3077 0.6208 ⎥
⎢ 0.4286 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
w(3)
(2) = w(3) (3) (3)
1 , w2 , w3 = ⎢ 0.1538 0.0476 0.0713 ⎥ (12.18)
⎢ ⎥
⎣ 0.0769 0.0476 0.0713 ⎦
0.1538 0.0476 0.0713
According to Eq. (12.3), the combination weight vector w(3)

(1) of the scheme layer
with respect to the target layer is obtained as
⎡ ⎤
0.3312
⎢ 0.3639 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
w(3) (3) (2)
(1) = w(2) · w(1) = ⎢ 0.1182 ⎥ (12.19)
⎢ ⎥
⎣ 0.0683 ⎦
0.1182
12.4 Determination of Layer Weight Vector for Scheme Layer 337
T
It is known from Table 12.4, C I (3) = CI(3)
1 , CI (3)
2 , CI (3)
3 = [0, 0, 0.000025]T
T
and RI(3) = R(3) (3) (3)
1 , RI2 , R3 = [1.12, 1.12, 1.12]T . Thus, according to Eqs.
(12.4, 12.5, 12.6), the consistency check for the combination weight vector can
be carried out as follows
CI(3)
(1) = C I
(3)
· w(2)
(1) = 2.8293 × 10
−6
(12.20)
RI(3)
(1) = R I
(3)
· w(2)
(1) = 1.12 (12.21)
CI(3)
(1)
CR(3)
(1) = = 2.5261 × 10−6 < 0.1 (12.22)
RI(3)
(3)
Obviously, it passes the consistency check which shows the combination weight
vector w(3)
(1) in Eq. (12.19) is the basis of the final decision. Therefore, the support plate
is preferred for the locating datum A among the five candidate locators including the
supporting pin, the supporting plate, the V block, the conical sleeve and the locating
sleeve.
Likewise, the combination weight vectors of the candidate loca-
tors on the second locating datum B and the third locating datum
C are w(3) (1) = [0.2221, 0.1112, 0.3102, 0.1112, 0.2453]T and w(3) (1) =
[0.4048, 0.2658, 0.1264, 0.0765, 0.1264]T , respectively. Consequently, the V
block is preferred for the locating datum B, while the supporting pin is preferred for
the locating datum C.
References
Cai W, Hu SJ, Yuan JX. A variational method of robust fixture configuration design for 3D
workpieces [J]. ASME J Manuf Sci Eng. 1997;119(11):593–602.
Qin GH, Xu JN, Qiu ZM. Generative design approach of locating scheme in automatic fixture
design [J]. Comput Integr Manuf Syst. 2011;17(4):695–700 (in Chinese).
Qin GH, Ye HC, Cui Y, Lu YM. Computer aided fixture design oriented modified design algorithm
for fixture locating scheme [J]. Comput Integr Manuf Syst. 2012;18(10):2145–50 (in Chinese).
for complex workpiece [J]. Int J Prod Res. 2014;52(5):1351–62.
Qin GH, Zhou MD, Ye HC, Huang HP, Li YR. An AHP-based approach to fixture locator selection
[J]. Comput Integr Manuf Syst. 2014;20(2):326–32 (in Chinese).
Qin GH, Wu ZB, Ye HC, Wang ZK. A design algorithm of workpiece locating scheme based on
analytical hierarchy process and locating determination [J]. J Mechan Eng. 2016;52(1):193–203.
Wu YG, Gao SM, Chen ZC. Automated modular fixture planning based on linkage mechanism
theory [J]. Robot Comput Integr Manuf. 2008;24(1):38–49.
Wu TJ, Lou PH, Qin GH. Novel approach to locator layout optimization based on genetic algorithm
[J]. Trans Nanjing Univ Aeron Astron. 2011;28(2):176–82.

Advanced Fixture Design Method and Its Application (2021)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Advanced Fixture Design Method and Its Application (2021)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Guohua Qin

Advanced Fixture Design

ISBN 978-981-33-4492-1 ISBN 978-981-33-4493-8 (eBook)

Jointly published with Shanghai Jiao Tong University Press.

© Shanghai Jiao Tong University Press 2021

Nanchang, China Guohua Qin

2.5.1 Establishment of Locating Point Layout Model . . . . . . . 64

8 Planning Algorithm of Locating Point Layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229

11.2.1 Structure of Neural Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305

Whether in traditional manufacturing industry or modern flexible manufacturing

1.1 Fixturing Method

© Shanghai Jiao Tong University Press 2021 1

1.1.1 Alignment Fixturing

Fig. 1.1 Alignment fixturing on the vice according to the line

1.1.2 Fixture Fixturing

Fig. 1.2 Drilling fixture of 1

1.2 Fixture Structure

Fixture is the main component of technological equipment. Fixture design plays an

1.2.1 Types of Fixtures

1.2.1.1 General Fixture

Fig. 1.3 General fixture

1.2.1.2 Dedicated Fixture

According to the characteristics of mass production, the machining process is divided

Fig. 1.4 Drill jig

1.2.1.3 Adjustable Fixture

(a) Chuck (b) Adjustable jaw 1

(c) Adjustable jaw 2 (d) Adjustable jaw 3

Fig. 1.5 General adjustable three-jaw chuck

(a) Adjustable drill fixture (b) Workpiece family

Fig. 1.6 Sleeve-shaped workpiece and its adjustable drill fixture

machine a radial hole on a family of sleeved-shaped workpiece shown in Fig. 1.6b.

1.2.1.4 Modular Fixture

Fig. 1.7 Modular fixture with hole-based system

1.2.1.5 Phase-Change Fixture

Table. 1.1 Characteristic of

(a) Positioned and solidified in die (b) Encapsulated

(c) Held and Machined (d) Released

Fig. 1.8 Encapsulation phase-change fixture

1.2.1.6 Conformable Fixture

1.2.2 Configuration of Fixtures

Torsional spring Movable jaw

Fig. 1.9 Multi-leaf conformable vice

1.3 Fixture Design

In the manufacturing industry, especially in the mechanical manufacturing industry,

Fig. 1.10 The process of

Locating determination is the precondition to design of locating point layout scheme.

2.1 Model of Theoretical DOF

© Shanghai Jiao Tong University Press 2021 17

Fig. 2.1 Diagram of the

2.1.1 Relationship Between Machining Requirements

Fig. 2.2 Machining surface and its machining requirement

2.1.2 Establishment of Theoretical DOF Model

Denote that rP = [x P , yP , zP ]T and r wP = [x w

Fig. 2.3 Effect of DOFs on machining requirement

v P δt = (vw δt) + r P × (ωw δt) (2.4)

Fig. 2.4 Motion state of workpiece

where δrP = vP δt = [δx P , δyP , δzP ]T is the position variation of P.

2.1.3 Undetermined Coefficient Method

δz w + δαw y P − δβw x P = 0 (2.12)

δz w =δαw +δβw = 0 (2.13)

That is to say, in order to guarantee the machining requirement of size h, the

Because x P , yP and zP are arbitrary numbers, the following condition must be

δxw = δyw = δαw = δβw = δγw = 0 (2.16)

Therefore, five DOFs (δx w , δyw , δα w , δβ w and δγ w ) must be limited to ensure