Advertisement

A general model to estimate hole location deviation in drilling: the contribution of three error sources

  • Wilma Polini
  • Andrea Corrado
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
  • 6 Downloads

Abstract

Geometric accuracy is a critical performance factor for machining, especially when one of the basic requirements is high precision. In this paper, a general and systematic approach is shown to model hole geometric deviation from nominal due to the geometric errors of three important elements of the drilling process: the locators, the workpiece datum surface and the machine tool. The proposed approach was used for calculating the deviation from nominal of lots of drilled holes on a plate in order to evaluate the influence of the locator errors, of the form deviation of the part datum surfaces and of the volumetric error of the machine tool. Those parameters’ influence was evaluated through a design of experiments technique with a factorial plane implemented in a Matlab® file, allowing a saving of time, energy and material. It was found that the volumetric error of the machine tool influenced mainly the drilled hole location deviation from nominal.

Keywords

Drilling accuracy Geometric source error Error model Error separation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Funding information

This research has been partially funded by the Italian Ministry of University and Research (MIUR).

References

  1. 1.
    Shen N, Guo Z, Li J, Tong L, Zhu K (2018) A practical method of improving hole position accuracy in the robotic drilling process. Int J Adv Manuf Tech 96:2973–2978CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tian W, Gao W, Zhang D, Huang T (2014) A general approach for error modeling of machine tools. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 79:17–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Schwenke H, Knapp W, Haitjema H, Weckenmann A, Schmitt R, Delbressine F (2008) Geometric error measurement and compensation of machines-an update. CIRP Ann – Manuf Technol 57(2):660–675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wang M (2000) An optimum design for 3-d fixture synthesis in a point set domain. IEEE T. Robotic Autom. 16(6):839–846CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Choudhuri SA, De Meter EC (1999) Tolerance analysis of machining fixture locators. J Manuf Sci Eng 121(2):273–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Asada H, By A (1985) Kinematic analysis of workpart fixturing for flexible assembly with automatically reconfigurable fixtures. IEEE J Robot Autom 1(2):86–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wang MY, Pelinescu D (2001) Optimizing fixture layout in a point-set domain. IEEE T Robotic Autom 17(3):312–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Los A, Mayer JRR (2018) Application of the adaptive Monte Carlo method in a five-axis machine tool calibration uncertainty estimation including the thermal behaviour. Precis Eng 53:17–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Miller JE, Longstaff AP, Parkinson S, Fletcher S (2017) Improved machine tool linear axis calibration through continuous motion data capture. Precis Eng 47:249–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Yang J, Ding H (2016) A new position independent geometric errors identification model of five-axis serial machine tools based on differential motion matrices. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 104:68–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fu G, Fu J, Xu Y, Chen Z, Lai J (2015) Accuracy enhancement of five-axis machine tool based on differential motion matrix: geometric error modeling, identification and compensation. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 89:170–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chou YC, Chandru V, Barash M (1989) A mathematical approach to automatic configuration of machining fixtures: analysis and synthesis. J Eng Ind Trans ASME 111(4):299–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    DeMeter E (1994) Restraint analysis of fixtures which rely on surface contact. J Eng Ind Trans ASME 116(2):207–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rong Y, Zhu Y (1999) Computer-aided fixture design. Manufacturing engineering and materials processing. Marcel Dekker Inc., New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Soderberg R, Lindkvist L (2003) Automated seam variation and stability analysis for automotive body design. In: Bourdet P, Mathieu L (eds) Geometric product specification and verification: integration of functionality. Springer, Netherlands, pp 255–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Villeneuve F, Legoff O, Bourdet P (2000) Three dimensional geometrical tolerancing in process planning. CIRP J Manuf Sys 30(5):20–39Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gameros A, Lowth S, Axinte D, Nagy-Sochacki A, Craing O, Siller HR (2017) State-of-the-art in fixture systems for the manufacture and assembly of rigid components: a review. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 123:1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Clement A, Bourdet P (1988) A study of optimal-criteria identification based on the small-displacement screw model. CIRP Ann – Manuf Technol 37(1):503–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Weill R, Darel I, Laloum M (1991) The influence of fixture positioning errors on the geometric accuracy of mechanical parts. In: Proceedings of the CIRP conference on production engineering and Manufacturing science, Tianjin, China, pp 215–225Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Carlson JS (2001) Quadratic sensitivity analysis of fixtures and locating schemes for rigid parts. J Manuf Sci Eng 123(3):462–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wang L, Duan F, Liang C (2011) A global optimal algorithm for camera calibration with one-dimensional objects. In: Jacko J (ed) Human-computer interaction. Design and development approaches, vol. 6761 of lecture notes in computer science. Springer, Berlin, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ferreira PM, Liu CR (1986) An analytical quadratic model for the geometric error of a machine tool. J Manuf Syst 5(1):51–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ferreira PM, Liu CR, Merchant E (1986) A contribution to the analysis and compensation of the geometric error of a machining center. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol 35(1):259–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Dorndorf U, Kiridena VSB, Ferreira PM (1994) Optimal budgeting of quasistatic machine tool errors. J Eng Ind 116(1):42–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Chen JX, Lin SW, Zhou XL (2016) A comprehensive error analysis for the geometric error of a multi-axis machine tool. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 106:56–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Tang H, Duan JA, Lan S, Shui H (2015) A new geometric error modeling approach for multi-axis system based on stream of variation theory. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 92:41–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    He Z, Fu J, Zhang X, Shen H (2016) A uniform expression model for volumetric errors of machine tools. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 100:93–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kiridena V, Ferreira PM (1994) Kinematic modeling of quasistatic errors of three-axis machining centers. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 34(1):85–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kiridena V, Ferreira MP (1994) Parameter estimation and model verification of first order quasistatic error model for three-axis machining centers. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 34(1):101–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kiridena V, Ferreira MP (1994) Computational approaches to compensating quasistatic errors of three-axis machining centers. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 34(1):127–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Smith S, Woody B, Miller J (2005) Improving the accuracy of large scale monolithic parts using fiducials. CIRP Ann – Manuf Technol 54(1):483–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Xiang S, Altintas Y (2016) Modeling and compensation of volumetric errors for five-axis machine tools. Int J Mach Tools Manuf 101:65–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Armillotta A, Carrino L, Moroni G, Polini W, Semeraro Q (2003) An analytical approach to machining deviation due to fixturing. In: Bourdet P, Mathieu L (eds) Geometric product specification and verification: integration of functionality. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 175–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Polini W, Moroni G (2007) Position deviation of a holes pattern due to six-point locating principle. In: Davidson JK (ed) Models for computer aided tolerancing in design and manufacturing. Springer, Berlin, pp 201–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Moroni G, Petrò S, Polini W (2014) Robust design of fixture configuration. Proc CIRP 21:189–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Corrado A, Polini W, Moroni G (2016) Robust design of a fixture configuration in the presence of form deviations. Proc CIRP 43:35–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Polini W, Corrado A (2017) Manufacturing signature in jacobian and torsor models for tolerance analysis of rigid parts. Rob Comput-Int Manuf 46:15–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Corrado A, Polini W (2017) Manufacturing signature in variational and vector-loop models for tolerance analysis of rigid parts. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 88:2153–2161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Schleich B, Anwer N, Mathieu L, Wartzack S (2014) Skin model shapes: a new paradigm shift for geometric variations modelling in mechanical engineering. Comput Aided Des 50:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Dornfeld D, Lee DE (2007) Precision Manufacturing. Springer, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kazar BM, Celik M (2012) Spatial autoregression model. Springer, BerlinCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil and Mechanical EngineeringUniversità di Cassino e del Lazio MeridionaleCassinoItaly

Personalised recommendations