Senior Design Team 05: Gleason Works – Chamfering and Deburring Project Preliminary Design Review.
-
date post
24-Jan-2016 -
Category
Documents
-
view
220 -
download
0
Transcript of Senior Design Team 05: Gleason Works – Chamfering and Deburring Project Preliminary Design Review.
Senior Design Team 05:
Gleason Works – Chamfering and Deburring
Project
Preliminary Design Review
Team Introduction Project Manager: Vincenzo Mansueto -ME Lead Engineer: Matthew Liddick -ME Team Member: Brian Banazwski -ME Team Member: Mark Trotta -ME Team Member: Julie Wilcox -ME Team Member: Phil Raduns -EE Team Member: Greg Baesl -ISE Faculty Advisor: Bill Scarbrough Gleasons Representative: Eric Mundt
What is Fly Cutter Chamfering
Project Description
Goal Upper level design of a stand-alone fly cutter
chamfering machine
Final deliverable Upper level assembly drawings Machine component recommendations
Company Background Leading world-wide supplier
of gear cutting technology Subdivision of Gleason
Corporation Primary Market
Automobile and truck industries
Secondary Market Aerospace, Farm,
Construction, Marine
Defining the Need
Cutting process for creating gears leaves behind sharp edges and burrs
Danger to workers Gear strength Contamination Aesthetic
Project Background
Two processes currently used Subsystem on the Phoenix II machine One time modification of the GTR 250 CNC
The Gleason Works has requested a new design for a marketable stand-alone chamfering and deburring machine. New design may also incorporate ideas from current
systems
Project ScopeDesign Package
ProE top level drawings Bill of Materials Market assessment Feasibility assessment Mathematical model to disprove
interference No Physical Prototype
Work Breakdown Structure Design concepts Patents Methods of Removing Material Methods of Movement
Tool Piece Axis Systems
Positioning Control Chucking Methods Industrial Concerns
Phoenix Chamfering Subsystem Modifications
Transfer subsystem to separate CNC machine Machining process
remains the same Possibility to run
both processes on same controller
3-axis movement
Phoenix Chamfering Subsystem Modifications
Advantages Utilizes current technology Frees work area in both Phoenix Gear
Cutter and Chamfering/Deburring Machine
Disadvantages Inability to access toe on pinions Limited pivot capability
Modification of the GTR 250
Employ current technology with adaptations and upgrades Work piece motor Control System Cutter Travel Stock Division
Modification of the GTR 250
Advantages Pre-existing components
Disadvantages Requires vast retrofitting High cost of unit/operation
Articulating Robotic Arm
Advantages Ability for multi
pivot/rotational elements Easily Incorporated Few components
Disadvantages Dead Zones Backlash Cost
Gantry Concept Description
Combine previous attributes
Centralized work piece
Linear Drives 6-axis movement Build design around
cutting tool
X
Y
Work Spindle
Tower
MountingPlate andCutterMotor
X-axis Tracks
Work Spindle
Cutting Tool
Tower Z
Gantry ConceptAdvantages
Simplistic and Robust Design Automation and Wet/Dry Capabilities Reduced Floor-to-Floor Time and Footprint Low Cost of Design and Operation
Disadvantages Ground up design
Patent Infringement Research and Benchmarking
An investigation was conducted using the United States Patent Office website to pursue two goals:
• Aid in Concept Development; Although many design ideas that surfaced during the patent
researched were considered as potential aids to our design, none were used in our final concept decision.
• Infringement Concerns; No patents currently catalogued have been found proven to be a legal
conflict with our design patent intentions. The following patents are of similar inventions but of no direct concern to infringement threats to our design.
• 6,571,475• 6,676,337• 6,050,755• 5,154,553
Patent Infringement Research and BenchmarkingPatent Number: 6,571,475Inventors: Tomei; Umberto (Castenaso, IT) Assignee: Samputensili S.p.A. (Via Triumvirato, IT) Appl. No.: 544859Filed: April 7, 2000
Summary:This patent describes a method of chamfering and deburring of gear teeth by meshing the gear
with a tool having a ring gear; exerting compression between the teeth of the gear and the tool’s ring gear; effecting at first, permanent deformation of the edges to form first chamfer faces; and effecting at least a second permanent deformation between the first and second sides and the respective end faces; the first and the second permanent deformation being effected by means of enbloc tools.
Comments:This patent is not infringed upon by our design because it specifically calls out the
use of a meshing gear to form the teeth, a design we considered, but did not ultimately use.
Methods of Material RemovalConcurring method must comply with the following criteria:
Completely remove burrs remaining from gear teeth cutting process Chamfer the following unsafe sharp edges of gear teeth for handling
purposes:o Concave heel (ring gear and pinion)o Convex Toe (pinion gear only)
One minute floor to floor process time Cost within budget Flexibility for multiple gear sizes and types Wet and dry system compatible
Methods of Material Removal
Brush Electronic Discharge Machining (EDM) Vibratory Laser Water jet Grinding Cutting Tool
Wire Brush
Advantages: Burrs can be removed on all gear sizes through a shear process Brush would cover a long tangential area, so the gear’s teeth would be
exposed to multiple shearing processes during one rotation along its centerline axis
Deburring could occur with fewer axes, specifically without the pitch axis used in some design concepts
Disadvantages: No chamfering accomplished Undesired brush scratches Proper meshing and mechanical dynamics could be jeopardized
Electronic Discharge Machining (EDM)
Advantages: “Blasting” could occur along the appropriate edges of the
gear teeth Chamfering could be accomplished Process can occur with fewer axes
Disadvantages: Fails to meet the time requirements due to low indexing
speed Fails to meet customer cost per operation hour
requirements
Vibratory
Advantages:
No mechanical contact required
No typical tooling maintenance is required
No need for locating axis
Disadvantages:
Unable to chamfer
Parts are not readily available to the customer in a feasible
fashion
LaserAdvantages:
Burrs would be removed and chamfering could be accomplished
Limited amount of mobility is required
No mechanical contact between the tool and work would be made
Better accuracy and closer tolerances can be accomplished
Disadvantages:
Dry cutting process only
Optical parts exceed the allotted building budget
Requires too much floor-to-floor time
Water Jet
Advantages:
Burrs would be removed and chamfering could be
accomplished
Limited amount of mobility is required
No mechanical contact between the tool and work would be
made
Disadvantages:
Wet cutting process only
Requires too much floor-to-floor time
Grinding
Advantages:
Chamfering and deburring could be accomplished
Compatible with both wet and dry processes
Disadvantages:
Indexing required would cause too much floor-to-floor time
Removal of material from grinding tool
Cutting Tool
Process utilizes standard shear cutting practices
Two different options Indexing or Milling Process Continuous Process
Indexing or Milling Process
Advantages:
Performs both chamfering and deburring processes
Compatible with both wet and dry processes
Flexibility of tool types (milling bits, pencil cutters)
Disadvantages:
Indexing required would cause too much floor-to-
floor time
Potential for cutting on two different axes = more
complex system
Continuous Process
Advantages:
Performs both chamfering and deburring processes
Compatible with both wet and dry processes
Faster process time since cutter and work piece operating at
near constant velocities
Range of cutter type (two or four-start cutters utilizing
standardized inserts)
Disadvantages:
Tooling expense and wear
Methods of Linear Movement Axis Systems
Pneumatic Hydraulic Air/Hydraulic Power
booster Electromechanical
cylinders Screws
Acme Ball Roller Rotating Nut
Methods of Rotary Power Transmission Direct drive
Coupling
Belt or chain Gear
Eliminates necessity to mount motor parallel to spindle
Guidance Tool Piece
Gantry style 3D space consisting
of orthogonal axes, including 3 rotational axes.
Position Control System Motor Selection
Servo vs. Stepper AC vs. DC Brush vs. Brushless Rotary vs. Linear
Typical Servo Control System
System Controller Drive/Amplifier Feedback Loops and Device Determination
Chucks Mechanical Drawbar Hydraulic Pneumatic Clamping
Soft Jaw Hard Jaw Collet
Magnetic Chucks Operation
Electro-permanent Safe Consistent holding Fast
Advantages Durable Cost
Disadvantages Jigs needed
ERGONOMICSWorker safety
Worker comfort
Worker productivity
Areas of Concern Tool and work piece movement
Tool location with respect to the work piece
Sharp edges
Anthropometry Use proper models of the human body Attempt to design for the population ANSUR database
Dimensions Door
Top - 192 cm Bottom – 105 cm Width – min 60 cm
Work Piece Function of arm reach and torso length
Arm reach – 75 cm Torso – 45 cm
Control Interface Easy access
Standards I.E.COSHAUL
Future Topics Positioning equipment - absolute position
sensors Flywheel Mean-time to failure
Screws Machine Life
Chip removal Feasibility of auto loading Capabilities for wet processing
Questions?
Contact Info: [email protected]