Docstoc

display

Document Sample
display Powered By Docstoc
					Preliminary Design
      Review

  Senior Design Team 05:


Gleason Works – Chamfering
   and Deburring Project
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
   Upperlevel 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 Scope
 Design   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
   Utilizescurrent technology
   Frees work area in both Phoenix Gear
    Cutter and Chamfering/Deburring Machine


 Disadvantages
            to access toe on pinions
   Inability

   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
                                                       Tower

       Combine previous                Mounting
                                        Plate and
        attributes                      Cutter
                                        Motor
                                                                    Y
       Centralized work
        piece                                           Work
                                                        Spindle
       Linear Drives
                                           X
       6-axis movement                             X-axis Tracks



       Build design around                                     Tower   Z


        cutting tool
                                                      Cutting
                              Work                    Tool
                              Spindle
Gantry Concept
 Advantages
             and Robust Design
   Simplistic

   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 Benchmarking
Patent Number: 6,571,475
Inventors: Tomei; Umberto (Castenaso, IT)
Assignee: Samputensili S.p.A. (Via Triumvirato, IT)
Appl. No.: 544859
Filed: 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 Removal
Concurring 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
Laser
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
   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
ERGONOMICS
 Worker   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.C
 OSHA
 UL
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: vrm0298@rit.edu

				
DOCUMENT INFO