Document Sample
display Powered By Docstoc
					Preliminary Design

  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
   Primary Market
      Automobile and truck
   Secondary Market
      Aerospace, Farm,
       Construction, Marine
    Defining the Need

   Cutting process for
    creating gears leaves
    behind sharp edges and
          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
Project Scope
 Design   Package
   ProE   top level drawings
   Bill of Materials
   Market assessment
   Feasibility assessment
   Mathematical model to disprove
 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
       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
       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                Mounting
                                        Plate and
        attributes                      Cutter
       Centralized work
        piece                                           Work
       Linear Drives
       6-axis movement                             X-axis Tracks

       Build design around                                     Tower   Z

        cutting tool
                              Work                    Tool
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

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.

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
     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
   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

   No chamfering accomplished
   Undesired brush scratches
   Proper meshing and mechanical dynamics could be jeopardized
Electronic Discharge
Machining (EDM)
   “Blasting” could occur along the appropriate edges of the
    gear teeth
   Chamfering could be accomplished
   Process can occur with fewer axes

 Fails to meet the time requirements due to low indexing
 Fails to meet customer cost per operation hour
   No mechanical contact required
   No typical tooling maintenance is required
   No need for locating axis

   Unable to chamfer
   Parts are not readily available to the customer in a feasible
   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

   Dry cutting process only
   Optical parts exceed the allotted building budget
   Requires too much floor-to-floor time
Water Jet
   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

   Wet cutting process only
   Requires too much floor-to-floor time

   Chamfering and deburring could be accomplished
   Compatible with both wet and dry processes

   Indexing required would cause too much floor-to-floor
   Removal of material from grinding tool
Cutting Tool
 Process utilizes standard shear cutting
 Two different options
       Indexing or Milling Process
       Continuous Process
Indexing or Milling

    Performs both chamfering and deburring processes
    Compatible with both wet and dry processes
    Flexibility of tool types (milling bits, pencil cutters)

    Indexing required would cause too much floor-to-
     floor time
    Potential for cutting on two different axes = more
     complex system
Continuous Process

   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)

   Tooling expense and wear
Methods of Linear Movement
   Axis Systems
       Pneumatic
       Hydraulic
       Air/Hydraulic Power
       Electromechanical
       Screws
            Acme
            Ball
            Roller
            Rotating Nut
Methods of Rotary Power
   Direct drive
       Coupling
 Belt or chain
 Gear
       Eliminates necessity
        to mount motor
        parallel to spindle
   Tool Piece
       Gantry style
            3D space consisting
             of orthogonal axes,
             including 3 rotational
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
 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
 Worker   safety

 Worker   comfort

 Worker   productivity
Areas of Concern
   Tool and work piece movement

   Tool location with respect to the work piece

   Sharp edges
 Use proper models of the human body
 Attempt to design for the population
 ANSUR database
   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
 I.E.C
 UL
Future Topics
 Positioning equipment - absolute position
 Flywheel
 Mean-time to failure
       Screws
       Machine Life
 Chip removal
 Feasibility of auto loading
 Capabilities for wet processing

Contact Info: