Optimization of Welding Fixture Layout for

Sheet Metal Components using DOE

ABSTRACT

Machining fixtures are used to locate the workpiece and constrain it during the machining
operation. Fixture layout is the positioning of fixturing elements such as clamps and locators. To
make sure that the workpiece is manufactured according to the specified dimensions and
tolerances, it must be appropriately located and clamped. Machining accuracy is maintained by
minimizing workpiece deformation due to cutting and clamping forces. An ideal fixture design
exhibits minimum deformation while machining. The purpose of this work is to design an
optimum fixture layout which reduces the maximum elastic deformation of the sheet metal
workpiece caused by the clamping and welding forces acting on the workpiece during welding.
This can be achieved by selecting the optimal number of fixture elements with optimum
locations. To find the optimum Fixture layout locating and clamping positions are varied with
the basic of 3-2-1 layout. In this project work, the workpiece fixture contact regions such as
clamps and locators are considered as point contact and the clamping and machining forces are
applied. Other than 3-2-1, N-2-1 locating principle is be demonstrated with sheet metal
workpiece and results are be compared. The workpiece deformation values for the various fixture
layouts are found by ANSYS. The fixture layout optimization is carried out using Response
surface methodology (RSM) to find optimum fixture layout with minimum deformation. Taguchi
method is also used to find the optimum layout using L27 orthogonal array. Then results of RSM
and Taguchi method are compared for optimum layout with minimum deformation Finally the
better locating scheme with optimum fixture layout is found for minimum deformation of the
sheet metal workpiece.

Keywords: Fixture Layout, Elastic Deformation, DOE, RSM , Sheet Metal, Taguchi
 INTRODUCTION

Resistance Spot Welding (RSW) has been used for decades as a joining method for sheet
metal. Weld bonded is a combination of resistance spot welding and adhesive bonding, which
has gathered wide acceptance as an effective joining method for significant enhancement of
static, dynamic and impact resistance of the joint. It also improves the corrosion and noise
resistance as well as stiffness of the joint, compared to those observed in case of conventional
resistance spot welding. Industrial applications such as automobile and aerospace are good
examples of using weld-bonded process.
The fixture is a special tool for holding a work piece in proper position during
manufacturing operation. For supporting and clamping the work piece, device is provided.
Frequent checking, positioning, individual marking and non-uniform quality in manufacturing
process are eliminated by fixture. This increase productivity and reduce operation time. Fixture
is widely used in the industry practical production because of feature and advantages.Machining
fixture is a precision device meant for locating and constraining the workpiece during machining.
This work focuses on machining fixtures. A machining fixture is used to establish and maintain
the required position and orientation of a workpiece so that cutting operations can be performed
on the workpiece. It is a critical link in the machining system as it directly affects operational
safety and part quality. A typical machining fixture consists of a base plate and a number of
locators and clamps. Locators are passive fixture elements used to position the workpiece while
clamps are active fixture elements that can be actuated mechanically, pneumatically, or
hydraulically to apply clamping forces onto the workpiece so that it can resist external forces
generated by the machining operation. There are a variety of fixture designs. The geometry of
the contact region between a fixture element and the workpiece can be a point, line, or plane.

An important consideration in the fixture design process is to design the fixture layout.
Design of fixture layout is a procedure to establish the workpiece fixture contact through
positioning of clamps and locating elements such that the workpiece elastic deformation is
minimized. Fixture design plays an important role at the planning phase before shop floor
production. Proper fixture design is crucial to product quality in terms of precision, accuracy and
surface finish of the machined parts.
 WELDING FIXTURES

Resistance spot welding represents a welding technique where the weld is made by a
combination of heat, pressure, and time. The electrical resistance of the material to be welded
causes a localized heating at the interface of the parts to be joined.

The pressure exerted by the tongs and electrode tips, through which the current flows,
holds the parts to be welded in intimate contact before, during, and after the welding current time
cycle. The actual weld nugget is formed internally with relation to the surface of the base metal.
The required amount of time current flows in the joint is determined by material thickness and
type. Figure 1 shows setup of resistance spot welding.

Figure 1. Spot welding setup

 LITERATURE REVIEW

Fixtures are very important component in the manufacturing system. A fixture is used to
hold and locate the workpiece in the desired orientation during the manufacturing process. The
components that hold and locate the workpiece are called fixture elements. The arrangement of
these fixture elements is very important to reduce the errors in manufacturing process.

STUDIES RELATED FIXTURE LAYOUT DESIGN AND OPTIMIZATION

Based on sheet metal workpiece

Das, Franciosa et al. (2015) proposed a new approach to improve the probability of
joining feasibility index by determining an N-2-1 fixture layout optimized for a production batch
of non-ideal sheet metal parts. The proposed methodology is based on: (i) generation of
composite parts to model shape variation within given production batch; (ii) selection of
composite assembly representing production batch; (iii) parameterization of fixture locators; and
(iv) calculation of analytical surrogate model linking composite assembly model and fixture
locators to probability of joining feasibility index. Xing, Hu et al. (2015) proposed a new
method to optimize fixture scheme by a non-domination sorting social radiation algorithm
(NSSRA). Firstly, unfeasible nodes are eliminated by four rules according to manufacturing
experiences. Afterwards, a few groups are divided based on positions of all feasible nodes. N
groups are optimized using NSSRA. Finally, the best fixture layout is generated by selecting the
feasible points among the optimal groups in last step.

Yu and Yang (2015) proposed new assembly variation modeling method of compliant
sheet metal parts combines the rigid and compliant characteristics of sheet metal parts. An
assembly variation modeling method of a rigid part under a 3-2-1 locating layout is given using
its spatial motion relationship when some fixture locating variation happens. Based on this
method, a multi-divided rigid area assembly variation modeling method can be obtained
according to part’s bending deforming principle during the locating process.

Lu and Wang (2016) proposed a positioning variation analysis approach for the sheet
metal workpiece with N-2-1 locating scheme, where the positioning process includes two stages:
deterministic positioning with 3-2-1 locating scheme and over-constraining positioning with N-
2-1 locating scheme. In positioning variation analysis, the change of the contact force between
the sheet metal workpiece and the fixture components in practical positioning process is
analyzed, the method to conclude the contact force in different positioning step is presented, and
the effect of the contact force between the sheet metal workpiece and the fixture components on
the deformation of the workpiece is considered in positioning variation analysis.

Cai (2008) developed a method for fixture optimization for sheet panel assembly considering
welding gun variations. A fixture optimization model is formulated to minimize the assembly
dimensional variations under welding gun variations. The method is verified by numerical
examples. Ma, Wang et al. (2011) presented a paper on compliant fixture layout design
using topology optimization method. This paper is mainly focused on the fixture layout design
with compliant model. A topology optimization approach is presented in order to reduce the
complexity introduced by the high computational cost of the finite element equation solving and
the exhaustive search in the point set domain. With finite element analysis, algorithms are
developed for the optimization problem of locator synthesis in the point set domain.

Cheng, Li et al. (2012) developed a fixture layout method to minimize the assembly
variation of Aeronautical Thin-Walled Structures (ATWS). This approach uses a genetic
algorithm and ant’s algorithm (GAAA) to optimize the fixture layout.Xiong, Molfino et al.
(2013) proposed a new fixture layout optimization method N-2-1-1 for flexible aerospace
workpiece. The objective function of the optimization algorithm is to minimize the maximum
elastic deformation at the machined point.Ahmad, Zoppi et al. (2013) proposed a new fixture
layout optimization method N-3-2-1 for large metal sheets that combines the genetic algorithm
and finite element analysis. The objective function is to minimize the sum of the nodal deflection
normal to the surface of the workpiece.

Based on rigid body workpiece

According to Prabhaharan, Padmanaban et al. (2007) presented a machining fixture

layout optimization method using FEM and evolutionary techniques that minimized the
dimensional and form errors. In this paper, the workpiece deformation is modeled using Finite
Element Method (FEM).In this paper, Genetic Algorithm (GA) and Ant Colony Algorithm
(ACA) were applied separately and fixture layout was optimized. Here, three different number of
node systems are defined on the same workpiece geometry to find the consistency in the
performance of GA and ACA. The solution obtained for each node system using GA and ACA is
compared with their respective optimal solution separately. Finally, it is seen that ACA reports
faster and accurate solutions.

The most usual optimization methods implemented are mathematical programming

approaches, penalty function methods, simulated annealing, genetic algorithm, and ant colony
algorithm. The mathematical programming methods can be classified as linear programming
(LP), linear & quadratic integer programming (LQP), dynamic programming (DP), goal
programming (GP) and sequential quadratic programming (SQP).

Roy and Liao (1999) presented a technique based on the qualitative and quantitative
reasoning to find the optimal supporting, locating, and clamping positions. Geometric reasoning
is an indispensable part of an automated fixture design system and discussed general algorithms
to verify the preliminary fixture configuration, as obtained by using 3-2-1 locating rules against
workpiece deformation and workpiece-tool interference. The paper also addresses the issues of
implementing the algorithm in a prototype, automated fixture design system.

Amaral, Rencis et al. (2005) developed a method to analyze the deformation of the
contact area between modular fixture and tool to find the optimum support locations, using finite
element analysis (FEA). ANSYS has been used for the analysis and optimization. The locators
are placed in 3-2-1 principle. The objective function of this methodology is to minimize the
maximum resultant deflection and assessing workpiece stability. Most of the above studies are
applied to the rigid bodies and use linear or nonlinear programming methods.

Li and Melkote (2001) presented an approach for fixture layout and clamping force
optimization. This approach considers the workpiece dynamics during machining. The objective
function of this approach is to minimize the maximum positional error at the machining point
during machining. An iterative fixture layout and clamping force optimization algorithm yields
the best results that are verified by simulations. Tan, Kumar et al. (2004) described an approach
for the modeling, analysis and verification of optimal fixture design. The methods of force
closure, optimization and finite element modeling (FEM) are used in this approach.

Based on optimization technique

Krishnakumar and Melkote (2000) presented a fixture layout optimization technique that
uses the genetic algorithm (GA) to find the fixture layout that minimizes the deformation of the
machined surface due to clamping and machining forces over the entire tool path. Since the GA
deals with only the design variables and objective function for the particular fixture layout, no
gradient or auxiliary information is needed. The advantages of the GA-based method over
previously reported nonlinear programming methods for fixture layout optimization are
discussed. The implementation of GA is relatively straight-forward. Two GA-based fixture
layout optimization approaches are implemented and compared by applying them to several two-
dimensional example problems for entire cutting process.

Kulankara, Satyanarayana et al. (2002) has presented GA-based iterative fixture layout
and clamping force design optimization procedure for a compliant workpiece. The algorithm
minimizes the workpiece elastic deformation for the entire cutting process by alternatively
varying the fixture layout and clamping force is proposed.

The problems of synthesizing robust optimal clamping schemes on three-dimensional

parts with planar faces, with and without friction are addressed by Rodrigo and Marin and
Ferreira (2002). They proposed a method to compute optimum clamping forces and positions on
cylindrical faces. Also Amaral, Rencis et al. (2005) studied about the minimisation of the
maximum resultant displacement in the workpiece as a result of applied machining loads mainly
concerned to local displacements. They concluded that in using ANSYS software for optimising
fixture systems, SOLID45 element was suitable for meching prismatic geometry. The locator
model should be a point rather than a surface area. Also the loads applied could be applied to a
point and not as distributed load. Under these considerations they proposed a method that gives
minimised displacement in the workpiece.
 Finite element analysis and optimization in fixture design was presented by Kashyap and
DeVries (1999). This paper is concerned with minimizing deformation of the workpiece due to
machining loads about fixturing support positions, especially in thin castings. Finite element
analysis is used in simulating the deformation of the workpiece at selected points. An
optimization algorithm is developed to minimize deflections at these selected nodal points by
considering the support and tool locations as design variables.

Improved Algorithm for Tolerance-Based Stiffness Optimization of Machining Fixtures

was presented by Hurtado and Melkote (2001). This paper presents a model for stiffness
optimization of machining fixtures based on the tolerance limit specified for the machined part
surface. Based on the stiffness optimization model presented here, the optimum dimensions of
the fixture elements are also determined. This model proved to be generic enough to be used for
the design of dedicated or flexible fixtures consisting of mechanical elements

A genetic algorithm-based fixture locating positions and clamping schemes optimization

was presented by Liao (2003). This paper proposed a genetic algorithm (GA)-based optimization
method to select automatically the optimal numbers of locators and clamps as well as their
optimal positions in sheet-metal assembly fixtures. The method is done in such a way that the
workpiece deformation due to the gravity effect and resulting variation due to part dimensional
variation are simultaneously minimized. The application result of a real industrial part
demonstrated that the proposed algorithm effectively achieves the objective.

Sanchez, Estrems et al. (2006) proposed two analysis methods for analyzing fixturing
systems in machining processes .This was done in order to determine the most suitable clamping
regions. The contact load at the fixture-workpiece interface is calculated first and then the valid
clamping regions are determined.

Qin, Zhang et al. (2006) presented a general analysis methodology that is able to
characterize the effects of localization source errors based on the position and orientation of the
workpiece. A comparative study was also made between the optimal solution and the empirical
one. At the end, an experiment has been made to validate the fixture locating scheme for a
cylindrical workpiece. This robust design method effectively achieves stable machining
precision in workpiece.

Optimal fixture design in peripheral milling of thin-walled workpiece was presented by

Liu, Zheng et al. (2006). A finite element model along with an accurate cutting forces model is
proposed in this paper, in order to optimize the positions of the locators in peripheral milling of a
thin-walled workpiece. So this paper deals with the optimization of the positions of the locators
on the secondary locating surface. A method including two steps is presented. In the first step,
the initial positions of the locators are determined by adding the locators at the position with the
maximum deformation. In the second step, a heuristic algorithm is proposed to optimize the
positions of the locators. Finally, a simulation example is used to illustrate the method

Kaya (2006) proposed that deformation of the workpiece may cause dimensional
problems in machining. Supports and locators are used in order to reduce the error caused by
elastic deformation of the workpiece. The optimization of support and locator locations is a
critical problem to minimize the geometric error in workpiece machining. In this paper, the
application of genetic algorithms (GAs) to the fixture layout optimization is presented to handle
fixture layout problem.

Aoyama, Kakinuma et al. (2006) the fixturing process for holding and locating workpiece
on machine tools is essential in manufacturing systems. In this study, a new fixturing support
system is proposed. The elastic deformation of the workpiece caused by the fixturing forces is
analyzed by the finite element method, and the optimum fixturing position which results in the
minimum form error of the surface to be machined is determined.

Optimal Determination of Locator Layout Based on Hybrid Method of Empirical

Analysis with Generic Algorithm was presented by Tiejun, Peihuang et al. (2010). A new
approach to locator layout determination for work pieces with arbitrary complex surfaces is
proposed for the first time. First, the proper locating datum and locator numbers are empirically
determined in light of three main design guideline including 3-2-1R (plane, orientation, and
point), 3-2-1C (plane, centering, and point) and 4-1-1 (centering, point, point) combinations.
Secondly, the optimal locator positions are determined by generic algorithm.
 Liu, Zheng et al. (2006) presented an Optimization of the number and positions of fixture
locators in the peripheral milling of a low-rigidity workpiece. In this paper, a method is proposed
to optimize the fixture layout in the peripheral milling of a low-rigidity workpiece. Because the
locators on the secondary locating surface directly influence the deformation of the workpiece in
peripheral milling, this paper deals with the optimization of the number and positions of the
locators on the secondary locating surface. Using the method proposed in this paper, the number
of locators is reduced, while the machining accuracy of the workpiece is retained.

Hybrid Optimization of Pin type fixture Configuration for Free Form Workpiece was
presented by Afzeri (2008). This paper presents an automatic mechanism using pin type fixture
for holding a workpiece during machining process. The hybrid optimization algorithm is
introduced to obtain the optimum configuration of pin type fixture. Combination between
Genetic Algorithms (GAs) and Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) algorithms is enabled to
determine optimum clamping with respect to minimum workpiece deformation. PSO rule is
further performed based on the result of GAs for obtaining global optimum of objective function.

Chen, Ni et al. (2008) presented a fixture layout design and clamping force optimization
procedure based on the GA and FEM. In which multi objective optimization procedure is used.
The objectives are minimizing the maximum deformation of the machined surfaces and
maximizing the uniformity of the deformation. The ANSYS software package has been used for
FEM calculation of fitness values.

Padmanaban, Arulshri et al. (2009) presented a Machining fixture layout design using ant
colony algorithm based continuous optimization method. In this paper, an ant colony algorithm
(ACA) based discrete and continuous optimization methods are applied for optimizing the
machining fixture layout so that the workpiece elastic deformation is minimized. The finite
element method (FEM) is used for determining the dynamic response of the workpiece caused
due to machining and clamping forces. The dynamic response of the workpiece is simulated for
all ACA runs. This paper proves that the ACA-based continuous fixture layout optimization
method exhibits the better results than that of ACA-based discrete fixture layout optimization
method.
 Selvakumar, Arulshri et al. (2010), In this paper, the deformation of the workpiece can be
minimized by optimizing the parameters such as Clamping forces, Number of locators and
clamps and Positions of locators and clamps. The system gives minimum deformation when
clamping forces are minimum. The minimum clamping forces required to hold the workpiece
can be determined by using balancing force moment method and the coulomb static friction law.
Optimization of machining fixture layout for tolerance requirements under the influence of
locating errors was presented by Vishnupriyan, Majumder et al. (2010). They proposed a GA
based optimization method to arrive at a layout of error containing locators for minimum
machining error. In this work the locators are assumed to contain error in their normal direction.
This method satisfied the tolerance requirements and provided deterministic location. The fixture
layout and the corresponding machining errors were optimized.

Selvakumar, Arulshri et al. (2013) presented genetic algorithm (GA) based optimization
procedure to solve the fixture layout optimization problem is briefly explained, and then
combined GA and artificial neural network (ANN) based optimization procedure for fixture
layout design is explained. In the combined GA and ANN approach, the resulting fixture layouts
generated by GA are given as input to ANN and the maximum workpiece deformation for each
fixture layout is found out by using ANN. The optimal fixture layout is the one which shows the
minimum deformation among others. The results that are obtained by using GA and the
combination of GA and ANN are compared.

SUMMARY OF LITERATURE REVIEW

The above literature are focused on fixture layout design of fixtures using different
locating principles (3-2-1 and N-2-1). From selected locating principle suitable optimization
technique is used. Results are verified using case studies.

 Most of the literatures studied rigid-body model or workpiece-elastic contact model,

and elastic deformation was not considered in many of the works.
 Although, the finite-element method is best suited for predicting an elastic
deformation of the workpiece and reaction forces, it has been mainly used for
determining the elastic deformation at workpiece–fixture contact points.
  Most of the studies do not consider the dynamic machining forces in the fixture
layout optimization design to minimize the dynamic response of the workpiece.
 Most researchers used 3-2-1 locating principle to locate the prismatic work piece.
 Most researchers considered 2D workpiece-fixture layout by ignoring the normal
force acting on the workpiece during machining.
 Most researchers have optimized the fixture layout using nonlinear optimization
methods, which do not give a global solution or near-optimal solution. One more
drawback is that as the nonlinear programming method requires initial fixture layouts,
its solution is dependent on the initial feasible fixture layouts.
 Many of the studies compared 3-2-1 with N-2-1 locating principles.
 Assembly and positional variation are considered in above studies.
 Response surface methodology is used in few studies for getting optimum fixture
layout.

PROBLEM DEFINITION

From the literature, following problems are identified

(1) Plastic and elastic deformation of workpiece during welding.

(2) Excess or unwanted locators.
(3) Lack of flexibility in producing wide range of parts.
(4) Positional variance of workpiece.

OBJECTIVES OF THE PROPOSED WORK

The objectives of proposed work are

 To minimize the deformation of workpiece for reducing dimensional and form errors.
 To find out optimum number of locators and clamps.
 To select the effective locating principle.
 To select the suitable optimization technique.
 METHODOLOGY

Initial process information

Devloping a model

Analyzing (3-2-1 and N-2-1) model

Comparing results of developed model

with existing model (3-2-1)

Selection of optimization technique

Optmization parameters

Optimum layout

Comparing RSM and Taguchi results

Figure 2. Process chart for fixture layout optimization

STEPS IN FIXTURE DESIGN

Successful fixture designs begin with a logical and systematic plan. With a complete
analysis of the fixture's functional requirements, very few design problems occur. When they do,
chances are some design requirements were forgotten or underestimated. The workpiece,
processing, tooling and available machine tools may affect the extent of planning needed.
Preliminary analysis may take from a few hours up to several days for more complicated fixture
designs. Fixture design is a five step problem-solving process. The following is a detailed
analysis of each step. Methodology of this work is shown in figure 2.

SELECTION OF FIXTURING SCHEME FOR SHEET METAL WELDING

Designing of jigs and fixtures depends upon so many factors. These factors are analyzed
to get design inputs for jigs and fixtures. The list of such factors is mentioned below:

 Study of workpiece and finished component size and geometry.

 Type and capacity of the machine, its extent of automation.
 Provision of locating devices in the machine.
 Available clamping arrangements in the machine.
 Available indexing devices, their accuracy.
 Evaluation of variability in the performance results of the machine.
 Rigidity and of the machine tool under consideration.
 Study of ejecting devices, safety devices, etc.
 Required level of the accuracy in the work and quality to be produced.

COMPARISON OF LOCATING PRINCIPLES

Six-pin method (3-2-1 method)

The (3-2-1) locating principle is used to arrest the motion of workpiece. Motion is
restricted using clamps and locators. This method of locating scheme is shown in figure 3.
  A three pin base can restrict five motions.
 Rotation about X, Y axes (4 motions)
 Translation along negative z-axis (1 motion)
 Directions nine, ten and eleven are restricted by a clamping device (3 motions).
 To restrict the movement of the part around the ZZ axis and in direction eight, two
more pin type locators are positioned in a vertical plane.(3 motions)
 A single pin locator in vertical plane restricts motion along direction 7.
 So motions in all 12 directions are restricted.

Figure 3. 3-2-1 locating principle

(N-2-1) method

Figure 4. N-2-1 locating principle

 Due to the low stiffness of the sheet metal workpiece, it is very easy to be deformed in
machining and assembly process. Therefore, to ensure the quality of the sheet metal workpiece in
manufacturing or assembly, N-2-1 locating scheme is usually used not only for locating the sheet
metal workpiece, but also for restraining the excessive workpiece deformation by providing the
sufficient support on the workpiece. This method of locating principle is shown in figure 4

ANALYSIS OF FIXTURE LAYOUTS

3-2-1 Locating principle

A rigid body is fully constrained with minimum fixture elements by the 3-2-1 locating
principle. This principle is the traditional principle for locating the prismatic shaped workpieces.
According to this principle, (3, 2, 1) locators are enough to constrain the workpiece. The locating
principle 3-2-1 constrains the rigid body motion (six degree of freedom). Let us consider a sheet
metal plate. The dimensions of the sheet metal are 800mm x 600mm x 1mm are taken from
Zeshan Ahmad, Matteo Zoppi, and Rezia Molfino(2013). The finite element model of the plate
with boundary conditions is shown in Figure 5. We analyze the deformation under the self-
weight of the plate in 3-2-1 fixturing principle. The deformation results show that deformation of
the plate is very high.

Figure 5 Boundary conditions of 3-2-1 locating scheme

 The deformation of this locating principle is shown in Figure 5.4.This high value of
deformation produces the geometric errors in manufacturing process, which is not acceptable.
The above discussion shows that 3-2-1 fixturing principle is not valid for sheet metal due to their
flexible nature. So, more than 3 locators are required to reduce the deflection of the workpiece
normal to the surface. When a force is applied to the metal sheet, like a drilling force or a
resistance spot welding, the sheet deflects in direction normal to its surface.

Figure 6. Deformation of workpiece for 3-2-1 locating scheme

N-2-1 Locating principle

N-2-1 locating principle is valid for large sheet metal parts due to their flexible nature.
According to this principle, 2-1 locators are enough to constrain the sheet metal in the secondary
and tertiary plane, but N locators are required to constrain the metal sheet in the primary plane
due to its flexible nature. The value of the N locators must be equal to or greater than 4. This
number of locators depends on the geometry and dimensional specification of the workpiece.
The boundary conditions of N-2-1 locating scheme is shown in Figure 7.
 Figure 7. Boundary conditions for N-2-1 locating scheme

N-2-1 fixturing principle satisfies the two conditions required for fixturing the workpiece.
1. It constrains the workpiece fully in six degree of freedom.

2. It also satisfies that, deformation of the workpiece is in the elastic range.

The deformation of this principle is shown in Figure 8.. The arrangement of locators is very
important because the success of this principle depends on it. This arrangement can be achieved
by fixture layout optimization method.

Figure 8. Deformation of workpiece for N-2-1 locating scheme

VALIDATION OF N-3-2-1 LOCATING SCHEME

The deformation value in this fixturing principle 1-3-2-1 is 4.5 times less than the 3-2-1
fixturing principle, which seems to be acceptable to the manufacturing process. We can reduce
this deformation more by adding more locators. It is clear that 3-2-1 locating scheme is not valid
for sheet metal due to high deformation values. Different versions of N-2-1 locating scheme can
be used for sheet metal operations.

FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF WORKPIECE FIXTURING SYSTEM

The finite element software ANSYS 14.5 has been employed to model workpiece–fixture
system and to determine the workpiece deformation. During machining and clamp actuation, the
workpiece deformation is significantly influenced by the position of fixture elements. Hence, it is
essential to determine appropriate position for the locators and clamps to minimize the maximum
deformation of the workpiece. The flow chart for finite element analysis is shown in figure 9.

Start FEM

Workpiece modelling
Generate locator
Apply thermal force

Simulate thermal Apply clamping force

force
Generate spot

Simulate welding

Coupled field

Deformation

Figure 9. Flow chart for finite element analysis

Spot welding simulation parameters

The welding parameters for spot welding are given in the table 1.

Table 1 Spot welding simulation parameters

Types of operation Resistance spot welding

Welding temperature 1021K
Welding force 100N
Clamping force 150N
Welding current 9450A
Weld time 12sec

5.4.2 Workpiece geometry and properties

The workpiece fixture system presented by Li and Tang (2006) is considered as case
study for the fixture layout optimization problem described in this work.

Figure 10. Workpiece geometry

The geometry and features of workpiece are shown in figure 10. The material of the
workpiece is mild steel with Poisson ratio 0.3, Young’s modulus of 207 GPa and the density of
7850 kg/m³. The outline dimensions are 80×40×2 mm and 80×40×1 mm.
Parameters involved

In the fixture layout optimization problem, we need to minimize the deformation in the
sheet metal workpiece. The parameters involved which influence the deformation of the
workpiece are

 Clamping forces
 Welding forces
 Position of locators and clamps
 Material of the workpiece
 Number of locators and clamps

In this work, minimum clamping forces to restrain the workpiece and the welding forces
that are required to carry out the spot welding operation is selected for analysis. The 4-2-2 fixture
layout is selected. Since this method provides maximum rigidity with the minimum number of
fixturing elements. So only by varying the positions of locators the fixture layout is optimized to
minimize the deformation of the workpiece. So the design variables are the position of the
locators and clamps.

In the fixture layout eight locators and four clamps are used to constrain the workpiece.
Each element has three coordinate values. So the number of variables will be thirty six. In all
cases, one variable in each element remain constant. Also, one more variable is assumed to be
constant. So now the design variables are reduced in to twelve.

The design variables are,

 The position of L1 varies only along the X direction

 The position of L2 varies only along the X direction
 The position of L3 varies only along the X direction
 The position of L4 varies only along the X direction
 The position of L5 varies only along the Y direction
 The position of L6 varies only along the Y direction
 The position of L7 varies only along the Y direction
  The position of L8 varies only along the Y direction
 The position of C1 varies only along the Y direction
 The position of C2 varies only along the X direction
 The position of C3 varies only along the X direction
 The position of C4 varies only along the Y direction

The position of the locators and clamps and their boundary values are tabulated in table 2.

Table 2 Boundary values of locators and clamps

Fixturing elements Boundary values (mm)

Locator 1 (L₁) X=10 to 59

Locator 2 (L₂) X=81 to 130

Locator 3 (L₃) X=10 to 59

Locator 4 (L₄) X=81 to 130

Locator 5 (L₅) Y=5 to 35

Locator 6 (L₆) Y=5 to 35

Locator 7 (L₇) Y=5 to 35

Locator 8 (L₈) Y=5 to 35

Clamp 1 (C₁) Y=5 to 35

Clamp 2 (C₂) X=10 to 59

Clamp 3 (C₃) X= 81 to 130

Clamp 4 (C₄) Y=5 to 35

FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF WORKPIECE

The following assumptions are made for the finite-element formulation:

 Workpiece is an elastic body whereas the fixturing elements are rigid body
  The number of degree of freedom per node is three
 Locators are modelled as displacement constraints that prevent workpiece translation
in the normal direction
 The clamping forces are modelled as a point force acting over the workpeice-clamp
contact point

The finite-element meshes of these models are generated using eight-node-linear brick
reduced integration elements. Meshed model of the sheet metal workpiece is shown in figure 11.

Figure 11. Meshed model of the workpiece

Transient thermal analysis

A thermal analysis of heat conduction was carried out in the first step to obtain
temperature distribution histories over the structural model. Boundary conditions of transient
thermal analysis is shown in figure 5.11. The material model in which its response over the
history was determined by the temperature-dependent material properties inputted. Temperature
distribution of transient thermal analysis is shown in figure 12.
 Figure 12. Boundary conditions of transient thermal analysis

Figure 13. Temperature distribution of transient thermal analysis

Static structural analysis

In the next step, a structural analysis was carried out to obtain the mechanical response of
the structural model, where the temperature history obtained from the first step was employed as
a thermal load in the analysis. The material model in which its response over the history was
determined by the temperature-dependent material properties inputted. The boundary condition
or constraint on the structural model needs also to be assigned accordingly. Boundary conditions
for static structural analysis is shown in figure 14.
 Figure 14. Boundary conditions for static structural analysis

Coupled field analysis

The material model in which its response over the history was determined by the
temperature-dependent material properties inputted. The boundary condition or constraint on the
structural model needs also to be assigned accordingly. Deformation of Coupled field analysis is
shown in figure 15.

Figure 15. Deformation of Coupled field analysis

 OPTMIZATION OF FIXTURE LAYOUT USING DOE

In this work, Design of Experiments (DOE) based optimization procedure is used to solve
the dimensional and form problems occur in the sheet metal spot welding assembly process.
Along with Finite element method, DOE based methodology is used to specify the optimal
locating and clamping points for minimum workpiece deformation. The preliminary experiments
are planned and conducted by systematic and random search to identify the most promising
region where the maximum workpiece deformation is minimum and is used to find the potential
range for the design parameters.

The relationship between position of fixture elements and maximum workpiece

deformation is modeled in the most promising region to find the optimal solution. The
corresponding values of position of locators and clamps for the two consecutive minimum of
maximum workpiece deformation provides the desirable potential range for the design
parameters

RESPONSE SURFACE METHODOLOGY

DOE is an important tool for designing processes and products. Response surface
methodology (RSM) is a collection of mathematical and statistical techniques for empirical
model building. By careful design of experiments, the objective is to optimize a response (output
variable) which is influenced by several independent variables (input variables). An experiment
is a series of tests, called runs, in which changes are made in the input variables in order to
identify the reasons for changes in the output response. The application of RSM to design
optimization is aimed at reducing the cost of expensive analysis methods and their associated
numerical noise. An advantage is the ability to handle discrete variables. The design of
experiments using RSM is shown in table 3..

 Software used: Design Expert

 Method used: CCD (Fraction factorial)
 Factors – 12
 Levels – 3
  No of runs – 110
Table 3. Design of experiments using RSM

STD RUN Location of fixturing elements (mm) Deformation

L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L8 C1 C2 C3 C4 (mm)
57 1 48 88 45 116 10 14 35 12 30 15 83 10 0.047387
11 2 46 85 15 120 32 11 31 9 11 49 84 28 0.0519
54 3 11 118 17 89 7 31 12 11 13 17 122 34 0.075218
32 4 53 128 23 93 29 33 11 13 7 25 97 7 0.0816
4 5 14 82 11 115 6 7 27 28 6 45 116 7 0.056466
27 6 23 95 59 130 11 34 31 15 8 23 94 35 0.0648
31 7 14 127 57 92 30 34 28 26 32 59 128 8 0.08736
106 8 36 105 36 105 21 21 21 21 21 36 105 21 0.082938
94 9 38 109 38 109 23 23 30 21 21 40 111 21 0.07831
1 10 11 114 44 81 26 5 5 26 26 44 114 26 0.073241
109 11 33 102 33 102 24 24 24 24 24 33 102 24 0.07189
10 12 22 119 14 119 8 10 30 8 29 14 83 12 0.08362
34 13 55 97 25 94 9 32 10 27 6 57 130 30 0.0642
98 14 42 113 42 113 19 19 19 19 30 42 111 17 0.077909
39 15 20 95 23 96 6 28 7 8 30 25 94 27 0.0671
2 16 15 115 10 114 27 26 6 27 5 10 81 5 0.084073
108 17 34 103 34 103 23 23 23 23 23 34 103 23 0.073943
25 18 52 93 57 89 33 33 14 30 34 56 93 33 0.0494
8 19 20 117 13 84 30 9 28 31 9 13 119 11 0.084924
56 20 47 89 16 117 9 32 34 34 29 16 121 32 0.067917
38 21 57 128 24 124 7 29 27 9 8 54 95 26 0.0856
52 22 54 120 18 90 33 13 10 9 27 48 86 35 0.07642
16 23 48 87 50 87 11 14 13 10 14 51 88 14 0.0656
62 24 16 85 13 114 30 12 15 30 34 12 119 13 0.075942
24 25 25 125 20 88 13 32 32 14 10 55 92 9 0.0837
28 26 22 96 58 91 32 35 30 28 35 24 127 34 0.0737
92 27 36 107 36 107 25 30 23 23 23 38 109 23 0.082626
71 28 48 82 51 118 9 29 27 12 29 50 116 13 0.075038
70 29 45 117 50 82 29 30 28 13 30 49 115 27 0.080507
61 30 53 115 45 115 13 35 14 13 33 13 82 12 0.081635
6 31 19 116 47 116 29 8 8 29 8 46 118 9 0.08447
51 32 52 121 48 119 34 30 33 34 14 49 87 8 0.082076
9 33 21 118 48 118 31 29 29 7 10 48 120 27 0.079189
65 34 19 83 48 115 14 32 30 28 33 46 84 14 0.053352
73 35 19 118 12 119 27 28 10 10 27 51 118 11 0.094542
44 36 13 92 53 95 30 28 30 30 11 52 91 30 0.061836
74 37 58 84 13 84 8 27 9 27 26 13 119 10 0.079402
 47 38 16 124 20 121 33 10 7 7 13 19 124 33 0.055597
50 39 18 90 19 91 35 12 9 33 15 50 88 7 0.045649
77 40 44 120 52 87 7 7 8 8 29 15 120 29 0.070691
41 41 49 94 22 122 28 26 5 6 28 23 93 29 0.058772
63 42 17 114 46 84 14 34 31 29 35 11 83 29 0.080102
85 43 29 100 18 102 20 20 20 20 20 31 102 20 0.084461
21 44 24 90 54 127 34 10 34 33 13 20 90 10 0.0593
80 45 11 87 53 121 29 29 6 5 6 53 88 6 0.084036
35 46 23 96 26 126 27 31 9 28 5 26 129 29 0.0628
68 47 46 81 49 116 11 9 12 27 32 48 115 14 0.077993
91 48 35 106 35 106 24 5 24 24 24 37 108 24 0.079702
7 49 45 84 12 117 7 28 9 30 28 47 82 10 0.051901
20 50 23 89 53 126 35 11 35 13 33 53 124 30 0.0828
60 51 50 86 44 85 31 34 32 31 11 14 81 11 0.052297
110 52 32 101 32 101 25 25 25 25 25 32 101 25 0.081143
67 53 47 115 11 81 12 10 13 14 9 47 116 15 0.066945
90 54 34 105 34 105 30 25 25 25 25 36 107 25 0.084051
99 55 43 112 43 112 18 18 18 18 18 18 110 16 0.071054
100 56 42 111 42 111 17 17 17 17 17 54 109 17 0.074492
3 57 10 81 45 82 5 6 26 5 27 11 115 6 0.085719
23 58 51 92 56 129 14 9 33 31 11 54 125 32 0.0669
36 59 56 130 56 125 26 30 8 11 6 56 128 28 0.0875
46 60 48 125 51 93 32 9 31 31 12 20 125 32 0.073087
88 61 32 103 32 122 23 23 23 23 23 34 105 23 0.071616
26 62 26 94 58 90 12 8 13 29 9 22 126 34 0.0787
79 63 12 86 17 88 6 6 7 6 7 17 87 7 0.052119
96 64 40 111 40 111 21 21 21 29 19 42 113 19 0.078949
55 65 46 117 46 88 8 15 13 35 12 46 84 33 0.083243
104 66 38 107 38 107 19 19 19 19 19 38 107 30 0.068683
95 67 39 110 39 110 22 22 22 6 20 41 112 20 0.071003
13 68 23 121 16 121 9 13 32 33 12 16 86 29 0.0781
5 69 17 83 46 83 28 27 7 6 7 12 117 8 0.073847
75 70 17 85 14 85 26 26 27 9 27 52 85 9 0.078986
84 71 28 122 30 101 19 19 19 19 19 30 101 19 0.074884
66 72 48 82 12 82 13 11 29 15 10 10 117 27 0.088203
102 73 40 109 40 109 17 17 17 17 17 40 122 19 0.080594
40 74 14 127 55 123 27 27 6 7 29 24 127 28 0.07264
101 75 41 110 41 110 16 16 16 16 16 41 89 18 0.072033
14 76 48 86 17 122 34 14 11 34 13 17 121 14 0.0768
86 77 30 101 54 103 21 21 21 21 21 32 103 21 0.083298
18 78 49 123 51 124 13 13 33 34 32 19 123 12 0.0811
19 79 26 124 52 125 14 12 34 12 14 52 89 11 0.0927
49 80 47 122 49 92 6 29 8 32 14 51 123 6 0.07749
 33 81 54 129 24 127 28 5 27 12 31 58 129 31 0.0761
76 82 46 119 15 86 27 27 28 28 28 14 86 28 0.062043
87 83 31 102 31 89 22 22 22 22 22 33 104 22 0.069537
42 84 51 93 21 97 29 27 28 29 9 53 126 6 0.084649
37 85 21 129 25 95 8 6 26 10 7 55 96 27 0.0839
45 86 14 91 52 94 31 8 6 6 27 21 90 31 0.058819
22 87 50 91 55 128 15 31 15 32 12 21 91 31 0.0619
78 88 48 121 16 120 28 28 29 7 8 16 121 8 0.07528
15 89 24 122 18 86 10 15 12 35 31 50 87 15 0.0794
97 90 41 112 41 112 20 20 20 20 5 43 112 18 0.076997
81 91 10 98 27 98 16 16 16 16 16 27 98 16 0.081039
72 92 53 83 11 83 28 8 26 11 28 12 117 12 0.077802
30 93 15 97 22 128 10 6 12 14 33 58 96 32 0.0766
12 94 47 120 49 85 33 12 10 32 30 15 85 13 0.0803
43 95 53 126 54 96 5 7 29 5 10 22 92 5 0.077174
83 96 27 88 29 100 18 18 18 18 18 29 100 18 0.069247
105 97 37 106 37 106 20 20 20 20 20 37 106 20 0.090703
29 98 20 126 21 129 31 7 29 27 34 57 95 33 0.0687
58 99 22 116 15 87 11 33 34 33 31 45 120 31 0.074086
48 100 48 123 50 120 34 11 32 8 26 18 89 34 0.07791
53 101 59 119 47 118 32 14 11 10 28 47 85 9 0.068465
17 102 25 88 19 123 12 30 14 11 15 18 122 13 0.0875
107 103 35 104 35 104 22 22 22 22 22 35 104 22 0.08135
89 104 33 104 33 104 5 24 24 24 24 35 106 24 0.081782
93 105 37 108 37 108 24 24 5 22 22 39 110 22 0.087839
103 106 39 108 39 108 18 18 18 18 18 39 108 5 0.073515
59 107 49 87 14 86 12 13 33 32 32 44 82 30 0.066942
82 108 49 99 28 99 17 17 17 17 17 28 99 17 0.071925
69 109 44 116 10 117 10 31 11 26 31 11 114 26 0.075683
64 110 18 84 47 83 15 33 14 14 34 45 118 28 0.079822

The solution space for fixture layout optimization is multimodal and may contain single
or more global optima. Hence, the range for the design parameters may be as small as possible
and it has to be determined sensibly where they significantly affect the response of maximum
workpiece deformation. A main effects plot is a plot of the means of the response variable for
each level of a factor. The optimum layout suggested by RSM is shown in figure 16 and figure
17.
 Design-Expert® Softw are
130.00
R1
0.0603265
R1
0.0945424

0.045649
117.75
X1 = A: A 0.0505784
X2 = B: B

Actual Factors
C: C = 28.13

B: B
105.50 0.0408304
D: D = 121.35
E: E = 31.53
F: F = 23.61
G: G = 23.38
0.0310824
Prediction 0.033194
H: H = 24.97
J: J = 5.74 93.25
K: K = 13.22
L: L = 84.38 0.0213344
M: M = 27.16

81.00
10.00 22.25 34.50 46.75 59.00

A: A

Figure 16. RSM optimum layout

Design-Expert® Softw are

R1
0.0945424

0.045649
0.071
X1 = A: A
X2 = B: B
0.056
Actual Factors
C: C = 28.13
D: D = 121.35 0.041
R1

E: E = 31.53
F: F = 23.61
0.026
G: G = 23.38
H: H = 24.97
J: J = 5.74 0.011
K: K = 13.22
L: L = 84.38
M: M = 27.16
130.00 59.00
117.75 46.75
105.50 34.50
93.25 22.25
B: B A: A
81.00 10.00

Figure 17. RSM optimum layout

Optimum layout from RSM

The maximum deformation value of the optimal fixture layout was found out by using
FEA. The predicted result was verified by comparing it with the result of FEA, which shows a
reasonable agreement. Optimum position of fixturing elements suggested by RSM is shown in
table 4.

Table 4. Optimum layout from RSM method

Fixturing elements Optimum position (mm)

Locator 1 (L₁) 52.89

Locator 2 (L₂) 93.73

Locator 3 (L₃) 28.13

Locator 4 (L₄) 121.35

Locator 5 (L₅) 31.53

Locator 6 (L₆) 23.61

Locator 7 (L₇) 23.38

Locator 8 (L₈) 24.97

Clamp 1 (C₁) 5.74

Clamp 2 (C₂) 13.22

Clamp 3 (C₃) 84.38

Clamp 4 (C₄) 27.16

The above obtained layout is then analysed in ANSYS, deformation is taken for the
layout. The deformation of optimum fixture layout suggested by RSM is 0.035852 mm. The
deformation of analysed layout is shown in figure 18.
 Figure 18 Workpiece deformation for optimum layout using RSM

6.2 TAGUCHI’S METHOD

The Taguchi’s method is a structural approach for determining the best combination of
inputs to produce a robust design of experiments. Taguchi's methods study the parameter space
based on the fractional factorial arrays from DoE, called orthogonal arrays. Taguchi argues that it
is not necessary to consider the interaction between two design variables explicitly, so he
developed a system of tabulated designs which reduce the number of experiments as compared to
a full factorial design. The twelve factors and three levels within the boundary values is shown in
table 6.3.

Table 5 Factors and levels of design parameters

FACTORS LEVELS
1 2 3
Locator 1 (L₁) 10-26 27-43 44-59
Locator 2 (L₂) 81-97 98-113 114-130
Locator 3 (L₃) 10-26 27-43 44-59
Locator 4 (L₄) 81-97 98-113 114-130
Locator 5 (L₅) 81-97 98-113 114-130
Locator 6 (L₆) 5-15 16-25 26-35
Locator 7 (L₇) 5-15 16-25 26-35
Locator 8 (L₈) 5-15 16-25 26-35
Clamp 1 (C₁) 5-15 16-25 26-35
Clamp 2 (C₂) 10-26 27-43 44-59
Clamp 3 (C₃) 81-97 98-113 114-130
Clamp 4 (C₄) 5-15 16-25 26-35
  Software used: MINITAB
 Method used: L27 Orthogonal array
 Factors – 12
 Levels – 3
 No of runs – 27
Table 6. Taguchi L27 Orthogonal array

Exp.No Location of fixturing elements (mm) Deformation

A B C D E F G H J K L M (mm)
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.056231597
2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0.062051599
3 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0.067509823
4 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 0.079789374
5 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 1 1 0.063177853
6 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 1 1 1 2 2 0.069841153
7 1 3 3 3 1 1 1 3 3 3 2 2 0.079244183
8 1 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 3 3 0.075329477
9 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 0.082463173
10 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 0.057517396
11 2 1 2 3 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 0.067550254
12 2 1 2 3 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 0.083025514
13 2 2 3 1 1 2 3 2 3 1 3 1 0.077137286
14 2 2 3 1 2 3 1 3 1 2 1 2 0.067318978
15 2 2 3 1 2 3 1 3 1 2 1 2 0.07894879
16 2 2 3 1 3 1 2 1 2 3 2 3 0.078153523
17 2 3 1 2 1 2 3 3 1 2 2 3 0.06846326
18 2 3 1 2 2 3 1 1 2 3 3 1 0.081220156
19 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 2 3 1 1 2 0.074631233
20 3 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 0.065215118
21 3 1 3 2 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 0.076454197
22 3 1 3 2 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 0.073673351
23 3 2 1 3 1 3 2 2 1 3 3 2 0.072766362
24 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 3 2 1 1 3 0.068651562
25 3 2 1 3 3 2 1 1 3 2 2 1 0.070124427
26 3 3 2 1 1 3 2 3 2 1 2 1 0.066828504
27 3 3 2 1 2 1 3 1 3 2 3 2 0.057246172

To select an appropriate orthogonal array for conducting the experiments, the degrees of
freedom are to be computed. The experimental design proposed by Taguchi involves using
orthogonal arrays to organize the parameters affecting the process and the levels at which they
should be varied. Instead of having to test all possible combinations like the factorial design, the
Taguchi method tests pairs of combinations. L27 Orthogonal array is selected and is shown in
table 6.4.

The Full Factorial Design requires a large number of experiments to be carried out as
stated above. It becomes laborious and complex, if the number of factors increase. To overcome
this problem Taguchi suggested a specially designed method called the use of orthogonal
array to study the entire parameter space with lesser number of experiments to be
conducted. Taguchi thus, recommends the use of the loss function to measure the performance
characteristics that are deviating from the desired target value. The value of this loss function
is further transformed into signal-to-noise (S/N) ratio. Usually, there are three categories of
the performance characteristics to analyze the S/N ratio. They are: nominal-the-best, larger-the-
better, and smaller-the-better. Optimum parameter values are obtained using S/N ratio graphs
shown in figure 6.4.

Figure 19. Optimum value of parameters (Iteration 1)

Optimum parameter levels for L27 array (Iteratio1) =A3B1C2D1E2F2G1H1J1K3L1M1 is

selected on first iteration. The selected level of first iteration in shown in table 6.5.
 Table 7. Optimum parameter level from iteration 1

FACTORS SELECTED LEVEL

Locator 1 (L₁) A3=44-59
Locator 2 (L₂) B1=81-97
Locator 3 (L₃) C2=27-43
Locator 4 (L₄) D1=81-97
Locator 5 (L₅) E2=16-25
Locator 6 (L₆) F2=16-25
Locator 7 (L₇) G1=5-15
Locator 8 (L₈) H1=5-15
Clamp 1 (C₁) J1=5-15
Clamp 2 (C₂) K3=44-59
Clamp 3 (C₃) L1=81-97
Clamp 4 (C₄) M1=5-15

From the selected level of factors, it is again divided into three level parameter
optimization is carried. The design variable range for second iteration is shown in table 8.

Table 8. Range of design variables for second iteration

FACTORS LEVELS
1 2 3
Locator 1 (L₁) 44-49 50-54 55-59
Locator 2 (L₂) 81-86 87-92 93-97
Locator 3 (L₃) 27-32 33-38 39-43
Locator 4 (L₄) 81-86 87-92 93-97
Locator 5 (L₅) 16-19 20-22 23-25
Locator 6 (L₆) 16-19 20-22 23-25
Locator 7 (L₇) 5-8 9-12 13-15
 Locator 8 (L₈) 5-8 9-12 13-15
Clamp 1 (C₁) 5-8 9-12 13-15
Clamp 2 (C₂) 44-49 50-54 55-59
Clamp 3 (C₃) 81-86 87-92 93-97
Clamp 4 (C₄) 5-8 9-12 13-15

Table 9. Taguchi L27 Orthogonal array for second iteration

Exp.No Location of fixturing elements (mm) Deformation

A B C D E F G H J K L M (mm)
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.038901369
2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0.049697361
3 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0.05611115
4 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 0.069694638
5 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 1 1 0.07200314
6 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 1 1 1 2 2 0.067393299
7 1 3 3 3 1 1 1 3 3 3 2 2 0.083381331
8 1 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 3 3 0.073902635
9 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 0.066133136
10 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 0.063673053
11 2 1 2 3 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 0.053350395
12 2 1 2 3 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 0.050657117
13 2 2 3 1 1 2 3 2 3 1 3 1 0.063086202
14 2 2 3 1 2 3 1 3 1 2 1 2 0.056810424
15 2 2 3 1 2 3 1 3 1 2 1 2 0.062805153
16 2 2 3 1 3 1 2 1 2 3 2 3 0.065256123
17 2 3 1 2 1 2 3 3 1 2 2 3 0.071654007
18 2 3 1 2 2 3 1 1 2 3 3 1 0.067684808
19 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 2 3 1 1 2 0.056453553
20 3 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 0.054864226
21 3 1 3 2 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 0.058512746
22 3 1 3 2 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 0.05230659
23 3 2 1 3 1 3 2 2 1 3 3 2 0.048075713
24 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 3 2 1 1 3 0.057857846
25 3 2 1 3 3 2 1 1 3 2 2 1 0.06875697
26 3 3 2 1 1 3 2 3 2 1 2 1 0.05239189
27 3 3 2 1 2 1 3 1 3 2 3 2 0.055703324
 Figure 20. Optimum value of parameters (Iteration 2)

Optimum parameter values are obtained using S/N ratio graphs shown in figure 6.4.
Optimum parameter levels for L27 array (Iteration2) =A3B1C1D1E2F1G3H2J1K2L1M1 is
selected on first iteration. The selected level of first iteration in shown in table 10.

Table 10. Optimum parameter level from iteration 2

FACTORS SELECTED LEVEL

Locator 1 (L₁) A3=55-59
Locator 2 (L₂) B1=81-86
Locator 3 (L₃) C1=27-32
Locator 4 (L₄) D1=81-86
Locator 5 (L₅) E2=20-22
Locator 6 (L₆) F1=16-19
Locator 7 (L₇) G3=13-15
Locator 8 (L₈) H2=9-12
Clamp 1 (C₁) J1=5-8
Clamp 2 (C₂) K2=50-54
Clamp 3 (C₃) L1=81-86
Clamp 4 (C₄) M1=5-8
 From the selected level of factors, it is again divided into three level parameter
optimization is carried. The design variable range for third iteration is shown in table 11.

Table 11. Range of design variables for third iteration

FACTORS LEVELS
1 2 3
Locator 1 (L₁) 55-56 57-58 59
Locator 2 (L₂) 81-82 83-84 85-86
Locator 3 (L₃) 27-28 29-30 31-32
Locator 4 (L₄) 81-82 83-84 85-86
Locator 5 (L₅) 20 21 22
Locator 6 (L₆) 16-17 18 19
Locator 7 (L₇) 13 14 15
Locator 8 (L₈) 9-10 11 12
Clamp 1 (C₁) 5-6 7 8
Clamp 2 (C₂) 50-51 52-53 54
Clamp 3 (C₃) 81-82 83-84 85-86
Clamp 4 (C₄) 5-6 7 8

Table 12. Taguchi L27 Orthogonal array for third iteration

Exp.No Location of fixturing elements (mm) Deformation

A B C D E F G H J K L M (mm)
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.064857
2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0.043736
3 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0.036813
4 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 0.045631
5 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 1 1 0.049123
6 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 1 1 1 2 2 0.04553
7 1 3 3 3 1 1 1 3 3 3 2 2 0.063457
8 1 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 3 3 0.058413
9 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 0.053643
 10 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 0.038756
11 2 1 2 3 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 0.051163
12 2 1 2 3 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 0.040348
13 2 2 3 1 1 2 3 2 3 1 3 1 0.05459
14 2 2 3 1 2 3 1 3 1 2 1 2 0.05184
15 2 2 3 1 2 3 1 3 1 2 1 2 0.053827
16 2 2 3 1 3 1 2 1 2 3 2 3 0.034853
17 2 3 1 2 1 2 3 3 1 2 2 3 0.049813
18 2 3 1 2 2 3 1 1 2 3 3 1 0.044615
19 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 2 3 1 1 2 0.044745
20 3 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 0.034567
21 3 1 3 2 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 0.04348
22 3 1 3 2 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 0.04737
23 3 2 1 3 1 3 2 2 1 3 3 2 0.049732
24 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 3 2 1 1 3 0.047039
25 3 2 1 3 3 2 1 1 3 2 2 1 0.052926
26 3 3 2 1 1 3 2 3 2 1 2 1 0.054167
27 3 3 2 1 2 1 3 1 3 2 3 2 0.062311

Figure 21. Optimum value of parameters (Iteration 3)

Optimum parameter values are obtained using S/N ratio graphs shown in figure 21.
Optimum parameter levels for L27 array (Iteration3) = A2B1C1D2E3F2G3H3J1K2L2M2 is
selected on first iteration. The selected level of first iteration in shown in table 13
 Table 13. Optimum parameter level from iteration 3

FACTORS SELECTED LEVEL

Locator 1 (L₁) A2=57-58
Locator 2 (L₂) B1=81-82
Locator 3 (L₃) C1=27-28
Locator 4 (L₄) D2=83-84
Locator 5 (L₅) E3=22
Locator 6 (L₆) F2=18
Locator 7 (L₇) G3=15
Locator 8 (L₈) H3=12
Clamp 1 (C₁) J1=5-6
Clamp 2 (C₂) K2=52-53
Clamp 3 (C₃) L2=83-84
Clamp 4 (C₄) M2=7

From the selected level of factors, it is again divided into three level parameter
optimization is carried. The design variable range for fourth iteration is shown in table 6.14

Table 14. Range of design variables for fourth iteration

FACTORS LEVELS
1 2 3
Locator 1 (L₁) 57 57.5 58
Locator 2 (L₂) 81 81.5 82
Locator 3 (L₃) 27 27.5 28
Locator 4 (L₄) 83 83.5 84
Locator 5 (L₅) 22 22 22
Locator 6 (L₆) 18 18 18
Locator 7 (L₇) 15 15 15
 Locator 8 (L₈) 12 12 12
Clamp 1 (C₁) 5 5.5 6
Clamp 2 (C₂) 52 52.5 53
Clamp 3 (C₃) 83 83.5 84
Clamp 4 (C₄) 7 7 7

Table 15. Taguchi L27 Orthogonal array for fourth iteration

Exp.No Location of fixturing elements (mm) Deformation

A B C D E F G H J K L M (mm)
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.037803
2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0.039526
3 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0.037799
4 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 0.045186
5 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 1 1 0.036385
6 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 1 1 1 2 2 0.036769
7 1 3 3 3 1 1 1 3 3 3 2 2 0.041584
8 1 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 3 3 0.044141
9 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 0.037311
10 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 0.038337
11 2 1 2 3 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 0.038472
12 2 1 2 3 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 0.042895
13 2 2 3 1 1 2 3 2 3 1 3 1 0.036207
14 2 2 3 1 2 3 1 3 1 2 1 2 0.036612
15 2 2 3 1 2 3 1 3 1 2 1 2 0.038924
16 2 2 3 1 3 1 2 1 2 3 2 3 0.039831
17 2 3 1 2 1 2 3 3 1 2 2 3 0.042489
18 2 3 1 2 2 3 1 1 2 3 3 1 0.039646
19 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 2 3 1 1 2 0.036969
20 3 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 0.037504
21 3 1 3 2 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 0.040276
22 3 1 3 2 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 0.04565
23 3 2 1 3 1 3 2 2 1 3 3 2 0.035852
24 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 3 2 1 1 3 0.038505
25 3 2 1 3 3 2 1 1 3 2 2 1 0.037148
26 3 3 2 1 1 3 2 3 2 1 2 1 0.039592
27 3 3 2 1 2 1 3 1 3 2 3 2 0.037286
 Figure 22. Optimum value of parameters (Iteration 4)

Optimum parameter values are obtained using S/N ratio graphs shown in figure 22.
Optimum parameter levels for L27 array (Iteration4) = A3B2C3D1E3F3G3H3J3K1L1M1 is
selected on first iteration. The selected level of first iteration in shown in table 6.14.

Table 16. Optimum parameter level from iteration 4

FACTORS SELECTED LEVEL

Locator 1 (L₁) A3=58

Locator 2 (L₂) B2=81.5

Locator 3 (L₃) C3=28

Locator 4 (L₄) D1=83

Locator 5 (L₅) E3=22

Locator 6 (L₆) F3=18

Locator 7 (L₇) G3=15

Locator 8 (L₈) H3=12

 Clamp 1 (C₁) J3=6

Clamp 2 (C₂) K1=52

Clamp 3 (C₃) L1=83

Clamp 4 (C₄) M1=7

Optimum layout from Taguchi method

The maximum deformation value of the optimal fixture layout was found out by using
FEA. The predicted result was verified by comparing it with the result of FEA, which shows a
reasonable agreement. The optimum layout for minimum deformation is given in the table 17.

Table 17 Optimum layout from Taguchi method

FIXTURING ELEMENTS OPTIMUM POSITION (mm)

Locator 1 (L₁) 58

Locator 2 (L₂) 81.5

Locator 3 (L₃) 28

Locator 4 (L₄) 83

Locator 5 (L₅) 22

Locator 6 (L₆) 18

Locator 7 (L₇) 15

Locator 8 (L₈) 12

Clamp 1 (C₁) 6

Clamp 2 (C₂) 52

Clamp 3 (C₃) 83
 Clamp 4 (C₄) 7

The above obtained layout is then analysed in ANSYS, deformation is taken for the
layout. The deformation of optimum fixture layout suggested by Taguchi is 0.03708 mm. The
deformation of analysed layout is shown in figure 23.

Figure 23. Workpiece deformation for optimum layout using Taguchi method

6.3 COMPARISION OF RSM AND TAGUCHI METHOD

The optimum fixture layout of RSM and Taguchi method are compared in table 6.16. The
minimum deformation of optimum fixture layout obtained from RSM and Taguchi indicating
RSM having minimum deformation of optimum fixture layout.

Table 18. Comparison of results from RSM and Taguchi method

Fixturing elements Optimum layout (mm)

RSM Taguchi
Locator 1 (L₁) 58
52.89
Locator 2 (L₂) 81.5
93.73
Locator 3 (L₃) 28
28.13
Locator 4 (L₄) 83
121.35
 Locator 5 (L₅) 22
31.53
Locator 6 (L₆) 18
23.61
Locator 7 (L₇) 15
23.38
Locator 8 (L₈) 12
24.97
Clamp 1 (C₁) 6
5.74
Clamp 2 (C₂) 52
13.22
Clamp 3 (C₃) 83
84.38
Clamp 4 (C₄) 27.16 7
Deformation (mm) 0.03585 0.03709

6.3.1 Percentage reduction of deformation by RSM and Taguchi’s method

From the above obtained deformation values of optimum layouts using RSM and
Taguchi’s method. Percentage reduction in deformation is calculated and shown below, the
percentage reduction is about 3.45%.

Percentage reduction = × 100

= 3.45%
 CONCLUSION

In this work, an effective attempt is made to model the workpiece-fixture interaction and
to optimize fixture layout using RSM and Taguchi methods. The purpose of this work is to
design an optimum fixture in order to reduce the maximum elastic deformation of the workpiece
caused by the clamping and welding forces acting on the workpiece while welding. In this
project work the optimization procedure to solve the fixture design problem is briefly explained.
The number of fixture elements and layouts are to be changed and the procedure is repeated until
minimum deformation is reached.

The following conclusions are made from this work;

 While comparing 3-2-1 and N-2-1 locating schemes, N-2-1 locating scheme provides
better rigidity for sheet metal. It is clearly indicating N-2-1 locating scheme gives 4.5
times less deformation for sheet metal workpiece.
 In design of experiments, optimization is carried out using RSM and Taguchi method.
From the obtained optimum fixture layout, minimum deformation values are taken from
ANSYS results. It shows RSM provides lesser deformation 3.45% than Taguchi method
for selected fixture layout.
 REFERENCES

1. Afzeri, N. I. (2008). "Hybrid optimization of pin type fixture configuration for free form
workpiece." Niruth Prombutr, Prayoot Akkaraaektharin. 1(3): 32.
2. Ahmad, Z., M. Zoppi and R. Molfino (2013). Fixture layout optimization for large metal sheets
using genetic algorithm. Proceedings of World Academy of Science, Engineering and
Technology, World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology (WASET).
3. Amaral, N., J. J. Rencis and Y. K. Rong (2005). "Development of a finite element analysis tool
for fixture design integrity verification and optimisation." The International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology 25(5-6): 409-419.
4. Aoyama, T., Y. Kakinuma and I. Inasaki (2006). Optimization of fixture layout by means of the
genetic algorithm. Elsevier Ltd.
5. Cai, W. (2008). "Fixture optimization for sheet panel assembly considering welding gun
variations." Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part C: Journal of
Mechanical Engineering Science 222(2): 235-246.
6. Cai, W., S. J. Hu and J. Yuan (1996). "Deformable sheet metal fixturing: principles, algorithms,
and simulations." Journal of manufacturing science and engineering 118(3): 318-324.
7. Chen, W., L. Ni and J. Xue (2008). "Deformation control through fixture layout design and
clamping force optimization." The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology
38(9-10): 860-867.
8. Cheng, H., Y. Li, K.-F. Zhang, C. Luan, Y.-W. Xu and M.-H. Li (2012). "Optimization method of
fixture layout for aeronautical thin-walled structures with automated riveting." Assembly
Automation 32(4): 323-332.
9. Das, A., P. Franciosa and D. Ceglarek (2015). "Fixture design optimisation considering
production batch of compliant non-ideal sheet metal parts." Procedia Manufacturing 1: 157-168.
10. Hurtado, J. F. and S. N. Melkote (2001). "Improved algorithm for tolerance-based stiffness
optimization of machining fixtures." Journal of manufacturing science and engineering 123(4):
720-730.
11. Kashyap, S. and W. DeVries (1999). "Finite element analysis and optimization in fixture design."
Structural optimization 18(2-3): 193-201.
12. Kaya, N. (2006). "Machining fixture locating and clamping position optimization using genetic
algorithms." Computers in Industry 57(2): 112-120.
13. Krishnakumar, K. and S. N. Melkote (2000). "Machining fixture layout optimization using the
genetic algorithm." International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture 40(4): 579-598.
14. Kulankara, K., S. Satyanarayana and S. N. Melkote (2002). "Iterative fixture layout and clamping
force optimization using the genetic algorithm." Journal of Manufacturing Science and
Engineering 124(1): 119-125.
15. Li, B. and S. N. Melkote (1999). "Improved workpiece location accuracy through fixture layout
optimization." International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture 39(6): 871-883.
16. Li, B. and S. N. Melkote (2001). "Optimal fixture design accounting for the effect of workpiece
dynamics." The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 18(10): 701-707.
17. Li, B. and B. Shiu (2001). "Principle and simulation of fixture configuration design for sheet
metal assembly with laser welding, part 2: optimal configuration design with genetic algorithm."
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 18(4): 276-284.
18. Li, B., B. Shui and K. Lau (2002). "Fixture configuration design for sheet metal assembly with
laser welding: a case study." The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology
19(7): 501-509.
19. Liao, Y. G. (2003). "A genetic algorithm-based fixture locating positions and clamping schemes
optimization." Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of
Engineering Manufacture 217(8): 1075-1083.
20. Liao, Y. G. and S. J. Hu (2000). "Flexible multibody dynamics based fixture-workpiece analysis
model for fixturing stability." International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture 40(3):
343-362.
21. Liu, S., L. Zheng, Z. Zhang and D. Wen (2006). "Optimal fixture design in peripheral milling of
thin-walled workpiece." The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 28(7-
8): 653-658.
22. Lu, C. and Y. Wang (2016). "Positioning variation analysis for the sheet metal workpiece with N-
2-1 locating scheme." The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology: 1-15.
23. Ma, J., M. Y. Wang and X. Zhu (2011). Compliant fixture layout design using topology
optimization method. Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2011 IEEE International Conference on,
IEEE.
24. Marin, R. A. and P. M. Ferreira (2002). "Optimal placement of fixture clamps: Minimizing the
maximum clamping forces." Journal of manufacturing science and engineering 124(3): 686-694.
25. Menassa, R. and W. DeVries (1991). "Optimization methods applied to selecting support
positions in fixture design." Journal of engineering for industry 113(4): 412-418.
26. Meyer, R. T. and F. W. Liou (1997). "Fixture analysis under dynamic machining." International
Journal of Production Research 35(5): 1471-1489.
27. Padmanaban, K., K. Arulshri and G. Prabhakaran (2009). "Machining fixture layout design using
ant colony algorithm based continuous optimization method." The International Journal of
Advanced Manufacturing Technology 45(9-10): 922-934.
28. Prabhaharan, G., K. Padmanaban and R. Krishnakumar (2007). "Machining fixture layout
optimization using FEM and evolutionary techniques." The International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology 32(11-12): 1090-1103.
29. Qin, G., W. Zhang and M. Wan (2006). "A mathematical approach to analysis and optimal design
of a fixture locating scheme." The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology
29(3-4): 349-359.
30. Roy, U. and J. Liao (1999). "Geometric reasoning for re-allocation of supporting and clamping
positions in the automated fixture design system." IIE transactions 31(4): 313-322.
31. Sanchez, H., M. Estrems and F. Faura (2006). "Analysis and compensation of positional and
deformation errors using integrated fixturing analysis in flexible machining parts." The
International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 29(3-4): 239-252.
32. Selvakumar, S., K. Arulshri, K. Padmanaban and K. Sasikumar (2010). "Clamping force
optimization for minimum deformation of workpiece by dynamic analysis of workpiece-fixture
system." World Appl Sci J 8(2): 171-195.
33. Selvakumar, S., K. Arulshri, K. Padmanaban and K. Sasikumar (2013). " Machining fixture
layout optimisation using genetic algorithm and artificial neural network" International Journal of
Manufacturing Research 11(7): 840-846.
34. Tan, E. Y., A. S. Kumar, J. Y. Fuh and A. Y. Nee (2004). "Modeling, analysis, and verification of
optimal fixturing design." IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering 1(2): 121-
132.
35. Tao, Z., A. S. Kumar and A. Nee (1999). "A computational geometry approach to optimum
clamping synthesis of machining fixtures." International Journal of Production Research 37(15):
3495-3517.
36. Tiejun, W., L. Peihuang and W. Hongbing (2010). Optimal determination of locator layout based
on hybrid method of empirical analysis with generic algorithm. Computing, Control and
Industrial Engineering (CCIE), 2010 International Conference on, IEEE.
37. Vishnupriyan, S., M. Majumder and K. Ramachandran (2010). "Optimization of machining
fixture layout for tolerance requirements under the influence of locating errors." International
Journal of Engineering, Science and Technology 2(1): 152-161.
 38. Xing, Y., M. Hu, H. Zeng and Y. Wang (2015). "Fixture layout optimisation based on a non-
domination sorting social radiation algorithm for auto-body parts." International Journal of
Production Research 53(11): 3475-3490.
39. Xiong, L., R. Molfino and M. Zoppi (2013). "Fixture layout optimization for flexible aerospace
parts based on self-reconfigurable swarm intelligent fixture system." The International Journal of
Advanced Manufacturing Technology 66(9-12): 1305-1313.
40. Yu, K. and Z. Yang (2015). "Assembly variation modeling method research of compliant
automobile body sheet metal parts using the finite element method." International Journal of
Automotive Technology 16(1): 51-56.