| Literature DB >> 26751451 |
Qiaokang Liang1,2, Dan Zhang3, Gianmarc Coppola4, Jianxu Mao5, Wei Sun6,7, Yaonan Wang8,9, Yunjian Ge10.
Abstract
Multi-component force sensors have infiltrated a wide variety of automation products since the 1970s. However, one seldom finds full-component sensor systems available in the market for cutting force measurement in machine processes. In this paper, a new six-component sensor system with a compact monolithic elastic element (EE) is designed and developed to detect the tangential cutting forces Fx, Fy and Fz (i.e., forces along x-, y-, and z-axis) as well as the cutting moments Mx, My and Mz (i.e., moments about x-, y-, and z-axis) simultaneously. Optimal structural parameters of the EE are carefully designed via simulation-driven optimization. Moreover, a prototype sensor system is fabricated, which is applied to a 5-axis parallel kinematic machining center. Calibration experimental results demonstrate that the system is capable of measuring cutting forces and moments with good linearity while minimizing coupling error. Both the Finite Element Analysis (FEA) and calibration experimental studies validate the high performance of the proposed sensor system that is expected to be adopted into machining processes.Entities:
Keywords: cutting force measurement; in-process measurement; multi-component; sensor system
Year: 2016 PMID: 26751451 PMCID: PMC4732103 DOI: 10.3390/s16010070
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Intrinsic transduction techniques for cutting force measurement.
| Measuring Technology | Direct/Indirect Measurement | Pros | Cons | Typical Designs |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Current | indirect | easier to achieve | time-consuming | [ |
cost effective | unsuitable for multi-axis cutting process | |||
without consideration of the frictional behavior of the machine tools | ||||
| Voltage | indirect | wide bandwidth (up to 4 kHz) | Limited to stable conditions | [ |
easy to conversion and processing | susceptible to electromagnetic interference | |||
| Strain gauge | direct | simple construction | higher power consumption | [ |
high and adjustable resolution | rigid and fragile | |||
high reliability | scarce reproducibility | |||
| Capacitive | direct | high sensitivity and resolution | temperature sensitive | [ |
long-time stability | stray capacitance | |||
Adaptability to Environment | Edge effect | |||
| Optoelectronic | direct | good reliability | non-conformable | [ |
wide measurement range | hard to construct dense arrays | |||
good adaptability to workshop conditions | ||||
| Piezoelectric | direct | high frequency response and high dynamic range rangeability higher accuracy and finer resolution high sensitivity and stiffness | charge leakages | [ |
poor spatial resolution | ||||
deteriorations of voltages or drifts in the presence of static forces |
Figure 1Experimental setup for implementing the sensor system for cutting force measurement.
Figure 2Schematic illustration of strategy of the system.
Figure 3Structure of the proposed sensor.
Figure 43D model of the monolithic EE structure.
Design parameters and output variables.
| Design Parameters | Output Variables | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Parameter | Extended Circle Diameter | Diaphragm Thickness | Lamella Thickness | Lamella Length | Maximum Total Deformation (mm) | Minimum Elastic Strain (10−6 mm/mm) | Maximum Equivalent Stress (MPa) | The Primary Response Frequency (Hz) |
| Variable | P1 | P2 | P3 | P4 | P5 | P6 | P7 | P8 |
| Bound/Objective | 40 < P1 < 50 | 1 < P2 < 4 | 1 < P3 < 3 | 7 < P4 < 12 | P5 < 0.03 | P6 > 100 | P7 < 60 | P8 > 500 |
| Candidate 1 | 49.55 | 1.055 | 11.119 | 1.378 | 0.0273 | 159.884 | 39.572 | 744.3 |
| Candidate 2 | 46.35 | 1.031 | 7.334 | 2.402 | 0.0265 | 134.272 | 54.719 | 1210.4 |
| Candidate 3 | 47.95 | 1.149 | 10.297 | 2.658 | 0.0192 | 130.072 | 40.916 | 1043.7 |
Figure 5Parameters chart of SDO: design points with different colors generated via varied combination of the input parameters.
Figure 6Sensitivity of the input parameters with respect to each output variables.
Figure 7Relationships between design parameters and output variables: (a) Maximum deformation versus P1 and P3; (b) Minimum strain versus P1 and P2; (c) Maximum equivalent stress versus P1 and P3; (d) The first response frequency versus P4 and P5.
The first six natural frequencies of the sensor.
| Mode | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Responding Frequency (Hz) | 744.3 | 748.4 | 1291.8 | 1317.7 | 2869.9 | 2999.5 |
Figure 8Harmonic response of the diaphragm under the measuring force component Fx (a) and Fz (b).
Figure 9Arrangement strategy of the strain gauges: (a) Gauges emplacement on the upper diaphragm; (b) Gauges emplacement on the lower diaphragm.
Variations of resistances of strain gauges.
| F | F | F | M | M | M | F | F | F | M | M | M | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F | R1 | + | 0 | + | 0 | 0 | + | M | R17 | 0 | + | + | + | 0 | + |
| R2 | - | 0 | - | 0 | 0 | + | R18 | 0 | + | - | - | 0 | + | ||
| R3 | + | 0 | - | 0 | 0 | + | R19 | 0 | - | - | + | 0 | + | ||
| R4 | - | 0 | + | 0 | 0 | + | R20 | 0 | - | + | - | 0 | + | ||
| F | R5 | 0 | + | + | 0 | 0 | + | M | R13 | - | 0 | + | 0 | + | + |
| R6 | 0 | - | - | 0 | 0 | + | R14 | - | 0 | - | 0 | - | + | ||
| R7 | 0 | + | - | 0 | 0 | + | R15 | + | 0 | - | 0 | + | + | ||
| R8 | 0 | - | + | 0 | 0 | + | R16 | + | 0 | + | 0 | - | + | ||
| F | R9 | + | + | + | 0 | 0 | + | M | R21 | = | = | + | 0 | + | - |
| R10 | - | - | - | 0 | 0 | + | R22 | = | = | + | 0 | + | - | ||
| R11 | + | + | - | 0 | 0 | + | R23 | = | = | + | 0 | + | + | ||
| R12 | - | - | + | 0 | 0 | + | R24 | = | = | + | 0 | + | + |
Figure 10Electrical circuits of the strain gauges.
Figure 11Prototype of the sensor system for cutting force measurement: (a) the upper adapter, EE and the lower adapters; (b) the integrated electric circuit.
Figure 12Coupling model of multi-dimensional cutting force sensor system.
The outputs of the sensor.
| Component | F | F | F | M | M | M |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Applied load | - | - | - | - | - | −10 Nm |
| Corresponding output | - | - | - | - | - | −3.40 V |
| Applied load | −200 N | −200 N | 0 N | −8 Nm | −8 Nm | −8 Nm |
| Corresponding output | −4.48 V | −4.35 V | −0.0034 V | −4.03 V | −3.91 V | −2.72 V |
| Applied load | −150 N | −150 N | 50 N | −6 Nm | −6 Nm | −6 Nm |
| Corresponding output | −3.41 V | −3.31 V | 0.73 V | −3.08 V | −2.98 V | −2.04 V |
| Applied load | −100 N | −100 N | 100 N | −4 Nm | −4 Nm | −4 Nm |
| Corresponding output | −2.35 V | −2.28 V | 1.40 V | −2.12 V | −2.06 V | −1.36 V |
| Applied load | −50 N | −50 N | 150 N | −2 Nm | −2 Nm | −2 Nm |
| Corresponding output | −1.27 V | −1.25 V | 2.07 V | −1.15 V | −1.10 V | −0.68 V |
| Applied load | 0 N | 0 N | 200 N | 0 Nm | 0 Nm | 0 Nm |
| Corresponding output | −0.00153 V | −0.00168 V | 2.72 V | 0.0006 V | 0.00229 V | 0.0032 V |
| Applied load | 50 N | 50 N | 250 N | 2 Nm | 2 Nm | 2 Nm |
| Corresponding output | 1.28 V | 1.26 V | 3.35 V | 1.15 V | 1.11 V | 0.66 V |
| Applied load | 100 N | 100 N | - | 4 Nm | 4 Nm | 4 Nm |
| Corresponding output | 2.40 V | 2.28 V | - | 2.11 V | 2.05 V | 1.37 V |
| Applied load | 150 N | 150 N | - | 6 Nm | 6 Nm | 6 Nm |
| Corresponding output | 3.43 V | 3.32 V | - | 3.09 V | 2.99 V | 2.08 V |
| Applied load | 200 N | 200 N | - | 8 Nm | 8 Nm | 8 Nm |
| Corresponding output | 4.5 V | 4.37 V | - | 4.03 V | 3.91 V | 2.80 V |
| Applied load | - | - | - | - | - | 10 Nm |
| Corresponding output | - | - | - | - | - | 3.50 V |
The performance of the system.
| Component | F | F | F | M | M | M |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sensitivity | 0.02245 V·N−1 | 0.02180 V·N−1 | 0.0134 V·N−1 | 0.5038 V·(Nm)−1 | 0.4888 V·(Nm)−1 | 0.345 V·(Nm)−1 |
| Maximum coupling error | 1.07% | 1.38% | 0.41% | 1.47% | 1.09% | 0.39% |
| Maximum nonlinearity error | 1.75% | 1.94% | 1.87% | −1.77% | −1.69% | 1.15% |
The performance comparisons with some proven reference sensors.
| Developer | Approach & Measurement Principle | Size (mm) | No. of Axes | Sensitivity | Maximum Relative Error |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tuysuz, Altintas, Feng [ | Indirect & prediction model | n.a. | 5 | n.a. | 8.5% |
| Rao, Gao, Friedrich [ | Direct & Piezoelectric | Integrated into system | 1 | 7 mV/gm | 9.8% |
| Kim, Kim [ | Direct & strain gauge and piezo-film accelerometer | 40 × 70 × 26 | 2 | 3 mV·N−1 | n.a. |
| Yaldız, Ünsaçar [ | Direct & strain gauge and piezoelectric accelerometer | 100 × 100 × 50 | 3 | 0.1 mV·N−1 | <5% |
| Liu, Zhou, Tao, Tan [ | Direct & strain gauge and fiber Bragg grating sensor | n.a. | 3 | n.a. | 6.23% |
| Our approach | Direct & strain gauge | Φ 80 × 42 | 6 | 0.0134 V·N−1 and 0.345 V (Nm)−1 | <5% |