| Literature DB >> 27127499 |
Zhongqi Wang1, Bo Yang1, Yonggang Kang1, Yuan Yang1.
Abstract
Fixture plays an important part in constraining excessive sheet metal part deformation at machining, assembly, and measuring stages during the whole manufacturing process. However, it is still a difficult and nontrivial task to design and optimize sheet metal fixture locating layout at present because there is always no direct and explicit expression describing sheet metal fixture locating layout and responding deformation. To that end, an RBF neural network prediction model is proposed in this paper to assist design and optimization of sheet metal fixture locating layout. The RBF neural network model is constructed by training data set selected by uniform sampling and finite element simulation analysis. Finally, a case study is conducted to verify the proposed method.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27127499 PMCID: PMC4834399 DOI: 10.1155/2016/7620438
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Intell Neurosci
Figure 1“N-2-1” locating principle of sheet metal part.
Figure 2Network structure of BP neural network.
Figure 3Network structure of RBF neural network.
Figure 4The flowchart of the prediction model for sheet metal fixture locating layout.
Figure 5The initial fixture locating layout of the aluminum alloy sheet metal part.
The physical properties of material.
| Material properties | Value |
|---|---|
| Mass density | 2.8 × 103 kg/m3 |
| Young's modulus | 7.12 × 104 MPa |
| Poisson ratio | 0.33 |
Training data set.
| Number | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coordination | (0, 0) | (133, 0) | (267, 0) | (400, 0) | (0, 133) | (133, 133) | (267, 133) | (400, 133) |
| ∑ | 1.0529 | 1.0549 | 0.6538 | 0.8257 | 0.9948 | 0.9839 | 0.5418 | 0.6421 |
|
| ||||||||
| Number | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 |
|
| ||||||||
| Coordination | (0, 267) | (133, 267) | (267, 267) | (400, 267) | (0, 400) | (133, 400) | (267, 400) | (400, 400) |
| ∑ | 0.6518 | 0.5418 | 0.0201 | 0.0427 | 0.8273 | 0.6421 | 0.0427 | 0.0234 |
Testing data set.
| Number | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coordination | (40, 360) | (120, 280) | (240, 400) | (280, 120) | (360, 40) | (400, 240) |
| ∑ | 0.7898 | 0.6150 | 0.0771 | 0.6150 | 0.7898 | 0.0771 |
Figure 6The response surfaces of BP and RBF neural network prediction models.
Figure 7The output comparison between BP and RBF neural network prediction models.
The relative errors of the prediction models.
| Prediction models | Relative error |
|---|---|
| BP neural network prediction model | 11.66% |
| RBF neural network prediction model | 6.91% |