Senior Design Team 05:

Gleason Works – Chamfering and Deburring

Project

Preliminary Design Review

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 Upper level design of a stand-alone fly cutter

chamfering machine

Final deliverable Upper level assembly drawings Machine component recommendations

Company Background Leading world-wide supplier

of gear cutting technology Subdivision of Gleason

Corporation Primary Market

Automobile and truck industries

Secondary Market Aerospace, Farm,

Construction, Marine

Defining the Need

Cutting process for creating gears leaves behind sharp edges and burrs

Danger to workers Gear strength Contamination Aesthetic

Project Background

Two processes currently used Subsystem on the Phoenix II machine One time modification of the GTR 250 CNC

The Gleason Works has requested a new design for a marketable stand-alone chamfering and deburring machine. New design may also incorporate ideas from current

systems

Project ScopeDesign Package

ProE top level drawings Bill of Materials Market assessment Feasibility assessment Mathematical model to disprove

interference No Physical Prototype

Work Breakdown Structure Design concepts Patents Methods of Removing Material Methods of Movement

Tool Piece Axis Systems

Positioning Control Chucking Methods Industrial Concerns

Phoenix Chamfering Subsystem Modifications

Transfer subsystem to separate CNC machine Machining process

remains the same Possibility to run

both processes on same controller

3-axis movement

Phoenix Chamfering Subsystem Modifications

Advantages Utilizes current technology Frees work area in both Phoenix Gear

Cutter and Chamfering/Deburring Machine

Disadvantages Inability to access toe on pinions Limited pivot capability

Modification of the GTR 250

Employ current technology with adaptations and upgrades Work piece motor Control System Cutter Travel Stock Division

Modification of the GTR 250

Advantages Pre-existing components

Disadvantages Requires vast retrofitting High cost of unit/operation

Articulating Robotic Arm

Advantages Ability for multi

pivot/rotational elements Easily Incorporated Few components

Disadvantages Dead Zones Backlash Cost

Gantry Concept Description

Combine previous attributes

Centralized work piece

Linear Drives 6-axis movement Build design around

cutting tool

X

Y

Work Spindle

Tower

MountingPlate andCutterMotor

X-axis Tracks

Work Spindle

Cutting Tool

Tower Z

Gantry ConceptAdvantages

Simplistic and Robust Design 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 BenchmarkingPatent Number: 6,571,475Inventors: Tomei; Umberto (Castenaso, IT) Assignee: Samputensili S.p.A. (Via Triumvirato, IT) Appl. No.: 544859Filed: April 7, 2000

Summary:This patent describes a method of chamfering and deburring of gear teeth by meshing the gear

with a tool having a ring gear; exerting compression between the teeth of the gear and the tool’s ring gear; effecting at first, permanent deformation of the edges to form first chamfer faces; and effecting at least a second permanent deformation between the first and second sides and the respective end faces; the first and the second permanent deformation being effected by means of enbloc tools.

Comments:This patent is not infringed upon by our design because it specifically calls out the

use of a meshing gear to form the teeth, a design we considered, but did not ultimately use.

Methods of Material RemovalConcurring method must comply with the following criteria:

Completely remove burrs remaining from gear teeth cutting process Chamfer the following unsafe sharp edges of gear teeth for handling

purposes:o Concave heel (ring gear and pinion)o Convex Toe (pinion gear only)

One minute floor to floor process time Cost within budget Flexibility for multiple gear sizes and types Wet and dry system compatible

Methods of Material Removal

Brush Electronic Discharge Machining (EDM) Vibratory Laser Water jet Grinding Cutting Tool

Wire Brush

Advantages: Burrs can be removed on all gear sizes through a shear process Brush would cover a long tangential area, so the gear’s teeth would be

exposed to multiple shearing processes during one rotation along its centerline axis

Deburring could occur with fewer axes, specifically without the pitch axis used in some design concepts

Disadvantages: No chamfering accomplished Undesired brush scratches Proper meshing and mechanical dynamics could be jeopardized

Electronic Discharge Machining (EDM)

Advantages: “Blasting” could occur along the appropriate edges of the

gear teeth Chamfering could be accomplished Process can occur with fewer axes

Disadvantages: Fails to meet the time requirements due to low indexing

speed Fails to meet customer cost per operation hour

requirements

Vibratory

Advantages:

No mechanical contact required

No typical tooling maintenance is required

No need for locating axis

Disadvantages:

Unable to chamfer

Parts are not readily available to the customer in a feasible

fashion

LaserAdvantages:

Burrs would be removed and chamfering could be accomplished

Limited amount of mobility is required

No mechanical contact between the tool and work would be made

Better accuracy and closer tolerances can be accomplished

Disadvantages:

Dry cutting process only

Optical parts exceed the allotted building budget

Requires too much floor-to-floor time

Water Jet

Advantages:

Burrs would be removed and chamfering could be

accomplished

Limited amount of mobility is required

No mechanical contact between the tool and work would be

made

Disadvantages:

Wet cutting process only

Requires too much floor-to-floor time

Grinding

Advantages:

Chamfering and deburring could be accomplished

Compatible with both wet and dry processes

Disadvantages:

Indexing required would cause too much floor-to-floor time

Removal of material from grinding tool

Cutting Tool

Process utilizes standard shear cutting practices

Two different options Indexing or Milling Process Continuous Process

Indexing or Milling Process

Advantages:

Performs both chamfering and deburring processes

Compatible with both wet and dry processes

Flexibility of tool types (milling bits, pencil cutters)

Disadvantages:

Indexing required would cause too much floor-to-

floor time

Potential for cutting on two different axes = more

complex system

Continuous Process

Advantages:

Performs both chamfering and deburring processes

Compatible with both wet and dry processes

Faster process time since cutter and work piece operating at

near constant velocities

Range of cutter type (two or four-start cutters utilizing

standardized inserts)

Disadvantages:

Tooling expense and wear

Methods of Linear Movement Axis Systems

Pneumatic Hydraulic Air/Hydraulic Power

booster Electromechanical

cylinders Screws

Acme Ball Roller Rotating Nut

Methods of Rotary Power Transmission Direct drive

Coupling

Belt or chain Gear

Eliminates necessity to mount motor parallel to spindle

Guidance Tool Piece

Gantry style 3D space consisting

of orthogonal axes, including 3 rotational axes.

Position Control System Motor Selection

Servo vs. Stepper AC vs. DC Brush vs. Brushless Rotary vs. Linear

Typical Servo Control System

System Controller Drive/Amplifier Feedback Loops and Device Determination

Chucks Mechanical Drawbar Hydraulic Pneumatic Clamping

Soft Jaw Hard Jaw Collet

Magnetic Chucks Operation

Electro-permanent Safe Consistent holding Fast

Advantages Durable Cost

Disadvantages Jigs needed

ERGONOMICSWorker safety

Worker comfort

Worker productivity

Areas of Concern Tool and work piece movement

Tool location with respect to the work piece

Sharp edges

Anthropometry Use proper models of the human body Attempt to design for the population ANSUR database

Dimensions Door

Top - 192 cm Bottom – 105 cm Width – min 60 cm

Work Piece Function of arm reach and torso length

Arm reach – 75 cm Torso – 45 cm

Control Interface Easy access

Standards I.E.COSHAUL

Future Topics Positioning equipment - absolute position

sensors Flywheel Mean-time to failure

Screws Machine Life

Chip removal Feasibility of auto loading Capabilities for wet processing

Questions?

Contact Info: vrm0298@rit.edu