See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/239396076

A review of computer-aided fixture design with respect to information

support requirements

Article  in  International Journal of Production Research · February 2008

DOI: 10.1080/00207540600865386

CITATIONS READS

39 106

2 authors, including:

Joshua David Summers

Clemson University
344 PUBLICATIONS   2,301 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Representation and Reasoning on Mechanical Functions View project

Design of Shear band of Tweel View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Joshua David Summers on 10 December 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article was downloaded by: [Clemson University]
On: 10 October 2012, At: 04:32
Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Production

Research
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tprs20

A review of computer-aided fixture

design with respect to information
support requirements
a a
Sertac Pehlivan & Joshua D. Summers
a
Mechanical Engineering Department, Clemson University,
Clemson, SC 29634-0921, USA

Version of record first published: 19 Nov 2007.

To cite this article: Sertac Pehlivan & Joshua D. Summers (2008): A review of computer-aided
fixture design with respect to information support requirements, International Journal of
Production Research, 46:4, 929-947

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207540600865386

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-

conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation
that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any
instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 International Journal of Production Research,
Vol. 46, No. 4, 15 February 2008, 929–947

A review of computer-aided fixture design with respect to information

support requirements

SERTAC PEHLIVAN and JOSHUA D. SUMMERS*

Mechanical Engineering Department, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634-0921, USA

(Revision received March 2006)

This paper lays the foundation for an integrated representation for advanced
Downloaded by [Clemson University] at 04:32 10 October 2012

computer-aided fixture design (CAFD) systems through a systematic comparative

analysis of the existing CAFD systems. Significant work done in the CAFD field,
the different methods used for each design phase, their working principles, and
the information modeling requirements are presented. Information flows are
developed through identification of CAFD phases (problem definition, fixture
synthesis, and fixture analysis), of the effective methods for each, and of their
input/output traffic. This survey is used to establish the representation and
information requirements for integrated CAFD leading to a novel representation
scheme. Specifically, the information types required include geometric informa-
tion, locator information (number, type, orientation, and position), material
properties, machining information (tool paths), applied forces, tolerance
requirements, and displacement (errors).

Keywords: Computer-aided fixture design; Information modeling requirements;

Problem definition; Fixture synthesis; Fixture analysis

1. Research motivation

The extensive use of fixtures in almost every stage of manufacturing has driven
researchers to create various approaches and methods for computer-aided fixture
design (CAFD). To form the basis for the requirements of an information
framework, this paper studies the different methods developed for the phases of
CAFD, which are (Bi and Zhang 2001): problem definition (PD), fixture synthesis
(FS), and fixture analysis (FA). The first phase, PD, includes understanding the
fixture problem and defining the design variables, constraints, and criteria. FS
determines the values of the design variables for a fixture configuration, while
FA then verifies the proposed fixture solution with respect to the PD. A similar
identification of CAFD phases is found in the literature as setup and fixture
planning, configuration design, and design verification (Bai and Rong 1995, Rong
and Zhu 1999, Kang et al. 2003). Most current systems do not equally emphasize
these three phases, even if all are performed. For example, systems are found that
have strong capabilities in FA, but may not be comprehensive in FS (Wang 2002).

*Corresponding author. Email: joshua.summers@ces.clemson.edu

International Journal of Production Research

ISSN 0020–7543 print/ISSN 1366–588X online ß 2008 Taylor & Francis
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
DOI: 10.1080/00207540600865386
 930 S. Pehlivan and J. D. Summers

Thus, extending integration through these three phases will improve the utilization
of the disparate work done in the CAFD field by incorporating distinct research
methods to support more powerful fixture design systems. This incorporation will
help the designers explore the design space more efficiently and effectively. The
challenge inherent in this task is the incompatibility of the inputs required and the
outputs yielded by the different design tools developed for each phase. To overcome
this challenge, a mechanism for information transfer across these phases is needed,
such as in the form of a common fixture representation model. This representation
should be derived to capture and structure the requisite information for all these
three phases of CAFD.
The primary application of these design systems is in the manufacturing world,
which has the universally encountered problem of holding the work-piece for
machining, forming, assembly, and inspection operations (Wilson and Holt 1962).
Downloaded by [Clemson University] at 04:32 10 October 2012

Hoffman (1991) defines these fixtures as production-work holding devices used

to manufacture parts accurately. The primary function is to maintain the correct
relationship and alignment between the tool and the work piece. According to Jones
(1937), fixtures are used in the manufacture of duplicate parts of machines and to
make possible interchangeable work at a reduced cost, as compared with the expense
of producing each machine detail individually. As they hold and properly locate a
piece of work being machined, they provide the necessary appliances for guiding,
supporting, and gauging the tools in such a manner that all the work produced using
the same fixture will be identical within acceptable tolerance ranges, even with
unskilled labor.
One of the primary reasons for the emphasis on fixturing comes from the fact
that parts spend most of their time on queues waiting to be loaded on machines. For
example, material in a stamping facility spends more than 90 percent of its time
waiting to be moved and processed (Sprow 1991). This waiting time is reported to be
80–95 percent for machining shops (White 1983). Keeping an expensive machining
center waiting while a part is loaded is costly for the company. This time can be
reduced by using a set of fixtures on which the next parts to be machined are loaded
while the center is engaged with the current parts. Therefore, improvement in
fixturing and the fixture design will result in significant savings and other benefits in
manufacturing. However, the design of fixtures is a complicated process that highly
depends on the experience level of the engineers (Pehlivan et al. 2004, Hunter et al.
2006). CAFD systems provide the fixturing knowledge combined with the CAD
software capabilities to reduce this experienced engineer dependence (Rong and Zhu
1999). With the help of these systems fixturing information becomes available for
different stages of the production line as well as different links of the supply chain
for inspection and preparation (Kang et al. 2003). The use of CAFD is one of the
significant advancements in the manufacturing field, thus improvements in CAFD
will yield better manufacturing performances.

2. Design phases of CAFD

CAFD is divided into three primary phases (Bi and Zhang 2001): PD, FS,
and FA. These phases are not unique to fixture design as a commonly accepted
 A review of computer-aided fixture design 931

Table 1. Variables for problem definition phase.

Problem definition phase

Variables Examples

Fixturing elements
Design constraints
Design criteria
Different types of locators and clamps, the assembly and the
configuration of these elements and adjustable parameters
Closure, accessible, the ease of loading/unloading
Cost of manufacturing, level of labor required, productivity,
efficiency and dimensional quality

problem-solving loop may be defined as: PD, synthesis, and analysis. Here, though
the information required for fixture design is studied.
Downloaded by [Clemson University] at 04:32 10 October 2012

The first phase, PD, is tightly coupled with the manufacturing task and the
facility capabilities because the general understanding and definition of the fixture
problem with its design variables, constraints and criteria are based on the product to
be created and the material and machines to be used. As the first phase of CAFD,
it has a significant effect on the design of the fixture and the subsequent phases. The
design variables for this phase include fixturing elements such as locators and
clamps; the assembly/configuration of elements; the adjustable parameters, such as
clamping forces; and the scaling for different sizes of work-pieces. The design
constraints include form closure types, such as free resting, static and dynamic;
accessibility; ease of loading/unloading; and deformation. Finally, the design criteria
include the cost of manufacturing, the level of labor required, the productivity, the
efficiency, and the quality. These variables are summarized in table 1.
FS, the second phase, determines the values of design variables for a fixture
configuration so that the design constraints are satisfied. Subtasks included in this
phase are the selection of the types of elements, the determination of locating and
support points, the determination of clamping, and the assembly planning of the
fixture configuration. The extent of FS depends on the method and the inputs
required. For example, while a method may define the clamp position and the force
(Marin and Ferreira 2001), another may be limited only to definition of the position
of the clamp (Roy and Liao 1999).
The primary task in the third phase, FA, is to verify the fixture configuration
against the design constraints for evaluation with respect to the design criteria.
Researchers have chosen different analysis approaches, some looking into maximum
displacements (Hurtado and Melkote 2002, Amaral et al. 2005, Kaya in press) or
checking for positioning errors (Marin and Ferreira 2001, Pelinescu and Wang 2002,
Wang 2002). More detailed lists and comparisons are found in the FA section.

2.1 PD phase
Definition of the fixturing problem primarily depends on the machining forces
applied onto the part, the available surfaces for holding, the material properties of
the stock, the tolerance requirements, and the available fixturing components such as
the types of locators or the fixturing scheme. This information is an extension of the
factors of interaction presented in figure 1. For example, the tolerance specifications
 932 S. Pehlivan and J. D. Summers

Tolerances
Geometry
Processes

FIXTURING

Stock
Process planning

Figure 1. Interactions of fixturing.

of the final design determines the precision of the fixture and based on the achievable
Downloaded by [Clemson University] at 04:32 10 October 2012

tolerance limits, the product design may need to be altered.

In this phase, geometric reasoning is accepted as the most direct method for
describing fixture design variables because of the large quantity of information,
including the features to be generated or the initial stock to be used, embedded in it
(Bi and Zhang 2001). Thus, a fixture design representation should not only include
geometric information, but may also use the geometric models as the backbone.

2.2 FS phase
FS, determines the values of design variables for a fixture configuration that can
satisfy the design constraints. Subtasks under this phase are the selection of the types
of elements, the determination of locating and support points, the determination of
clamping, and the assembly planning of the fixture configuration. Some of the
important FS methods are rule-based reasoning and genetic algorithms. Other
methods used in this phase can be found in the literature (Bi and Zhang 2001,
Pehlivan et al. 2004).
Rule-based reasoning is used to describe the fixture configuration capable of
fulfilling the requirements (Trappy and Liu 1990). Most of the systems examined
here (Roy and Liao 1999, Wang 2000, Marin and Ferreira 2001, Rong et al. 2001,
Hurtado and Melkote 2002, Pelinescu and Wang 2002) use iterative algorithms based
on heuristic rules for synthesizing fixture configurations. One of the more important
limitations of this approach is that the capabilities are restricted by the design and
the embedded logic since the system is strictly limited to the initial rules created,
which are static and serve as the primary means of reasoning. These systems are
difficult to create and maintain, in part because some types of knowledge such as
uncertain, dynamic, and procedural are not easily represented by rules. On the other
hand, this method provides rapid and efficient results within a well-defined
application domain.
Treating the fixture design as a complex multi-modal and discrete problem,
various researchers (Wu and Chan 1996, Kaya in press) have used genetic algorithms
to find the optimum fixture configuration. In this method a string of characters form
a chromosome, which represents a fixture configuration. Through the evolution
process, better solutions are identified by evaluating a large population of
chromosomes, eliminating the poor ones, and generating new chromosomes through
mutation r combination.
 A review of computer-aided fixture design 933

Regardless of method or approach, the information that typically is generated in

FS includes the number, types, orientation, and position of locating or clamping
elements.

2.3 FA phase
The third phase, FA, primarily verifies the synthesized fixture configuration with the
PD, evaluating it with respect to the design criteria. Three prominent approaches
for this phase are:
1. kinematical analysis, which is checking accessibility and locating;
2. force analysis, which is defined as checking equilibrium; and
3. deformation analysis, the checking for achievable final dimensional tolerances
due to fixture and part deformations under static and dynamic forces.
Downloaded by [Clemson University] at 04:32 10 October 2012

While many methods are discussed in the literature (Bi and Zhang 2001), three more
prominent approaches include geometric reasoning, screw theory, and finite element
method (FEM).
In this geometry-oriented approach, most of the required information can be
retrieved from computer-aided design (CAD) systems. Boema and Kals (1988)
researched automated fixture design and setups employing a CAD system while Wu
et al. (1998) developed an automated fixture planning system focusing on geometric
analysis. An evaluation application by An et al. (1999) uses a fixture component
relationship database built on critical dimensions. All these methods and approaches
depend upon having a solid model representation of both the part and stock that
is able to be interrogated to exact dimensions and features.
Screw theory, based on expressing forces and velocities in 3D space, can be
applied to both prismatic and rotational parts. It was used by Fuh and Nee (1994)
to analyze the minimum contacts for locators and clamps, the permissible motions
due to a contact set, reaction forces at special contacts and the clamping forces.
Marin et al. have also used the screw theory for analysis of complete 3-2-1
fixturing schemes (Marin and Ferreira 2001). Using the positioning information,
screw theory employs helix of a pitch to create the velocity field of a rigid body.
Finite element analysis has been used to represent the behaviors of the
components under static and dynamic forces. Recently, academics (Yah and Liou
2000, Tan et al. 2004, Kaya in press) have used similar methods for FA having
deformation and maximum displacement criteria. Deformation is one of the most
common criteria for fixture design because it is the main source of dimensional
inaccuracy.
The input required for FA phase is generally the fixture configuration to be
evaluated along with the applied forces and the material properties. Using positions
of the fixturing components and the applied forces, the work-piece is analyzed with
respect to maximum displacement or locating errors, which serve as the basis for
the performance criteria of the fixtures.

2.4 Review of previous work

Table 2 introduces recent systems in fixture design providing a brief summary and
the assumptions used in each. These systems, all developed in the last decade, were
 Downloaded by [Clemson University] at 04:32 10 October 2012

934

Table 2. Summary of the research examined.

Reference Summary Assumptions

Kaya in press A genetic algorithm is applied to 2D geometries with planar surfaces for Rigid-body motion and elastic
fixture synthesis. Solutions are analyzed using finite element analysis deformation are assumed.
methods, solutions with similar performances being found.
Amaral et al. 2005 A method for modeling work-piece boundary conditions was developed and Clamping forces are constant
fixture contacts are analyzed as deformations using finite element analysis. point loads.
Support locations were optimized based on these deformations.
No friction at the clamp con-
tact area.
Kaya and Ozturk 2003 The main focus is the layout verification of work-piece and fixture. Their finite Stiffness coefficients are
element analysis included the effects of friction and chip removal. assumed to be very large.
Rigid-body motion and elastic
deformation are assumed
Pelinescu and Wang 2002 Multi-criteria optimization for fixture layout design was conducted using a Rigid body is assumed.
hierarchical approach. The performance objectives include work-piece
locating accuracy and the dispersion of contact forces. An interchange
algorithm was used to determine better configurations.
Hurtado and Melkote 2002 A fixture synthesis model for pin-array type flexible machining fixtures was The tips of the pins are
developed with their performance goal being fixture-work-piece assumed planar.
S. Pehlivan and J. D. Summers

conformability.
Roy and Liao 2002 A method for quantitatively analyzing stability of the work-piece was Frictionless forces and identi-
developed. A heuristic-based algorithm was used for fixture synthesis. For cal clamping forces are
the fixture analysis, the stability condition of the part was determined and assumed.
the best solution obtained quantitatively was provided.
Wang 2002 This paper focused on fixture analysis based on impact localization source The effects of errors are the
errors. An approach for optimal locator configuration design for reducing same for all of the fixture
geometric variations was suggested. elements are assumed.
Rigid body assumption.
Marin and Ferreira 2001 Near optimum 3-2-1 locating schemes were focused. Screw theory was used to Locators are modeled as
identify necessary and sufficient conditions. Combinatorial algorithms were points.
used for fixture synthesis.
 Downloaded by [Clemson University] at 04:32 10 October 2012

No friction was assumed.

Planar surfaces are sufficient
for fixturing
Rong et al. 2001 A locating error analysis approach for fixture design was presented. Locating Rigid body assumption.
elements were synchronized with locating features to create a fixturing
coordination system. A locating error evaluation algorithm was developed
for analysis.
Wang 2000 Discrete locations on the work-piece were used as a set of candidates for clamp Locators are modeled as
and locator placement. Using a sequential optimization approach, fixture points. Locator-work part
synthesis was achieved. The optimization focus was on work-piece locating contact was assumed to be
accuracy. frictionless.
Roy and Liao 1999 Work-piece stability was the primary focus for analysis. The re-positioning of Physical, geometrical and
the locators, supporters, and clamps were made with respect to stability technological information of
criterion. Screw coordinates were used for modeling. An external the work-piece is repre-
optimization program was coupled for the deformation analysis. A heuristic sented in an available
method was found to be sufficient for determining the locator and clamping format.
positions.
Tao et al. 1999 An optimum clamping planning approach for arbitrarily shaped work-pieces No elastic/plastic deformation
was the focus. Analysis was centered on clamping. Optimum clamping exists. Coulomb friction
points were chosen for a robust clamping layout. The boundaries of applies. Contacts have
clamping faces were represented in terms of vertices or implicit relation. Pre- smooth surfaces, so normal
processing included stock, feature generation, manufacturing operations, direction can be well
accessibility, and locating concerns. defined.
Deformations were not
considered.
Joneja and Chang 1999 A method to build fixtures within an automated fixture planner was developed Only prismatic parts were
A review of computer-aided fixture design

including a representation scheme for various fixture elements based on considered. Tolerance and
geometric and functional properties. datum specifications were
omitted.
Wu et al. 1998 The primary focus was on geometric analysis of automated fixture planning. Only simple 2D geometry, no
Geometric relationships were used for fixture configurations with heuristic out-of-plane forces were
algorithms being employed. assumed.
Brost and Goldberg 1996 Using the geometry of a polygon, positions of three locators and a clamp were Work piece is a simple polygon
determined. Processes were not considered. unaffected by friction.
935
 936 S. Pehlivan and J. D. Summers

selected based upon their detailed discussions of the methods employed. Further it is
believed that these methods are a representative collection of the body of work done
in CAFD.
To examine CAFD systems in respect to the phases, this study employs an
evaluation gauge as the analysis tool. Figure 2 presents this evaluation gauge,
including fields for PD, FS, and FA with the arrows demonstrating the information
flow. The first phase, PD, is represented by three sub-fields, design variables, design
constraints, and design criteria, which must be defined in the first phase before
entering the second phase, FS. The solution alternatives generated by the second
phase are passed on to the third phase for analysis and decision-making. The FA
phase checks these alternatives with respect to the initial PD, returning them to the
second phase for further iterations or the PD phase for problem refinement. Each
phase may require external inputs in addition to the ones given by others. These
Downloaded by [Clemson University] at 04:32 10 October 2012

are illustrated with the information in the ellipses.

Using this gauge, various systems were evaluated and the method used for each
phase, their design scope, input requirements, and their outputs were identified.
The limitations and initial set of assumptions were also extracted, in addition to their
capabilities. For the examination of a system, appropriate information such as the
design variables handled and design criteria used were entered into each field in the
gauge, in addition to the input requirements for each phase. For example, the system
of Wu et al. (1998) needs only the surfaces for the locators, while the system of
Pelinescu and Wang (2002) requires the positions of each locator as inputs.
The use of this gauge is demonstrated with the system of Roy and Liao (1999) in
figure 3. An object oriented programming environment is used for representing the
information needed for the PD. Design variables (DV) are the positions of locators
and clamps, while design constraints (DC) are the immobilization of the part and the
tool-fixture interference. Maximum deformation of the part under forces is the main
criteria used by the system to evaluate alternatives. FS is heuristics-driven,
generating positioning schemes for locators and clamps. The verification and

PD

Variables
Constraints FS FA DECISIONS
Criteria
Legend
PD: Problem Definition
FS: Fixture Synthesis
Prob (V,Co,Cr) SOLUTIONS FA: Fixture Analysis
V: Variables
Co: Constraints
INPUT INPUT INPUT Cr: Criteria
Prob: Problem

Figure 2. Evaluation gauge used.

 A review of computer-aided fixture design 937

evaluation of these schemes, FA, are done through finite-element analysis (FEA). As
inputs, this system requires the part geometry information and the machining forces
for generating holding schemes and the tool path for interference verification.
In addition to the intra-phase information flow, the FS module requires an initial set
of locators and clamp positions and in the FA module, the forces and material
properties are used to calculate the maximum deformation of the work-piece under
the machining and clamping forces with the evaluated locator positions.
The gauge tool is used to systematically capture the phase and information
aspects of the examined systems. Table 3 decomposes these fixture design systems
into the three phases, tabulating the method used in each phase. For example, Kaya
(in press) inputs the PD manually, creating the initial set of solutions needed for the
genetic algorithm used in the FS randomly. The solutions generated in this phase are
then analyzed using FEA. The shaded cells indicate modules absent for certain
Downloaded by [Clemson University] at 04:32 10 October 2012

phases with the system covering these missing steps either by beginning the next
based on the output of the earlier or by making assumptions. In general as can be
seen from the table, for the FS phase, most of the systems prefer developing iterative
rule-based algorithms generating configurations with the help of heuristics. Mervyn
et al. (2005) share a similar observation with respect to the wide use of rule-based
approach; they claim that this method has a limited ability to explore the large
number of possible solutions. Thus, they introduce a new approach using an
evolutionary search algorithm. In addition, for the FA phase, FEA is gaining
popularity due to the reduced cost of computation and the wide availability of FEA
software. Siebenaler and Melkote (2006) claim that despite the wide use of FEA, the
role of various fixturing components on the work-piece deformation is not clearly
understood. They have investigated these effects and experimentally verified their
results, finding that 98% of system deformation is due to the work-piece itself and
the contact surfaces.
In addition to examining the phases and methods for each, the input information
for the systems is extracted. Table 4 tabulates the comparison of these systems with

PD

V: positions
Co: IB and IF FS FA DECISIONS
Cr: deform.
Legend
PD: Problem Definition
FS: Fixture Synthesis
Prob (V,Co,Cr) SOLUTIONS FA: Fixture Analysis
V: Variables
Co: Constraints
CAD, tool path, Forces, tool path, Cr: Criteria
Initial positions
forces material properties IB: Immobilization
IF: Tool Interference

Figure 3. Example use of the gauge: (Roy and Liao 1999).

 Downloaded by [Clemson University] at 04:32 10 October 2012

Table 3. Methods used in each phase.

938

Problem definition Fixture synthesis Fixture analysis

Random set/manually Genetic algorithm FEA

Kaya in press The problem definition is given Genetic algorithm that uses a chro- Displacements are calculated using
manually. An initial set of mosome library to reduce the FEA in ANSYS. These values are
solutions is created randomly. computation cost is employed. used by software developed for
optimization.
Amaral et al. 2005 Not handled Not handled FEA
An algorithm that uses FEA is
developed to optimize locations.
ANSYS language code is used.
Kaya and Not handled Not handled FEA
Ozturk 2003 Layout verification for work-piece
and fixture is done using FEA. The
effects of friction and chip removal
are considered.
Random set/manually Iterative algorithm Kinematics
Pelinescu and The parameters regarding The given initial set is improved by An algorithm evaluating the designs
Wang 2002 clamping are pre-determined. interchange. The elements of the with respect to location accuracy
An initial set for other fixture configuration are iteratively and locator contact forces is
variables is generated changed one by one. developed. Kinematic constraints
S. Pehlivan and J. D. Summers

randomly. Fixture synthesis and force analysis are used.

works on these given sets.
Geometric reasoning
Hurtado and Work-piece geometry is modeled
Melkote 2002 as bicubic Bezier surface patches.
Problem is simplified into
holding an arbitrary geometry
under applied forces.
Geometric reasoning
Iterative algorithm
An iterative process is used to
synthesize fixture configurations.
Iterative algorithm
Computational approach – energy
The analysis of the fixturing config-
uration and the forces applied is
conducted with respect to the total
complementary potential energy,
which is calculated using the strain
energy and the work done by the
forces. The objective function is
the minimization of this comple-
mentary potential energy.
Screw theory approach
 Downloaded by [Clemson University] at 04:32 10 October 2012

Roy and Liao 2002 The given machining forces are A fixture synthesis algorithm is Stability analysis is carried out by
used in geometric reasoning. employed based on 3-2-1 fixture determining if the work-piece is
design heuristics. Improvements stable under a specified fixture
are made by re-allocations. configuration and providing
quantitative design analysis for the
re-allocation process. The funda-
mentals of screw theory are
employed for analysis.
Wang 2002 Not handled Not handled Computational approach – vectors
A mathematical framework using
perturbation vectors for fixture
component positions and devia-
tion of critical points on the work-
piece is developed.
Screw theory Iterative algorithm Computational approach-matrices
Marin and A work-piece with identified planar An algorithm, which uses heuristics The elements of the fixtures are
Ferreira 2001 datum faces and locator regions is for maximized coverage, opposi- modeled as wrenches and used to
processed with the help of screw tion, and distance is used to form a matrix. Linear algebra is
theory to determine the conditions synthesize fixturing components. used analyze fixturing schemes.
for holding in a 3-2-1 scheme.
Geometric reasoning Iterative algorithm Computational approach-matrices
Rong et al. 2001 A 3D geometrical model, The random values assigned to the Locating error analysis is performed
dimension and variables are used as an initial set using tolerance zones, which
tolerance information, to be improved through iteration. incorporate such common toler-
and set-up planning ances as flatness, parallelism, and
A review of computer-aided fixture design

results are used position. Mathematical models

as the problem
definition.
Predetermined/manually
Wang 2000 A 3D work-piece and a set of
positions for locators and clamps are
accepted as the problem definition.
Iterative algorithm
A geometric model with an algebraic
implementation is used for the
fixture. Components are config-
ured in an iterative manner.
based on linear expressions are
used for calculations.
Optimization – greedy algorithm
The optimization of locators and the
clamp is conducted with the help
of a greedy algorithm.
(continued)
939
 Downloaded by [Clemson University] at 04:32 10 October 2012
Table 3.
Problem definition
Random set/manually
Concept modeler
Roy and Liao 1999 All the information needed is repre-
sented in an object-oriented program-
ming environment. This model is
processed with an inference engine
to develop the problem definition.
Geometric reasoning
Tao et al. 1999 The solid model of a work-piece and
a pre-determined locating scheme are
needed for this phase.
Geometric reasoning
Joneja and Manufacturing features are accepted
Chang 1999 as the problem definition. Setup
planning is assumed to be completed
prior to fixturing.
Geometric reasoning
Wu et al. 1998 Machining surfaces are pre-deter-
mined and candidates for the locating
surfaces are obtained from the CAD
model.
Geometric reasoning
Brost and Goldberg 1996 Part geometry is
used to form a closure.
Continued.
Fixture synthesis
Genetic algorithm
Iterative algorithm
A set of heuristic rules form a
knowledge base to synthesize
fixtures.
Iterative algorithm
Algorithms using heuristics, deter-
mine clamping points and their
sequences.
Iterative algorithm
The basic principles of fixturing are
used as heuristics to synthesize the
fixturing configuration.
Iterative algorithm
Selecting and determining the sur-
faces and their fixturing compo-
nents are performed using a
heuristic algorithm.
Iterative algorithm
Based on the geometry of the work-
piece, all possible configurations
are generated initially to be ana-
lyzed and eliminated later if
necessary.
940
Fixture analysis
FEA
FEA
The fixture analysis module is com-
posed of FEA tools such as stress,
deformation and collision analysis.
Force model approach
Analysis is performed mathemati-
cally using clamping forces, fric-
tion cones, contacting wrench
vectors, and gravitational forces
acting on the work-piece.
Kinematic analysis
Kinematic analysis incorporating
screw theory is used in addition to
tool path verification.
Geometric analysis
S. Pehlivan and J. D. Summers
Geometric analysis is used for fixture
verification. Previously introduced
2D methods are extended to 3D.
Feasibility
Configurations created in the pre-
vious phase are eliminated if they
are not feasible for the available
fixturing components or if they
result in collisions.
 Downloaded by [Clemson University] at 04:32 10 October 2012

Table 4. Comparison of various systems: input requirements.

Inputs

Geometry Locators Clamps Forces Material Machining Other

Kaya in press 2D Polygon Random Random initial set Machining & Properties Represented N/A
initial set clamping by forces
Amaral et al. 2005 CAD Random Random initial set Machining & Properties Represented Locator Stiffness
initial set clamping by forces & Torque
Kaya and Feature-based Positions Positions Machining & Properties Represented N/A
Ozturk 2003 clamping by forces
Pelinescu and CAD Random Positions Machining & Properties Represented N/A
Wang 2002 initial set clamping by forces
Hurtado and Math model Pin array N/A Machining Properties Represented Moment
Melkote 2002 of surfaces by forces
Roy and Liao 2002 Geometry Positions Positions and forces Machining Properties Represented Weight
by forces
Wang 2002 2D Geometry Positions N/A Machining N/A Represented N/A
by forces
Marin and CAD Surfaces Surface for clamping Machining N/A Represented Fixturing
Ferreira 2001 for locating by forces method
Rong et al. 2001 CAD Features N/A N/A N/A Features Tolerance
Wang 2000 Geometric- Positions Positions N/A N/A N/A N/A
representation
A review of computer-aided fixture design

Roy and Liao 1999 CAD Positions Surfaces Machining Properties Tool path N/A
Tao et al. 1999 2D geometry Positions/ Boundaries & directions N/A N/A Features & Coefficient.
orientations operations Of friction
Joneja and B-REP N/A N/A N/A N/A Features N/A
Chang 1999
Wu et al. 1998 CAD Locator surfaces Clamping surfaces N/A N/A N/A N/A
Brost and 2D Geometry N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Goldberg 1996
941
 942 S. Pehlivan and J. D. Summers

respect to their input requirements, categorized into six different classes of

information, specifically geometry, locators, clamps, forces, material machining,
and other. For example, Amaral et al. (2005) uses the CAD model as the geometric
input, with the initial set of locator and clamp positions being generated randomly.
The machining operations are represented by forces and torques (point bound
vectors), which are also inputs to the system in addition to the clamping forces. The
material properties and locator stiffness values are other inputs required primarily
for analysis purposes. One can see that the diversity of information input into these
systems is broad while few systems use the file types of information. Thus, a fixture
representation that is used to integrate these systems should span all this information
either explicitly or implicitly.
Similarly, table 5 examines these systems from the perspective of the information
they provide as outputs. For example, Pelinescu and Wang (2002) determines the
Downloaded by [Clemson University] at 04:32 10 October 2012

positions of the locators as output, while not providing any output on clamps. They
calculate the positioning error as their analysis results in addition to giving the
maximum contact forces for their fixturing setup. From this table, it is seen that the
information output given is composed of the fixturing component locations, applied
forces and the maximum deformations. These serve the purpose of describing the
selected fixture and its performance.
Finally, table 6 examines these systems with respect to their application
limitations. Exploring the limitations of the systems is particularly important for
determining the scope and context of the integration framework. In this table it is
seen that most of the recent studies make rigid body assumptions, omit friction
forces, and represent manufacturing concepts with applied forces.

3. Summary

This paper examines previous CAFD systems in terms of the three phases with
respect to their input/output traffic to extract information modeling requirements for
an integrated representation. Different forms of information are used as inputs and
outputs for each phase as demonstrated in tables 4 and 5. A summary of this
information is given in table 7 with the corresponding utilization percentages. For
example, geometry is an input for all fifteen systems (100%) while locators are
required input for thirteen of the fifteen systems (87%). In addition, the last three
columns of this table contain the percentages for the three phases. Since particular
information can be an input for more than one phase, the sum of the percentages of
the phases for an information type does not necessarily equal the overall ratio.
This table suggests that geometry information is the most common type of input for
all phases. Locator and clamp information are also common. On the other hand
machining information is not commonly used as inputs since it is mostly represented
by applied forces.
A general composite of these systems is presented in figure 4. The analysis gauge
in this figure is the union of all the other gauges derived for the systems individually,
which demonstrates the overall information traffic. The shaded regions include the
commonly used information types. As can be seen, geometric information, forces,
material properties, and machining/tool path information are widely used as system
inputs to define the problem. In addition to the variables defined in the first phase,
 Downloaded by [Clemson University] at 04:32 10 October 2012

Table 5. Comparison of various systems: outputs.

Outputs

Locators Clamps Displacement/Errors Forces

Kaya in press Optimized positions No change Maximum displacement No change

Amaral et al. 2005 Positions Positions/forces Maximum displacement Clamping forces
Kaya and Ozturk 2003 Positions Optimized forces N/A Contact forces
Pelinescu and Wang 2002 Positions No change Positioning Maximum contact
Hurtado and Melkote 2002 Number, position, and N/A Maximum displacement N/A
length of active pins
Roy and Liao 2002 Positions Positions Deformation/positioning/stability N/A
Wang 2002 Positions Positions Positioning N/A
Marin and Ferreira 2001 Complete scheme Force Positioning Clamping forces
Rong et al. 2001 Locating mode N/A Locating errors N/A
Wang 2000 Suboptimal points Suboptimal points Localization accuracy N/A
Roy and Liao 1999 Positions Positions Deformation/position N/A
Tao et al. 1999 No change Optimal position Contact/positive locator forces Clamping forces
Joneja and Chang 1999 Type/positions Type/positions N/A N/A
A review of computer-aided fixture design

Wu et al. 1998 Positions Positions N/A N/A

Brost and Goldberg 1996 Positions Positions N/A N/A
943
 Downloaded by [Clemson University] at 04:32 10 October 2012

944

Table 6. Comparison of various works: information limitations.

Limitations

Geometry Structure Friction Errors Manufacturing Method Tolerances

Kaya in press 2D, planar Rigid No friction Distance b/w Replaced 3-2-1 N/A
surfaces edges checked with forces
Amaral et al. 2005 Planar Elastic No friction Maximum Replaced None N/A
deformation deformation with forces
Kaya and No curved Rigid Contact Contact Replaced 3-2-1 N/A
Ozturk 2003 surfaces friction verification with forces
Pelinescu and None Rigid No friction Only locator Replaced N/A N/A
Wang 2002 positioning with forces
Hurtado and None Rigid No friction Rigid-body Replaced Only N/A
Melkote 2002 displacement with forces pin array
Roy and Liao 2002 None Rigid No friction Deformation/ Replaced 3-2-1 N/A
positioning with forces
Wang 2002 2D geometry Rigid No friction Positioning errors Replaced Peg and holes N/A
with forces
Marin and Planar Rigid Contact frictions Displaced Not handled Only 3-2-1 N/A
Ferreira 2001 surfaces positioning errors
Rong et al. 2001 None Rigid No friction Locating Not handled 3-2-1 and Dimensional
S. Pehlivan and J. D. Summers

V block
Wang 2000 None Rigid No friction Locating Not handled Pegs and holes N/A
Roy and Liao 1999 None Rigid No friction Deformation Milling 3-2-1 N/A
Tao et al. 1999 None Rigid No friction No deformation Not handled 3-2-1 N/A
Joneja and None N/A N/A Immobilization Simple Vise, N/A
Chang 1999 features modular, 3-2-1
Wu et al. 1998 Simple N/A N/A N/A Not handled Various N/A
Brost and Polygonal Rigid No friction N/A Not handled 3 locators N/A
Goldberg 1996 and a clamp
 A review of computer-aided fixture design 945

Table 7. Information utilization as inputs and outputs.

Information utilization (%)

Overall PD FS FA

INPUT Geometry 100 100 100 100

Locators 87 0 87 87
Clamps 87 0 87 87
Forces 60 60 60 60
Material 47 47 0 47
Machining 27 27 20 13
Other 40 33 27 13
OUTPUT Locators 93 0 93 0
Clamps 73 0 73 0
Displacement 73 0 0 73
Forces 33 0 33 33
Downloaded by [Clemson University] at 04:32 10 October 2012

PD

Variables
Constraints FS FA Dp, F
Criteria
Legend
G: Geometry
F: Forces
Prob (V,Co,Cr) Soln (L,C,F) M: Material
Mc: Machining
L: Locators
C: Clamps
G, F, M, Mc L, C M, F, G, other Dp: Displacement

Figure 4. Analysis gauge applied to all systems combined.

FS requires external information such as the initial locator and clamp configura-
tions. The third phase, FA, uses the fixture configurations, which include locator and
clamp positions and applied forces, evaluating them with respect to the initial PD.
Material properties, locator stiffness, and forces may be required as additional inputs
for analysis purposes depending on the application. Based on the displacement/
deformation calculations or other design criteria, the solutions evaluated are either
rejected or accepted as the potential final fixture designs.
Based on these system evaluations, it is concluded that the different types of
information identified above should be represented in a format to provide the
necessary information flow between design phases to form the basis of an integrated
structure. Specifically, any integrated representation should include: Geometric
Information, Locator Information (number, type, orientation, and position),
 946 S. Pehlivan and J. D. Summers

Material Properties, Machining Information (tool paths), Applied Forces, Tolerance

Requirements, and Displacement Information (errors).
The present paper has laid the foundation for an integrated representation for
CAFD systems by providing the support requirements. To encapsulate the specific
information used in the manufacturing processes, this representation is planned to be
three-fold: part, machining and fixturing information. Feasibility of using a Java-
based ontology tool such as Protégé, which is developed by Stanford Medical
Informatics, has been initiated. The design of this representation scheme and the
employment of it in a system architecture will be discussed in future work.

References
Downloaded by [Clemson University] at 04:32 10 October 2012

Amaral, N., Rencis, J.J. and Rong, Y., Development of a finite-element analysis tool for
fixture design integrity verification and optimization. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Tech., 2005,
25, 409–419.
An, Z., Huang, Y., Rong, Y. and Jayaram, S., Development of automated dedicated fixture
design systems with predefined fixture component basic types: basic design. Int.
J. Flexib. Automat. Integr. Manuf., 1999, 7, 321–341.
Bai Y. and Rong Y. Establishment of modular fixture component assembly relationship
for automated fixture design, Symposium on Computer-aided Tooling, ASME IMECE,
San Francisco, CA, November 12–17, MED Vol. 2-1, 1995, pp. 86–94.
Bi, Z.M. and Zhang, W.J., Flexible fixture design and automation: review, issues, and future
directions. Int. J. Prod. Res., 2001, 39, 2867–2894.
Boema, J.R. and Kals, H., FIXES: a system for automatic selection of setups and design of
fixtures. CIRP Annals, 1988, 37, 443–446.
Brost, R.C. and Goldberg, K.Y., A complete algorithm for designing planar fixtures using
modular components. IEEE Trans. Robot. Aut., 1996, 12, 31–46.
Fuh, J.H. and Nee, A.Y.C., Verification and optimization of work holding schemes for fixture
design. J. Des. Manuf., 1994, 4, 307–318.
Hoffman, E.G., Jig and Fixture Design, 1991 (Delmar: New York, NY).
Hunter, R., Rios, J., Perez, J.M. and Vizan, A., A functional approach for the formalization
of the fixture design process. Int. J. Mach. Tool. Manuf., 2006, 46, 683–697.
Hurtado, J.F. and Melkote, S., A model for synthesis of the fixturing configuration in
pin-array type flexible machining fixtures. Int. J. Mach. Tool. Manuf., 2002, 42,
837–849.
Joneja, A. and Chang, T.C., Setup and fixture planning in automated process planning
systems. IEE Trans., 1999, 31, 653–665.
Jones, F.D., Jig and Fixture Design, 1937 (The Industrial Press: New York, NY).
Kang, Y., Rong, Y. and Yang, J.A., Geometric and kinetic model based computer-aided
fixture design verification. J. Comp. Inf. Sci. Eng., 2003, 3, 187–199.
Kaya, N. Machining fixture locating and clamping position optimization using genetic
algorithms. Computers in Industry, in press.
Kaya, N. and Ozturk, F., The application of chip removal and frictional contact analysis for
workfigiece-fixture layout verification. Int. J. Advan. Manuf. Tech., 2003, 21, 411–419.
Marin, R.A. and Ferreira, P.M., Kinematic analysis and synthesis of deterministic 3-2-1
locator schemes for machining fixtures. J. Manuf. Sci. Eng., 2001, 123, 708–719.
Mervyn, F., Kumar, A.S. and Nee, A.Y.C., Automated synthesis of modular fixture designs
using an evolutionary search algorithm. Int. J. Prod. Res., 2005, 43, 5047–5070.
Pehlivan, S., Summers, J.D. and Huang, Y., Representation requirements for supporting
intelligent fixture design retrieval and reuse. Intelligent Systems in Design and
Manufacturing V – Optics East 2004, SPIE, Vol. 5606-10, Philadelphia, PA, 2004.
Pelinescu, D.M. and Wang, M.Y., Multi-objective fixture layout design. Robot. Comp. Integr.
Manuf., 2002, 18, 365–372.
 A review of computer-aided fixture design 947

Rong, Y., Hu, W., Kang, Y., Zhang, Y. and Yen, D., Locating error analysis and tolerance
assignment for computer-aided fixture design. Int. J. Prod. Res., 2001, 39, 3529–3545.
Rong, Y. and Zhu, Y., Computer-Aided Fixture Design, ISBN: 0-8247-9961-5, 1999
(Marcel Dekker: New York).
Roy, U. and Liao, J., Geometric reasoning for re-allocation of supporting and clamping
positions in the automated fixture design System. IEE Trans., 1999, 31, 313–322.
Roy, U. and Liao, J., Fixturing analysis for stability consideration in an automated fixture
design system. J. Manuf. Sci. Eng., 2002, 124, 98–104.
Siebenaler, S.P. and Melkote, S.N., Prediction of workpiece deformation in a fixture system
using the finite element method. Int. J. Mach. Tool. Manuf., 2006, 46, 51–58.
Sprow, E., Sheet metal FMS: too big a jump. Tool. Prod., 1991, 57, 53–55.
Tan, E.Y., Kumar, A.S., Fuh, J.H. and Nee, A.Y.C., Modeling, analysis, and verification of
optimal fixturing design. IEEE Trans. Automat. Sci. Eng., 2004, 1, 121–132.
Tao, Z.J., Kumar, A.S. and Nee, A.Y.C., A computational geometry approach to optimum
clamping synthesis of machining fixtures. Int. J. Prod. Res., 1999, 37, 3595–3617.
Trappy, A.C. and Liu, C.K., A literature survey of fixture design automation. Int. J. Advan.
Downloaded by [Clemson University] at 04:32 10 October 2012

Manuf. Tech., 1990, 9, 240–255.

Wang, M.Y., An optimum design for 3D fixture synthesis in a point set domain. IEEE Trans.
Robot. Automat., 2000, 16.
Wang, M.Y., Tolerance analysis for fixture layout design. Assembly Automation, 2002, 22,
153–162.
White, C.H. The factory of the future and simulation: an overview, Proceedings of the Winter
Simulation Conference, CH1953-9/83/0000-0119 IEEE, 1983.
Wilson, W.F. and Holt, J.M., Handbook of Fixture Design, 1962 (McGraw Hill: St. Louis,
MO).
Wu, N.H. and Chan, K.C., A genetic algorithm based approach to optimal fixture
configuration. Comp. Ind. Eng., 1996, 31, 919–924.
Wu, Y., Rong, Y., Ma, W. and Leclair, S.R., Automated modular fixture planning geometric
analysis. Robot. Comp. Int. Manuf., 1998, 14, 1–5.
Yah, J.H. and Liou, F.W., Clamping fault detection in a fixturing system. J. Manuf. Proc.,
2000, 2, 194–202.

View publication stats