j o u r n a l o f m a t e r i a l s p r o c e s s i n g t e c h n o l o g y 2 0 5 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 338–346

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jmatprotec

A parametric FEA system for fixturing of thin-walled

cylindrical components

Yan Wang ∗ , Jianfan Xie, Zhijian Wang, Nabil Gindy

University of Nottingham, UK

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Machining of thin-walled components has increasingly become a difficulty for manufactur-
Received 18 May 2007 ers. Advanced digital analyses have been developed by many researchers to model, predict
Received in revised form and reduce errors induced by machining processes. Fixtures for thin-walled components
26 October 2007 to increase the rigidity of components, improve dynamic performance and reduce machin-
Accepted 20 November 2007 ing cost have been widely used in industries. However, modelling to simulate the impact
of fixture on the quality of thin-walled components is seldom reported. Moreover, today’s
machining shop floors, characterized by a large variety of products in small batch sizes,
Keywords: require flexible simulation tools that can be quickly reconfigured. Parametric technology is
FEA a key to implement it.
Thin-wall This paper proposed a parametric finite element analysis (FEA) system that can automati-
Cylindrical components cally mesh components, assign material properties and boundary condition, and create FEA
Parametric files ready for calculation with limited human interference. The system is focused on thin-
Abaqus walled cylindrical components, including straight thin-walled cylinder, conic thin-walled
cylinder and angle-varying thin-walled cylinder. Based on the FE prediction, whether or not
a fixture is required and the impact of a support fixture on the component quality can be
assessed.
© 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction The problem has been addressed by many researchers

Thin-walled components have been widely used in the
aerospace, automobile and power industries where weight
matters. In modern global manufacturing, companies are
under enormous pressure to reduce manufacturing cost and
improve component quality. On one side, aggressive machin-
ing strategy is often applied on the thin-walled components
to increase machine removal ratio, leading to larger machin-
ing force, thus larger machining deformation and larger profile
error. On the other side, the tolerance on components is tighter
than before. Under such contradictory situations, machining
of thin-walled components has increasingly become a diffi-
culty for the manufacturers.
(Thevenot et al., 2006; Brave et al., 2005; Tsai and Liao,
1999; Ratchev et al., 2002, 2004a,b,c,d; Mehdi et al., 2002a,b)
using advanced simulation tools for modelling, predicting and
reducing errors. The main concerns are focused on two issues:
vibration and deformation. Vibration contributes to poor sur-
face finish as well as shorter tool life and spindle life, and
deformation is the main contributory factor of dimensional
error. Regarding the dynamic aspect of the machining of thin-
walled components, Thevenot et al. (2006) proposed a model
to determine the optimal cutting condition during machin-
ing process, in which the dynamic behaviour of workpiece
with respect to tool position was introduced in the stability
lobes theory. Experimental approach to validate the 3D lobes

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: yan.wang@nottingham.ac.uk (Y. Wang).
0924-0136/$ – see front matter © 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2007.11.216
 j o u r n a l o f m a t e r i a l s p r o c e s s i n g t e c h n o l o g y 2 0 5 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 338–346 339

Nomenclature
X(i, j, k) The X value regarding the CS of node N(i, j, k)
a the oblique angle of conic thin-walled cyinder XS boundary condition on X direction for XY sym-
ap the oblique angle of the pth section of angle- metry
varying thin-walled cylinder Y(i, j, k) The Y value regarding the CS of node N(i, j, k)
b The angle around the z axis of the reference YS1 boundary condition on Y direction for X sym-
between two nodes N(i, j, k) and N(i, j, k + 1) metry
BC(i, j, k) Boundary condition, which is the function of YS2 Boundary condition on Y direction for of XY
variables i, j and k symmetry
CS the coordinate system on the centre of the top Z(i, j, k) The Z value regarding the CS of node N(i, j, k)
surface of the thin-walled cylinder ˇ The angle of the component in the radius
DL element size in the length direction of the com- direction representing the symmetry boundary
ponent condition
DR element size in the radius direction of the com-  Poisson ratio
ponent
DT element size in the thickness direction of com-
construction was reported. Peripheral milling operation was
ponent
simulated and the tool was assumed to be more rigid than
E Young’s modulus
the workpiece. Considering high speed milling, Brave et al.
E1(i, j, k) element vector of element C3D8 and is a func-
(2005) suggested a method for obtaining the instability lobes
tion of i, j and k
when both machine structure and machined workpiece have
E2(i, j, k) element vector of element C3D20 and is a func-
similar dynamic behaviours. The method was validated by
tion of i, j and k
experiments.
F machining force specified by user
Due to the deflection of tool and workpiece induced
FCi the force boundary condition on component
during machining operation, the machine tool does not
during the ith step
remove material from components as planned, thus, sur-
FIX1 constraint on the bottom end surface of the
face dimensional error is produced. Tsai and Liao (1999)
component
developed a finite element model along with end milling
FIX2 constraint on the top end surface of the com-
cutting force model to analyze surface dimensional error
ponent
in the peripheral milling of thin-walled workpieces. In the
ID(i, j, k) the identity number of a node and is a function
model, the geometry and thickness variations of the work-
of i, j and k
piece during machining are taken into account by modelling
IDe the identity number of element
the helical fluted end mill with the pre-twisted Timo-
IDnm the identity number of the mth node of a ele-
shenko beam element. Ratchev et al. conducted extensive
ment
research regarding thin-walled structure using finite ele-
L the total length of the straight or conic thin-
ment analysis (FEA), covering force modelling for end milling
walled cylinder
(Ratchev et al., 2004a), material removal simulation (Ratchev
Lp the length of the pth section of the angle-
et al., 2004b,c) and error compensation (Ratchev et al., 2002,
varying thin-walled cylinder
2004d).
LET the number of finite element across the cylin-
The researches in (Thevenot et al., 2006; Brave et al., 2005;
der thickness
Tsai and Liao, 1999; Ratchev et al., 2004a,b,c) were focused on
NL the number of nodes in the length direction of
prismatic components under milling operations. The dynamic
the component
behaviour of thin-walled cylindrical components under turn-
NR the number of nodes in the radius direction of
ing operation was studied by Mehdi et al. (2002a,b), containing
the component
two parts: simulation (Mehdi et al., 2002a) and experiments
NT the number of nodes in the thickness direction
(Mehdi et al., 2002b). The simulation part took into account
of the component
the damping due to rubbing between the tool flank and
N(i, j, k) node vector and is a function of variables i, j and
the machined workpiece surface, and defined the param-
k
eters governing the stability of the cutting process in the
R/R0 Internal radius of the top surface of the thin-
case of thin-walled workpieces. The experimental part vali-
walled cylinder
dated the simulation by performing the test on thin-walled
R(i, j, k) The distance from the node N(i, j, k) to the z axis
tubes with steel and aluminum alloy, using different oper-
of the reference coordinate system cylinder
ating condition including dimensions, geometry and setting
S The number of section of the angle-varying
conditions.
thin-walled cylinder
Advanced models with experiment validation were pro-
T Thickness of the thin-walled cylinder
posed in Thevenot et al. (2006), Brave et al. (2005), Tsai and
TLi The tolerance constrains on the component
Liao (1999), Ratchev et al. (2004a,b,c), Mehdi et al. (2002a,b)
during the ith step
with the purpose of identifying the problems generated dur-
Tol Tolerance in the thickness direction on the
ing thin-walled structure machining. Once the problem has
thin-walled cylinder
been modeled and predicted, means to reduce errors should
340 j o u r n a l o f m a t e r i a l s p r o c e s s i n g t e c h n o l o g y 2 0 5 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 338–346
Fig. 1 – Components types and geometry parameters. (a) Straight thin-walled cylinder; (b) conic thin-walled cylinder; and (c)
varying angle thin-walled cylinder.
be employed. (Ratchev et al., 2002, 2004d) proposed a method
of error compensation by offsetting the tool path according to
the predicted deflection. This method is effective only if the
component is still rigid enough to resist machining forces. It is
not feasible for the very thin-walled monolithic components,
which have already been deflected, even when a very small
force is exerted on the component. For example, Trent Engine
casings are very thin cylindrical components having roughly
2 mm thickness against approximately 500 mm diameter and
height. The casings are so flexible, that they deflect even
when pushed by fingers. Error compensation by offsetting
the tool path is useless for this type of components. Sup-
port fixture is often required to increase component rigidity
and improve the dynamic performance of the tool-component
system. Moreover, the support fixture allows much increased
material removal rate, leading to improved machining effi-
ciency and reduced machining cost. However, the research
regarding support fixture for very thin-walled components is
still lacking.
As components are becoming increasingly less in volume
and larger in variety to cater for customer needs, compo-
nents in the same part family are often very similar to each
other. The components geometry can be easily updated in
parametric CAD software, e.g. Pro/Engineer, but simulation of
thin-walled components behaviour in machining processes
using finite element analysis (FEA) is still a manual pro-
cess and often needs professional skill. The time and effort
required to build an FEA modelling for each different compo-
nent are increasingly becoming unacceptable. A huge amount
of time is wasted on doing the repeatable work, which could
be up to 90% of the total FEA work in many cases. Such a huge
amount of repeatable FEA work can be easily reduced or elim-
inated by employing a parametric FEA system. In this paper,
a method of parametric FEA system for thin-walled cylindri-
cal components is proposed. Based on the FEA, whether or
not a support fixture is needed can be assessed firstly against
the tolerance requirement. If yes, how to support the compo-
nents, and how much improvement the machining strategy
can achieve can be further investigated. Written in Visual
basic, the parametric FEA system can undertake four func-
tions automatically with few interactions from the user: (1)
node generation, (2) element generation, (3) material prop-
erty and boundary condition assignment, (4) steps (loading
sequences).
2. Frame work of the parametric FEA
system
The types of thin-walled components considered in the sys-
tem are straight cylinder (Fig. 1(a)), conic cylinder (Fig. 1(b)) and
varying-angle conic cylinder (Fig. 1(c)). For thin-walled cylin-
drical components, it is in general held at this end surface for
the machining of the thin wall. If excessive machining defor-
mation is encountered, a fixture is often required to hold the
component at this other end to increase the rigidity of the
components. If the accuracy requirement of components is
still not achievable, it is necessary to support the thin wall of
component using support fixture, e.g. the fixtures in (Koelling,
1998; CPF, in pressa,b).
The assumptions of the parametric FEA system are: elastic
deformation; point force; rigid fixture/support. The machining
forces, deformation and tolerance in the thickness direction
are of concern and thus are considered in the FEA. The input
parameters of the FEA system for thin-walled cylindrical parts
are composed of
(i) The geometry parameters including thickness T, length
L, internal radius R of top surface, angle a shown in Fig. 1
(b); straight cylinder in Fig. 1(a) is treated as a special case
of conic cylinder with a = 0; the varying angle thin-walled
cylinder (Fig. 1 (c)) refers to the conic thin-walled cylinder
having the same thickness but different angle at differ-
ent section, and has variables including a constant wall
thickness T, the internal radius R0 of the top surface of
the component, the number of sections S, for the pth sec-
tion, whilst p ∈ [0, S−1], the variables are angle ap , internal
radius of the top surface Rp and the length Lp .
(ii) Machining force F and quality requirement (tolerance) Tol.
(iii) Material parameters including Young’s modulus E and
Poisson ratio v.
(iv) Number of elements across the thickness LET . The default
value for this one is 2, which means there are two finite
elements across the thickness direction. However, this
can be specified by user.
Abaqus is used for the FEA solver. Two types of solid ele-
ments are selected for the system: the 1st order brick element
C3D8 and the 2nd order brick element C3D20. The 2nd order
 j o u r n a l o f m a t e r i a l s p r o c e s s i n g t e c h n o l o g y 2 0 5 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 338–346 341

element C3D20 is preferred as it is more computation efficient NL = EL + 1 for C3D8 element (3)
and more accurate (ABAQUS, 2004). The 1st order element is
used for contact analysis when the 2nd order element is inap- NT = 2 ∗ ET + 1, NR = 2 ∗ ER + 1 and
propriate if local deformation or stress at the contact position,
e.g. the contact between machine tool and component, needs NL = 2EL + 1 for C3D20 element (4)
to be predicted accurately. Based on the input information, the
developed software can generate the FEA input file ready to be The node vector N[i, j, k], where i ∈ [0, NL − 1], j ∈ [0, NT − 1]
run on ABAQUS. From the tolerance constraints Tol, the max- and k ∈ [0, NR − 1], is represented as
imum machining forces exerted on the components with or
without fixture can be estimated. Whether or not the machin- N[i, j, k] = [ID(i, j, k), X(i, j, k), Y(i, j, k), Z(i, j, k)] (5)
ing force F specified by the user is appropriate can be evaluated
by comparing the deformation induced by the force F with the
where ID(i, j, k), X(i, j, k), Y(i, j, k), Z(i, j, k)] are the node number
tolerance Tol. Two situations are considered in the software:
and the X, Y, Z values regarding the global coordinate system
components held at one end surface and component held on
CS, respectively, and are functions of variables i, j and k. The
both end surfaces. Since the FEA is parametric, if the geom-
element vectors are expressed differently for element C3D8
etry of components is slightly changed, the FEA input can be
and C3D20, which are
regenerated automatically. The procedure to generate FEA file
is detailed in Section 3.
E1(i, j, k) = [IDe , IDn 1, . . . , IDn m, . . . , IDn 8]

for C3D8 element, m ∈ [1, 8] (6)

3. FEA input file generation

A global coordinate system CS (shown in Fig. 1) is built on
the centre of the top end surface of the cylinder. For a user
specified variable LET , which is the number of elements across
the thickness, the size of an element on the internal wall of
the cylinder is pre-defined as
T ber, the IDn m is the ID number of the mth node of the element
DT = , D L = DT and DR = 1.5DT
LET
where DT , DR and DL are the dimensions of the element across
the thickness, around the centre axis and along the length
direction, respectively, thus, ET , ER and EL , which are the num-
bers of elements in these three directions, are
E2(i, j, k) = [IDe , IDn 1, . . . IDn m, . . . , IDn 20]
for C3D20 element, m ∈ [1, 20] (7)
where E1 and E2 represent the element vectors of element
C3D8 and C3D20, respectively and IDe is the element ID num-
(1)
and is a function of the variables of i, j and k. Sections 3.1 and
3.2 explain the automatic generation of node and element for
the C3D8 element and C3D20 elements.
3.1. Node and element generation for C3D8 element

L  ˇR  The node number starts from the node whose position is (R,
ET = LET ; EL = Int and ER = Int (2) 0, 0), and increases firstly in the length direction and secondly
DL DR in the thickness direction, and then in the direction around
the centre axis. The node number ID(i, j, k) of a node N(i, j, k),
where ␤, to be explained later, can be ␲ or 1/2␲, and the
where i ∈ [0, NL − 1], j ∈ [0, NT − 1] and k ∈ [0, NR − 1], is
function Int(number) is used to round a number down to the
nearest integer.
ID(i, j, k) = NL NT k + NL j + i + 1 (8)
Mesh generation is the procedure of discretization of solid
geometry and includes the generation of node and generation
of element. Let NT , NR and NL be the number of node in the As shown in Fig. 2(a), for conic and straight thin-walled
three directions, for the C3D8 element and C3D20 element: cylinder, the Z(i, j, k) of the node N(i, j, k) is

NT = ET + 1, NR = ER + 1 and Z(i, j, k) = DL i (9)

Fig. 2 – The node vector N(i, j, k) of conic thin-walled cylinder.

342 j o u r n a l o f m a t e r i a l s p r o c e s s i n g t e c h n o l o g y 2 0 5 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 338–346

Fig. 5 – Element E1(i, j, k) and its nodes.

Fig. 3 – The node vector of angle-varying thin-walled

cylinder.
The distance of Node N(i, j, k) to the z axis of the CS, which
is the centre axis of the cylinder, is R(i, j, k):
R(i, j, k) = R + Z(i, j, k) tan(a) + DT j
As shown in Fig. 2(b), let b be the angle around the Z axis of
the coordinate system CS between nodes next to each other,
b = DR /R, then
X(i, j, k) = R(i, j, k) cos(b k)
Y(i, j, k) = R(i, j, k) sin(b k)
For varying-angle thin-walled cylindrical parts, the Z(x, y,
z), the z coordinate value of the node N(i, j, k) shown in Fig. 3,
is the same as that in Eq. (9). The R(i, j, k) is different from that
in Eq. (10):
where L0, R0 and a0 are the length, internal radius and angle
of the top surface of the top section of component, and Lp ,
Rp and ap are the length, internal radius and the angle of the
pth section of the component, and p ∈ [1, S − 1]. The X and Y
coordinate values of the node N(i, j, k) are the same as these
in Eqs. (11) and (12). The flow chart of the iteration for the ID(i,
(10)
j, k), X(i, j, k), Y(i, j, k) and Z(i, j, k) of the node N(i, j, k) is shown
in Fig. 4 for the 1st order element C3D8.
After the node generation, it is necessary to generate the
element by the software. As shown in Fig. 5, a C3D8 element
E1(i, j, k) is an element composed of eight nodes, starting from
the node whose node number is ID(i, j, k), where i ∈ [0, NT − 2],
(11) j ∈ [0, NL − 2] and k ∈ [0, NR − 2], the IDn 1, . . ., IDn 8, which are
the node ID numbers of E1(i, j, k) in relation to the i, j and k,
(12) is shown in Fig. 5(b). With the initial value of IDe being zero,
the flow chart of C3D8 element generation is the same as that
shown in Fig. 4 except the highlighted part, which is changed
to
IDe = IDe + 1

R(i, j, k) = R0 + Z(i, j, k)tan(a0 ) + DT j if 0 < Z(i, j, k) < L0 (13) IDn 1 = ID(i, j, k)

...
(15)
IDn 8 = ID(i + 1, j, k + 1)
 

p
E1 (i, j, k) = [IDe1 , IDn 1, . . . , IDn 8]
R(i, j, k) = Rp + Z(i, j, k) − Lu tan(ap )
Print E1 (i, j, k) to the FEA file
u=0
 

p

p+1

+DT j if Z(i, j, k) ∈ Lu , Lu (14) 3.2. Node and element generation for C3D2D element
u=0 u=0

As shown in Fig. 6, there is a middle node on each of the 12 edge

Fig. 4 – Flow chart of node generation for C3D8 element.
of the 2nd order solid element C3D20, and there is no node on
the centre of the element surface, in other word, the iteration
will be skipped if any two of the three variables i, j, k are odds,
where i ∈ [0, NL − 1], j ∈ [0, NT − 1], the highlighted iteration
body shown in Fig. 4 for a node N(i, j, k) should be modified as
If[any two of the three variables i, j and k are odds = false
N(i, j, k) = ID(i, j, k), X(i, j, k), Y(i, j, k), Z(i, j, k)]
below:
Print N(i, j, k) to the FEA file
End if
Iteration for element generation of E2(i, j, k), i ∈ [0, EL − 1],
j ∈ [0, ET − 1] and k ∈ [0, ER − 1] is similar to Fig. 4 and the high-
lighted body is modified as below, where IDn 1, . . ., IDn 20, which
 j o u r n a l o f m a t e r i a l s p r o c e s s i n g t e c h n o l o g y 2 0 5 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 338–346 343

Fig. 6 – Element E2(i, j, k) and its nodes.

Fig. 7 – Symmetry boundary condition.

are the functions of ID(i, j, k), are shown in Fig. 6(b): geometry with extra boundary condition to reduce the cal-
culation time. The variable introduced to represent that part
IDe2 = IDe2 + 1 of the component is variable ␤, which will be automatically
IDn1 = ID(2i, 2j, 2k) assigned if the geometry and boundary condition are sym-
metrical about the X axis or the Y axis.
...
(17)
IDn 20 = ID(2i, 2j + 2, 2k + 1)
3.3.3. Boundary condition—X symmetry (␤ = )
E2 (i, j, k) = [IDe1 , IDn 1, . . . , IDn 20]
As shown in Fig. 7(a), if the component geometry and its
Print E2 (i, j, k) to the FEA file boundary condition are symmetrical about the XZ plane of
the CS, only half of the geometry with extra boundary condi-
3.3. Material property and boundary condition and tion shown in Fig. 7(b) needs to be modelled. The X symmetry
steps boundary condition can be represented by the constraints of
Y direction on the nodes N Set whose X coordinate value is
3.3.1. Material properties
The parameters of material property are Young’s modulus E
and Poisson ratio v, which are input by user.

3.3.2. Boundary condition and steps

Boundary condition includes displacement and force bound-
ary condition. The vector of a boundary condition is a function
of variables i, j, k, where i ∈ [0, NL − 1], j ∈ [0, NT − 1] and k ∈ [0,
NR − 1] and is represented as

BC(i, j, k) = [Type, N Set, DF1, DF2, Mag] (18)

where “Type = 0” for displacement boundary condition, and

“Type = 1” for force boundary condition; N Set is the node
or node set on which the boundary condition is applied,
DF1 and DF2 are the first and the last constrained DOF
(degree of freedom), respectively. DF1 and DF2 are 1, 2 and
3 if the constrained DOF are X, Y and Z regarding the CS,
respectively, DF2 is optional and is left empty if it does
not exist. Mag is the magnitude of the displacement or the
force.
If the component geometry and boundary condition is
symmetrical, it is desirable to model part of the component Fig. 8 – Flow chart for boundary conditions and steps.
344 j o u r n a l o f m a t e r i a l s p r o c e s s i n g t e c h n o l o g y 2 0 5 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 338–346

zero: 3.3.5. Held on the bottom end surface

The initial condition is that the component is fixed in X, Y,
YS1 = BC(i, j, k) = [0, N Set, 2, , 0] (19) Z directions of the end surface, whose z coordinate value is
S−1
L for conic cylinder and p=0
Lp for angle-varying cylinder
where N set = {ID (i, j, 0) and ID (i, j, Int(NR /2)), i ∈ [0, NT − 1], regarding the CS, The boundary condition vector is
j ∈ [0, NL − 1]}. Y symmetry can be regarded as X symmetry by
assigning an appropriate coordinate system CS. FIX1 = BC(i, j, k) = [0, N set, 1, 3, 0] (22)

3.3.4. X and Y symmetry (␤ = 1/2)
If the geometry and force and displacement boundary condi-
tion are symmetrical about both the XZ plane and YZ plane
of the CS, only 1/4 geometry of the components as shown
in Fig. 7(c) should be employed, and for i ∈ [0, NT − 1] and
j ∈ [0, NL − 1], the boundary constraints of X and Y symmetry
are
where N set = {ID(NL − 1, j, k), j ∈ [0, NT − 1] and k ∈ [0, NR − 1]}.
3.3.6. Held on the top end surface
If the machining deformation of the component is excessive,
a fixture is required to hold the top end surface of the com-
ponent whose z coordinate value is zero. In this case, the
displacement boundary condition is

XS1 = BC(i, j, k) = [0, N Set, 1, , 0] FIX2 = BC(i, j, k) = [0, N set, 1, 3, 0] (23)

where N set = [ID(i, j, 0)] (20)
where N set = {ID(0, j, k), j ∈ [0, NT − 1] and k ∈ [0, NR − 1]}.

YS2 = BC(i, j, k) = [0, N Set, 2, , 0], 3.3.7. Tolerance

Tolerance Tol, a user input variable, is the maximum allowed
where N set = [ID(i, j, Int(1/2NR ))] (21)
deformation in the thickness direction. The tolerance Tol may

Fig. 9 – Interface of the parametric FEA system. (a) Conic cylinder and (b) angle-varying conic cylinder.
 j o u r n a l o f m a t e r i a l s p r o c e s s i n g t e c h n o l o g y 2 0 5 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 338–346
Fig. 9 – (Continued )
be applied on the nodes on the thin wall of components dur-
ing different steps (loading sequence) in order to calculate the
maximum allowed machining forces. Let us assume that the
tolerance is applied on the node ID(i, 0, 0) where i ∈ [0, NL − 1] in
the ith steps, the boundary condition vector for the tolerance
is
TLi = BC(i, j, k) = [0, ID(i, 0, 0), 1, , Tol]
The maximum allowed machining forces Fmax should be
less than the minimal reaction forces on the nodes where the
Tol is applied on:
F < F max = Min(RF 0 , . . . , RF i , . . . , RF NL −1 )
where RFi is the reaction force on the nodes ID(i, 0, 0) where the
tolerance Tol is applied. F is the machining forces input by user.
Eq. (25) can be used to assess whether or not the machining
force specified by the user is acceptable.
3.3.8. Force boundary condition
Similar to the boundary condition vector for tolerance,
machining force F is applied on the nodes on the thin wall
345
of components during different steps in order to calculate the
machining deformation. Assuming the force is applied on the
node ID(i, 0, 0) during the ith step, the boundary condition
vector for the force is
FCi = BC(i, j, k) = [1, ID(i, 0, 0), 1, , F] (26)
(24)
To meet the tolerance requirement, the maximum defor-
mation Dmax induced by the machining force F on the wall of
the component should be less than the tolerance Tol:
Dmax = Max(D1 , . . . , Di , . . . DNT −1 ) < Tol (27)
(25)
where Di is the deformation induced by machining force F on
the node ID(i, 0, 0). If Eq. (26) cannot be satisfied when both top
and bottom surfaces of components are constrained, fixture
that supports components on the thin wall is then required.
3.3.9. Steps
There are NL nodes in the length direction, therefore, NL steps
is applied. The flowchart of steps iteration is shown in Fig. 8.
346 j o u r n a l o f m a t e r i a l s p r o c e s s i n g t e c h n o l o g y 2 0 5 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 338–346
4. System introduction
After starting the software, the user needs to select the
component type: conic thin-walled cylinder or angle-varying
thin-walled cylinder. Since the geometry parameters of these
two components are different, the interfaces for the user
are slightly different as shown in Fig. 9(a) and (b). The user
interface includes five parts: geometry parameters, material
property assignment, force and tolerance assignment, bound-
ary condition and mesh generations. Once the user specifies
the input, an FEA input file is generated and ready for calcu-
lation on the FEA solvers.
5. Conclusions
Fixture is an effective means for thin-walled components to
reduce deformation, vibration and increase material removal
ratio. The research regarding fixture for thin-walled com-
ponents is seldom reported. It has been recognised that
modelling of the machining process of thin-walled compo-
nents is important. However, the current modelling process
is still dedicated and time-consuming, and much of the work
to build a simulation is repeatable. Parametric technology for
FEA simulation is highly demanded to realise a flexible and
reconfigurable manufacturing of the thin-walled components.
In this paper a parametric FEA software system is devel-
oped for thin-walled cylindrical components. Three types
of components are considered: straight thin-walled cylin-
der, conic thin-walled cylinder and angle-varying thin-walled
cylinder. Based on user input, including geometry parameters
of the components, material property, boundary condition,
tolerance and machining forces, the FEA input file can be gen-
erated automatically. Two situations are taken into account:
components fixed at one end surface and components fixed at
both end surfaces. After comparing the deformation induced
by machining forces to the tolerance, it is possible to assess
whether a fixture to support the wall of the thin-walled com-
ponents is needed.
references
ABAQUS, 2004. Analysis user’s manual, version 6.5, Hibbit,
Karlsson & Sorensen, Inc., USA.
Brave, U., Altuzarra, O., Lopez de Lacalle, L.N., Sanchez, J.A.,
Campa, J.J., 2005. Stability limites of milling considering the
flexibility of the workpiece and the machine. International
Journal of Machine Tool and Manufacture 45,
1669–1680.
Commercial product of Forkardt, Expanding mandrels for very
large components, http://www.forkardt.com/products/
specialchucks/page8.html.
Commercial product of Forkardt, Clamping solution for
thin-walled rings, http://www.forkardt.com/products/
specialchucks/page7.html.
Mehdi, K., Rigal, J.F., Play, D., 2002a. Dynamic behaviour of a
thin-walled cylindrical workpiece during the turning process.
Part 1. Cutting process simulation, Transaction of ASME.
Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering 124,
562–568.
Mehdi, K., Rigal, J.F., Play, D., 2002b. Dynamic behaviour of a
thin-walled cylindrical workpiece during the turning process.
Part 2. Experimental approach and validation, Transaction of
ASME. Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering 124,
569–580.
Ratchev, S., Govender, E., Nikov, S., 2002. Towards deflection
prediction and compensation in machining of low-rigidity
parts. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers,
Part 2 216, 129–134.
Ratchev, S., Liu, S., Huang, W., Becker, A.A., 2004a. A flexible force
model for end milling of low-rigidity parts. Journal of
Materials Processing Technology 153–154, 134–138.
Ratchev, S., Nikov, S., Moualek, I., 2004b. Material removal
simulation of peripheral milling of thin-wall low-rigidity
structure using FEA. Advanced in Engineering Software 35,
481–491.
Ratchev, S., Huang, W., Liu, S., Becker, A.A., 2004c. Modelling and
simulation environment for machining of low-rigidity
components. Journal of Material Processing Technology
153–154, 67–73.
Ratchev, S., Liu, S., Huang, W., Becker, A.A., 2004d. Milling error
prediction and compensation in machining of low-rigidity
parts. International Journal of Machine tools & Manufacture
44, 1329–1641.
Thevenot, V., Arnaud, L., Dessein, G., Cazenave-Larroche, G., 2006.
Integration of dynamic behaviour variations in the stability
lobes method: 3D lobes construction and application to
thin-walled structure milling. International Journal of
Advanced Manufacturing Technology 27, 638–644.
Tsai, J., Liao, C., 1999. Finite-element modelling of static surface
error in the peripheral milling of thin walled workpieces.
Journal of Materials Processing Technology 94,
235–246.
Koelling, R., 1998. Apparatus and method for precision machining
of metal rings. US Patent, No. 5,711,195, issued 27th January.