The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology (2023) 125:2225–2242

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-023-10835-1

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Grasping point optimization for sheet metal part based

on GSA‑Kriging model in a multi‑robot assembly system
Chenxi Zhu1,2,3 · Xiao‑Jin Wan1,2,3 · Zhengjie Zhou1,2,3

Received: 2 June 2022 / Accepted: 8 January 2023 / Published online: 19 January 2023
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2023

Abstract
Automobile flexible sheet metal parts are prone to produce non-negligible grasping deformation, and choosing an appropriate
layout of grasping points is an important means to reduce the grasping deformation for sheet metal parts. It is challenging
to optimize the layout of grasping points efficiently and accurately because of the large number of robot fingers due to a
large size sheet part. In order to improve the optimization efficiency and reduce the computational cost, this paper proposes
a two-stage optimization design method for the layout of grasping points based on GSA-Kriging surrogate model. First, the
number of robot fingers and their feasible range are determined according to the stability of robotic grasping operation and
the degree of deformation at different positions. Then, according to the position distribution of grasping points, they are
divided into two stages for optimization. Finally, GSA-Kriging surrogate model and gravitational search algorithm (GSA)
are used to find the optimal layout of grasping points. In this paper, the layout of grasping point optimization of a certain car
door sheet part is utilized as a case to validate the proposed method and we have designed an experimental system to test
the proposed grasp method on a curved sheet part. The result shows that the GSA-Kriging surrogate model is more accurate
and more stable than Kriging and other surrogate models. At the same time, the two-stage optimization method improves
the optimization efficiency while reducing the calculation cost and burden.

Keywords Sheet metal · Grasping point layout · GSA-Kriging surrogate model · Optimization method · Two-stage

1 Introduction of grasping points to reduce the deformation of sheet metal

Sheet metal parts are widely used in all positions of the
automobile, its characteristic is the weak rigidity, and it is
prone to deforming under processing force, grasping force,
and itself own gravity. Grasping point layout is an important
factor influencing the deformation of sheet metal part, and
an unreasonable layout of the grasping points can lead to
serious deformation of sheet metal part. Therefore, it is of
great significance to select and design a reasonable layout
* Xiao‑Jin Wan
wxj_2001@163.com
1
School of Automotive Engineering, Wuhan University
of Technology, Wuhan 430070, China
2
Hubei Key Laboratory of Advanced Technology
for Automotive Components, Wuhan University
of Technology, Wuhan 430070, China
3
Hubei Key Collaborative Innovation Center for Automotive
Components Technology, Wuhan University of Technology,
Wuhan 430070, China
part and ensure its assembly accuracy. In recent years, many
scholars focus on the optimization of grasping point layout
of sheet metal parts. Using finite element analysis to calcu-
late the deformation and using intelligent optimization algo-
rithms to optimize the layout of a given number of fixture
elements is the main method to solve grasping point layout
optimization problem at present.
Krishnakumar and Melkote [1] used a combination of
genetic algorithms and finite element analysis to find the
optimal fixture layout to minimize the surface deformation
error of the workpiece subjected to clamping and cutting
forces. Kashyap and DeVries [2] used finite element analy-
sis combined with the penalty function method to optimize
the fixture support position and tool position to minimize
workpiece deformation caused by processing load at the fix-
ture support position. Li et al. [3] used genetic algorithms
to solve the fixturing scheme optimization model, to mini-
mize the maximum fixturing-induced deformation of the
surface to be machined. Kulankara et al. [4] proposed an
iterative algorithm that minimizes the elastic deformation

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
2226 The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology (2023) 125:2225–2242
of the workpiece throughout the cutting process by alter-
nately changing the fixture layout and clamping force. Xing
et al. [5] proposed a new method to optimize fixture scheme
by a non-domination sorting social radiation algorithm
(NSSRA). The case study results suggested that NSSRA
has better efficiency and higher accuracy than NSGA-II. By
combining finite element analysis with ant colony/genetic
hybrid algorithms, Zhou et al. [6] optimized the positioning
layout of the fixture and reduced the maximum deformation
of sheet metal under gravity conditions. Liao [7] realized
the optimization design of the number and position of the
assembly fixtures based on the optimization method coupled
with the finite element analysis based on genetic algorithms
to minimize the deformation of the workpiece under the
gravity effect and due to the size change of the parts. Huang
et al. [8] proposed a synchronous optimization method of
clamping layout based on genetic algorithms and a para-
metric simulation model to minimize the maximum defor-
mation of the workpiece after milling. Xing [9] proposed a
fully automated and efficient method of fixture layout opti-
mization based on the combination of 3dcs simulation (for
dimensional analyses) and global optimization algorithms
and applied social radiation algorithm (SRA) and GAOT to
the proposed method, the case study results showed that the
GAOT algorithm was more suitable than SRA for generat-
ing the optimal fixture layout with excellent efficiency for
engineering applications. Milad et al. [10] proposed an opti-
mization method based on ant colony algorithm and finite
element analysis to optimize the number of fixture elements
and positioning layout with the part deviation as the optimi-
zation objective. Vishnupriyan et al. [11] adopted genetic
algorithms to optimize fixture layout and clamping force
simultaneously under the condition of considering geometric
error, to reduce the overall machining error of the workpiece
to the maximum extent. In order to improve the precision
of precision machining of turbine blades, Wang et al. [12]
optimized the positioning points and clamping points of the
workpiece based on finite element analysis and neighbor-
hood random search algorithm.
To sum up, it can be seen that the combination of finite
element analysis and intelligent evolutionary algorithm has
become the most common and practical method for grasping
point layout optimization design in engineering. However,
the direct combination of intelligent algorithm and finite
element analysis often faces huge computational pressure
and requires a lot of mobilization of finite element analysis,
which both increases the computational cost and reduces the
efficiency optimization design, while the surrogate model
can largely solve this problem. Using a surrogate model
instead of a finite element model can avoid expensive and
time-consuming finite element simulation analysis and
improve the efficiency of grasping point layout optimization.
Common surrogate models include Kriging, polynomial
13
response surface model, RBF, BP neural network, and sup-
port vector machine regression. In recent years, many kinds
of research on grasping point layout optimization design
based on surrogate model have been carried out by scholars
at home and abroad.
Hamedi [13] constructed a BPNN surrogate model
between clamping force, contact state, and the maximum
elastic deformation of the workpiece through finite ele-
ment analysis with fewer times and obtained the optimal
clamping force of the fixture through genetic algorithms
to reduce the maximum elastic deformation of the work-
piece in the process of processing. Sundararaman et al.
[14] used response surface method to model the relation-
ship between the position of positioner and fixture and
the maximum deformation of the workpiece in the pro-
cess of end milling and optimized the established model
by using genetic algorithms and particle swarm optimi-
zation algorithm. Qin et al. [15] constructed a BPNN
model describing the functional relationship between
clamping parameters and workpiece deformation and
combined BPNN with genetic algorithms to develop a
unified method to complete multi-fixture layout plan-
ning for sheet metal part workpiece processing to control
clamping deformation. Yang et al. [16] constructed the
support vector machine regression model of the func-
tional relationship between fixture locating point and
workpiece strain energy and compared it with the RBF
neural network model, and it was found that its accu-
racy was higher. In order to minimize the surface shape
error of glass laser components, Su et al. [17] proposed
a multi-kernel support vector function regression model
and constructed a two-layer support vector machine
regression model of device deformation response with
respect to ambient temperature and clamping force. Sub-
sequently, the branch and bound algorithm were used to
optimize the clamping force. Rex and Ravindran [18]
proposed a comprehensive method to optimize fixture
layout design, by establishing BPNN model to predict the
deformation of the work-fixture system, so as to control
the maximum elastic deformation of the workpiece in
the whole processing process. Wang et al. [19] adopted
a method based on radial basis neural network and bat
optimization algorithm to optimize the positioning lay-
out of fixture, aiming to minimize the overall deforma-
tion of sheet metal under gravity. Gino Dini and Franco
Failli [20] proposed a computer-aided module for the
detection of grasps of 3D objects by using RBF. The
neural networks are properly tailored and trained in order
to evaluate and compare the different grasping alterna-
tives according to geometrical and technological aspects
of object surfaces. Qi et al. [21] based on the principle
of simultaneously minimizing the sum of squares and
variance of errors at each point of the sheet metal and
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology (2023) 125:2225–2242
Fig. 1  Sheet metal part assembly process
realized the optimization of the clamping position based
on the fast non-dominated multi-objective optimization
algorithm with elite retention strategy. Aderiani et al.
[22] proposed a novel optimization method that opti-
mizes all these parameters simultaneously to maximize
the geometrical quality of the assemblies. To attain this
goal, compliant variation simulations of the assemblies
are utilized along with evolutionary optimization algo-
rithms. After determining the optimal design parame-
ters, the optimal positions of locators are fine-tuned in
another stage of optimization. Yu [23] proposed a robust
fixture design method of the compliant assembly process
based on a support vector regression model. Case study
results showed that the proposed method is feasible and
Fig. 2  Grasping system
2227
the assembly quality under the robust fixture locating
layout has been greatly increased. Lu and Wang [24] pro-
posed a positioning variation analysis approach for the
sheet metal workpiece with N-2–1 locating scheme. And
the proposed positioning variation analysis approach for
the sheet metal workpiece with N-2–1 locating scheme
is verified with a case study.
In summary, for the general fixture layout and grasping
point layout problem, most of the research methods are to
optimize the positions of the remaining fixtures or grasp-
ing points in the case that the positions of some fixtures
are determined, which has few optimization variables.
However, in the robotic grasping problem, for large-size
sheet metal parts, there are too many robot fingers during
processing and too many design variables in the construc-
tion of the surrogate model, resulting in too costly finite
element simulations and inaccurate surrogate models.
Therefore, this paper proposes a two-stage optimization
design method for grasping point layout based on GSA-
Kriging model. The grasping point layout as the design
variable and the strain energy due to gravity and robot
grasping force during the grasping process of sheet metal
part as the optimization objective, to build GSA-Kriging
surrogate model. The remainder of the paper is organ-
ized as follows. Sections 2 and 3 introduce the grasp-
ing point layout optimization scheme and GSA-Kriging
model, respectively. Section 4 proposes the flowchart of
the grasping point optimization scheme. In Sect. 5, a case
of car door sheet part is used to illustrate the optimiza-
tion flowchart of the grasping point optimization scheme.
In Sect. 6, we designed an experimental system to test
the proposed grasp method. Finally, Sect. 7 draws the
conclusions.
13
2228
Fig. 3  The grasping point distribution range instance
2 Formulation of problem
In a multi-robot assembly system as show in Fig. 1, two robots
each hold two sheet metal parts by gripper fingers, while the
other performs welding operations. In the process of assembly,
sheet metal parts are prone to deformation due to gripping force
and gravity which will affect the manufacturing accuracy, so the
layout of grasping points is particularly important. This section
will show the grasping point layout scheme through a simple
sheet metal part and introduce the optimization model.
2.1 Grasping point layout scheme
Considering the closure of spatial grasping and the applicabil-
ity of sheet metal parts of different shapes and sizes, we use a
total of 8 robot fingers distributed on the surface and edge of
the sheet metal part to achieve general grasping of the sheet
metal part.
Take a simple oval sheet metal as an example to illustrate
the grasping point layout scheme. Considering m fingertips
grasp the object, as shown in Fig. 2. Choose reference frame
{O} fixed relative to the object. Let the frames {P} and {C}
be the inertial base frame and contact frame at the i -th point
of contact, respectively. vo and 𝜔o are called the linear and
the angular velocity of the object, respectively. Let ni and ri
be the unit inner normal vector of the object and the contact
position at the i -th point of contact [25].
Grasping point layout affects the stability of grasping.
When the robot grabs an object, the contact force fc between
the finger and the object and the external force Fe (including
force and torque) in the workspace have the following map-
ping relationship [26]:
Gfc = Fe
⎛ 0 −z y ⎞
⎛ I ⋯ I ⎞ ⎜ i i
⎟ Find f it(Xt )_best and f it(Xt )_worst individual
where,G = ⎜⎜ ⎟,,Ri = ri × = ⎜ z 0 −xi ⎟ ∈ so(3),
⎝ R1
⎟
⋯ Rm ⎠ ⎜ i
⎜ −y x
⎟
⎟
⎝ i i 0 ⎠
Lie algebra of the special orthogonal groupSO(3).× denotes
13
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology (2023) 125:2225–2242
as an operator for skew symmetric matrix,I ∈ R3×3 is an
identity matrix, fc ∈ Rn×1 is the fingertip contact force
∑
(n = m n , m is the number of robot fingers involved);
i=1 i
Fe ∈ Rq×1 is the external force acting on a body; G ∈ Rp×n is
grasping matrix, which is related to the layout of grasping
points on the object. For spatial grasping, ni= 3, q = 6,
and p= 6.
Grasping stability is determined by grasping matrix G ,
and the performance index of grasping stability is
√
𝜇(G) = 𝑑𝑒𝑡(GGT ) (2)
The closer the performance index 𝜇(G) is to 1, the more
uniform the distribution of robot fingers, the larger the vol-
ume of the generalized force ellipsoid of the workspace, and
the more stable the robotic grasping is. From an engineering
perspective, grasping stability is a key factor to ensure the
position stability and reliability of the workpiece in the pro-
cessing process [27]. Therefore, the grasping stability index
can be used to determine the reasonable range of grasping
point layout range, that is, as far as possible to select a more
uniform distribution of robot fingers layout area, so that the
stability value is larger.
For the oval sheet metal, the maximum stability index
𝜇(G) is obtained when the grasping points are evenly distrib-
uted on the surface of the sheet metal. Therefore, the grasp-
ing point distribution range as shown in Fig. 3 can ensure
that the grasping point layout always has good grasping sta-
bility under various combinations.
2.2 Optimization model of grasping point layout
The objective of grasping point layout optimization of
sheet metal part model is to determine the best positions of
Table 1  Pseudo code of GSA
Gravitational search algorithm
[ ]
Objective function f (X), X = x1 , x2 , ⋯ , xd
Randomly initializes the population of individuals X0
Define the initial gravitational constant G0
Evaluate the fitness f it(X0 ) of the population
While (t < maximum number of iterations)
Update gravity constant G and individual quality M
Calculate the total gravitational force and acceleration of the indi-
vidual
(1) Update individual speed and position ( Xt)
Computing the fitness f it(Xt )
so(3) is the
Update the best fitness value F_best so far
End while
Post-process results and visualization
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology (2023) 125:2225–2242
Fig. 4  Grasping point layout optimization flowchart
robot fingers under a given number to minimize the elas-
tic deformation of sheet part. Most of the existing studies
evaluate the deformation degree of the sheet metal part by
the normal overall deformation, maximum deformation, or
deformation at key points and ignore the deformation of
sheet metal part in other directions and overall deforma-
tion. According to the functional principle of the deformed
body and the existing studies, the work done by the sheet
metal part under the action of gravity and other external
forces is equal to the strain energy stored in it. There is a
2229
positive correlation between the strain energy and the elastic
deformation, so when the elastic deformation is the small-
est, the internal strain energy is also the smallest. Therefore,
in order to take into account the overall deformation of the
sheet metal part, this paper adopts the overall strain energy
of the sheet metal part as the evaluation index of grasping
point layout optimization. The design variables are the loca-
tions of the grasping points:X = [x1 , x2 , ⋯ xi , ⋯ , xj , ⋯ , xN ].
The (feasible domain set of grasping ) point layout is
Ω = w1 , w2 , ⋯ , wi , ⋯ , wj , ⋯ , wN , t he optimization
13
2230 The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology (2023) 125:2225–2242

Fig. 5  Geometry of car door sheet part

Fig. 8  Distribution of grasping points

Table 2  Boundary values of the grasping points

Grasp- Coordinate values (mm)
ing
points Variable Constant

P1 X1 ∈[0,533], Z1 ∈[0,268.8] Y1 =  − 0.02

P2 X2 ∈[460.6,780.6], Z2 ∈ Y2 =  − 0.02
[268.8,768.8]
P3 X3 ∈[140.6,460.6], Z3 ∈ Y3 =  − 0.02
[268.8,768.8]
P4 X4 ∈[− 179.4,140.6], Z4 ∈ Y4 =  − 0.02
[268.8,768.8]
P5 Z5 ∈[268.8,818.8] X5 = 795, Y5 =  − 0.02
P6 Z6 ∈[818.8,1368.8] X6 = 805, Y6 =  − 0.06
P7 X7 ∈[− 144.2,805.8] Y7 =  − 0.1, Z7 = 1370
Fig. 6  Grid model of car door sheet metal part P8 Z8 ∈[248.3,948.3] X8 =  − 193, Y8 =  − 0.02

Find ∶ X = [x1 , x2 , ⋯ xi , ⋯ , xj , ⋯ , xN ]

∑K
Min ∶ U(X) = u (X)
i=1 i
(3)

s.t.
x1 ∈ w1 , ⋯ , xN ∈ wN

where xi and xi represent the position coordinates of the i

Fig. 7  Deformation of door sheet under self-weight
objective function is the whole strain energy U of sheet
metal part, and the mathematical model of grasping point
layout optimization is as Eq. (3).
-th and j-th grasping point, respectively; wi and wj represent
the i -th and j-th feasible region of grasping point layout,
respectively, and i, j = 1, ⋯ , N ;N is the number of grasping
points; K is the number of elements in the finite element
model of sheet metal part; U(X) is the overall strain energy
of sheet metal part under the condition of a grasping point
layout; ui (X) is the strain energy at unit i . And the design
variable xi must be within the preset wi range.

13
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology (2023) 125:2225–2242 2231

Table 3  Initial layout of Primary grasping Coordinate values (X × Z) Edge grasping Coordinate values (X × Z)
grasping points point point

P1 (266.5, 134.4) P5 (795, 543.8)

P2 (620.6, 518.8) P6 (805, 1093.8)
P3 (300.6, 518.8) P7 (330.8, 1370)
P4 (− 19.4, 518.8) P8 (− 193, 598.3)

3 GSA‑Kriging prediction model function, and the correlation function is selected as Gaussian
correlation function below:
3.1 Kriging surrogate model [ ]
( ) ∑m | i j |2
i j
R 𝜃, X , X = 𝑒𝑥𝑝 − 𝜃 |X − Xk | (5)
k=1 k | k |
The Kriging model, named after South African mining
engineer Krige, was introduced into the field of engineer- where m represents the dimension of the design vari-
ing design by Sacks et al. [28]. The Kriging model has the able, and 𝜃k represents the correlation coefficient of the k
advantages of accurate interpolation and prediction at the -th variable.
design sample points and has a good fitting effect for strong
non-linear problems. Standard Kriging models generally 3.2 Gravitational search algorithm (GSA)
include a regression part and a random function [29]. The
basic principles of the Kriging model are as follows. The gravitational search algorithm (GSA) is a swarm intel-
Given input vector x ∈ Rm , the mathematical expression ligence optimization algorithm based on the law of gravity
of the Kriging model can be expressed as Eq. (4). and the law of motion proposed by Esmat Rashdi et al. [30]
y(X) = F(𝛽, X) + Z(X) (4) in 2009. It seeks the optimal solution through particle posi-
tion movement of the population. The optimal solution is
where F(𝛽, X) is the global polynomial regression model, obtained when the particle moves to the optimal position.
𝛽 is the regression coefficient, and Z(X) is the local random The difference between GSA and other swarm intelli-
process model, representing a random process( with)zero gence search algorithms is that GSA mainly uses the interac-
mean and satisfying
[ ( i ) the( normal
)] distribution
( )N i 0, 𝜎 jand
2
tion force between particles to make the particles move, thus
covariance 𝑐𝑜𝑣 Z X , Z X = 𝜎 R 𝜃, X , X ,X and X are
j 2 i j
achieving the position update without the need of environ-
two design variables, 𝜎 2 is the variance of a random pro- mental information of the population. GSA has fast solving
cess, and 𝜃 is the correlation coefficient vector. In this paper, speed and strong global searching ability. The basic steps of
the polynomial regression part is selected as constant basis GSA are summarized in Table 1.
Kriging predicting model output
20 20
Expected output
18 Kriging prediction output
18
Stress deformation energy(mJ)

16
16
Kriging prediction output

14
14
12
12
10
10
8
8
6

4 6

2 4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Testing Sample set by LHS Expected output

Fig. 9  Kriging model prediction renderings

13
2232 The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology (2023) 125:2225–2242

GSA-Kriging predicting model output

20 20
Expected output
18 GSA-Kriging prediction output 18
Stress deformation energy(mJ)

GSA-Kriging prediction output

16 16

14 14

12 12

10 10

8 8

6 6

4 4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Testing Sample set by LHS Expected output

Fig. 10  GSA-Kriging model prediction renderings

The updating rules of particle velocity and position are Under the given training sample condition, according to the
as Eq. (6) maximum likelihood estimation theory, the likelihood func-
tion is expressed as follows:
vdi (t + 1) = randi × vdi (t) + adi (t)randi ∈ [0, 1] [ ]
1 (Y − F𝛽)T R−1 (Y − F𝛽)
L= ( )n 𝑒𝑥𝑝 − (7)
1
2𝜋𝜎 2 2 |R| 2 2𝜎 2
xid (t + 1) = xid (t) + vdi (t + 1) (6)

And just to simplify things, let us take the log of L:

3.3 GSA‑Kriging model
n n ( ) 1 (Y − F𝛽)T R−1 (Y − F𝛽)
𝑙𝑛(L) = − 𝑙𝑛(2𝜋) − 𝑙𝑛 𝜎 2 − 𝑙𝑛|R| −
2 2 2 2𝜎 2
In order to make the surrogate model as close as possible to (8)
the original model and improve the prediction accuracy of
the surrogate model, it is necessary to debug and optimize Taking partial derivatives of the natural logarithm func-
the hyperparameters in the surrogate model. In this paper, tion 𝑙𝑛(L) with respect to regression term undetermined
GSA is applied to search and optimize the hyperparameters coefficient vector 𝛽 and random process variance 𝜎 2, respec-
𝜃 , 𝜎 2 , and 𝛽 of the Kriging model, and the GSA-Kriging tively, and making them both zero, it can be obtained:
model is constructed with optimized hyperparameters. ( )−1 ( T −1 )
𝛽̂ = F T R−1 F F R F
Since the Kriging model assumes that the response of the
source function follows the Gaussian normal distribution,
( )T ( )
the maximum likelihood estimation theory can be used to Y − F 𝛽̂ R−1 Y − F 𝛽̂
estimate the optimal hyperparameters of the Kriging model. (9)
̂2 =
𝜎
n

Table 4  Precision comparison of several models

The estimation expression 𝜎̂2 of 𝜎 2 was substituted into
𝑙𝑛(L), and the constant term was removed for the conveni-
Several models RMSE R2 ence of optimization:
GSA-Kriging 0.5973 0.9666 n ( 2) 1
Kriging 1.2117 0.8626 𝑙𝑛(L) = − 𝑙𝑛 𝜎
̂ − 𝑙𝑛|R| (10)
2 2
RBF 1.3415 0.8315
SVR 1.3064 0.8335 There is a hyperparameter 𝜃 in this formula. Therefore,
BPNN 1.2395 0.8609 the adjustment of the hyperparameter is to maximize 𝑙𝑛(L)

13
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology (2023) 125:2225–2242 2233

20 20

18 18
GSA-Kriging prediction output

16 16

RBF prediction output

14 14

12 12

10 10

8 8

6 6

4 4
4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Expected output Expected output

(a) GSA-Kriging (b) RBF

20 20

18 18

16 16
BPNN prediction output
SVR prediction output

14 14

12 12

10 10

8 8

6 6

4 4
4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Expected output Expected output

(c) SVR (d) BPNN

Fig. 11  Comparison of prediction effects of several models. (a) GSA-Kriging, (b) RBF, (c) SVR, and (d) BPNN

by selecting an appropriate 𝜃 and converting it into an uncon- process 𝜎 2 could be obtained by plugging in the correspond-
strained minimization form in non-logarithmic form. Then, ing formula. Then, the GSA-Kriging model was obtained,
the optimization model of maximum likelihood estimation and the predicted value and variance of the unknown point
of related parameter 𝜃 is as Eq. (11). were obtained.
( 2 1∕n )
� |R|
𝜎
min (11)
𝜃>0 2 4 Proposed approach
In this paper, GSA was used to search and optimize
In this paper, a two-stage grasping point layout optimiza-
the above models. When the optimal value of the relevant
tion design method based on GSA-Kriging model is pro-
parameter 𝜃 was obtained, the undetermined coefficient vec-
posed. The research is carried out for sheet metal part, and
tor 𝛽 of the regression term and the variance of the random
the optimal grasping point layout is found to minimize the

13
2234
10
9
8 finite element analysis, as shown in Fig. 7. The maximum
Fitness value/mJ
7 under gravity are 12.35 mm 1.48 × ­10−2 mm.
6
5 the generalized force ellipsoid corresponding to the grasp-
4
3 door sheet part and the deformation status of key nodes,
2
0 100 200 300 400 500
Evolutionary generation
Fig. 12  The first stage grasping point layout optimization curve
deformation of the sheet metal part by using the appropri-
ate grasping forces. First, the training and prediction data
sets are obtained by combining Latin hypercube sampling
(LHS) and finite element analysis (FEA). Then, the Kriging
surrogate model is established based on the training data
sets, and the gravitational search algorithm (GSA) is used
to optimize the hyperparameters of the model to obtain the
GSA-Kriging surrogate model. Finally, GSA is used to opti-
mize the GSA-Kriging surrogate model to obtain the optimal
layout of grasping points. The optimization of grasping point
layout is divided into two stages. First, the positions of the
four primary grasping points on the primary datum plane
are optimized, and then, the four edge grasping points on the
edge of the sheet metal part are optimized. Grasping point
layout optimization flow chart is as Fig. 4.
5 Case of car door sheet metal
In this section, a car door sheet part is studied, and the two-
stage method based on GSA-Kriging model is adopted to
optimize the positions of the grasping points. In the first
stage, the positions of the four primary grasping points P1,
P2, P3, and P4 on the primary datum plane are optimized.
Then, in the second stage, on this basis, the position of P5,
P6, P7, and P8 edge grasping points on the edge of the car
door sheet part are optimized, so as to finally get the optimal
grasping point layout of the robot fingers.
The car door sheet metal part’s geometric graphics and
meshed model are shown in Figs. 5 and 6. The thickness
of the door sheet part is 1 mm, the volume is 0.0019 ­m3,
Young’s modulus E is 7.12 × ­1010 pa, Poisson’s ratio is 0.33,
and the total mass is 5.31 kg.
13
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology (2023) 125:2225–2242
In order to determine the feasible area of grasping points,
the centroid of the door sheet metal part is fixed, and its
deformation degree under self-weight is observed through
and minimum deformations of the door sheet metal part
In order to make the grasping performance index value
𝜇(G) of robotic grasping at a larger value, the volume of
ing point layout within a given feasible range should be as
large as possible. Considering the overall size of the car
four primary grasping points are arranged on the primary
600 700 800
datum plane (X × Z direction), and four edge grasping
points are placed at the edge of the door sheet metal part.
The grasping point layout strategy is shown in Fig. 8.
The distribution of grasping points is as follows:
1. The positions of P1, P2, P3, and P4 change only in the
X × Z plane
2. The positions of P5 and P6 change only along the Z-axis
3. The position of P7 changes only along the X-axis
4. The position of P8 changes only along the Z-axis
Boundary values of grasping points are given in
Table 2.
According to engineering experience, the grasping pro-
cess is usually not carried out at a constant speed, taking
into account the actual grasping situation, this paper gives
a maximum acceleration of 1.5 m/s2, combined with the
weight of the door sheet metal, the grasping force corre-
sponding to grasping points is given as follows: F1 = 15 N,
F2 = 15 N, F3 = 15 N, F4 = 15 N, F5 = 2 N, F6 = 2 N, F7 = 2 N,
and F8 = 2 N.
The middle position of the distribution range of each
grasping point is taken as the initial position of the grasp-
ing point, and the initial grasping point layout is shown in
Table 3.
5.1 Optimization of primary grasping points
In the optimization of the four primary grasping points, the
four edge grasping points are in the initial position, and the
coordinates are P5 (795, 543.8), P6 (805, 1093.8), P7 (330.8,
1370), and P8 (− 193, 598.3), respectively. The four grasp-
ing points on the primary datum plane are divided into P1
(X1, Z1), P2 (X2, Z2), P3 (X3, Z3), and P4 (X4, Z4), a total of 8
design variables.
Subsequently, Latin hypercube sampling is used to gener-
ate 420 training sample points and 40 groups of test sam-
ple points. The strain energy generated during the grasping
process of the car door sheet part with different grasping
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology (2023) 125:2225–2242 2235

Kriging predicting model output

7 7
Expected output
Kriging prediction output 6.5
6.5
6
Stress deformation energy(mJ)

Kriging prediction output

5.5
5.5
5
5
4.5
4.5
4
4
3.5
3.5 3

3 2.5

2.5 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 2 3 4 5 6 7
Testing Sample set by LHS Expected output

(a) Kriging model

GSA-Kriging predicting model output
7 7
Expected output
GSA-Kriging prediction output 6.5
6.5

6
GSA-Kriging prediction output

6
Stress deformation energy(mJ)

5.5
5.5
5
5
4.5
4.5
4
4
3.5
3.5 3

3 2.5

2.5 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 2 3 4 5 6 7
Testing Sample set by LHS Expected output

(b) GSA-Kriging model

Fig. 13  Comparison of prediction effect between Kriging and GSA-Kriging. (a) Kriging model and (b) GSA-Kriging model

point layouts is calculated by finite element analysis, so as

to obtain the training sample set and test sample set.
Table 5  Precision comparison of several models The training sample set is used to construct the Kriging
Several models RMSE R2 model. The root mean square error (RMSE) of the Kriging
model is 1.2117 and the correlation coefficient (R2) is 0.863.
GSA-Kriging 0.1753 0.9836 The hyperparameter in the model 𝜃 = [0.061 0.16 0.005 0.04
Kriging 0.4113 0.9111 0.009 0.279 0.005 0.368], and the test sample set is used to
RBF 0.5213 0.8547 evaluate the accuracy of the model, as shown in Fig. 9.
SVR 0.4267 0.9055 Then, the gravity search algorithm (GSA) is used to opti-
BPNN 0.4361 0.8987 mize the hyperparameters of the Kriging model, where the

13
2236 The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology (2023) 125:2225–2242

6.5 6.5
GSA-Kriging prediction output

6 6

RBF prediction output

5.5 5.5

5 5

4.5 4.5

4 4

3.5 3.5

3 3
3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5
Expected output Expected output

(a) GSA-Kriging (b)RBF

6.5 6.5

6 6
SVR prediction output

BPNN prediction output

5.5 5.5

5 5

4.5 4.5

4 4

3.5 3.5

3 3

3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5

Expected output Expected output

(c)SVR (d)BPNN

Fig. 14  Comparison of prediction effects of GSA-Kriging, RBF, SVR, and BPNN. (a) GSA-Kriging, (b) RBF, (c) SVR, and (d) BPNN

GSA population size is set to 100, the maximum iteration model is 0.5973, and the correlation coefficient (R2) is 0.967.
step is set to 800, and the initial gravitational constant G0 Its prediction output is shown in Fig. 10.
is set to 20. The lower limit of hyperparameters 𝜃 is [0.001 At the same time, in order to further evaluate the accuracy
0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001], and the upper of the GSA-Kriging model in predicting the strain energy of
limit is [10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10]. the car door sheet with different grasping point layout, the
Finally, the optimized hyperparameter 𝜃 is [0.34 0.021 same training samples and test samples are used to estab-
0.001 0.008 0.004 0.618 0.018 0.164], and the optimized lish the radial basis function model, support vector machine
hyperparameter is constructed to obtain the GSA-Kriging (SVM) regression model, and BP neural network model. The
model. The root mean square error (RMSE) of GSA-Kriging comparison of prediction accuracy of each model is shown

13
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology (2023) 125:2225–2242 2237

2.6 5.2 Edge grasping point optimization

2.55
Based on the optimal layout of the four primary grasping
points, the next step is to optimize the four edge grasping
2.5
points. The positions of the four primary grasping points are
Fitness value/mJ

2.45
P1 (286.4, 154.4), P2 (480.6, 503.6), P3 (140.6, 768.8), and
P4 (93.4, 482.6), and the coordinates of the edge grasping
2.4 points are P5 (795, Z5), P6 (805, Z6), P7 (X7, 1370), and P8
(− 193, ­Z8), a total of 4 design variables.
2.35 Similarly, 110 groups of training sample points and 10
groups of test sample points are generated through LHS,
2.3 and the strain energy of the car door sheet part is calculated
through finite element analysis, so as to construct the Krig-
2.25
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 ing model. The hyperparameter 𝜃=[0.013 0.392 1.076 0.185]
Evolutionary generation in the model. Then, GSA is used to optimize the hyperpa-
rameters of the Kriging model. The population size of GSA
Fig. 15  The second stage grasping point layout optimization curve is set to 100, the maximum number of iterative steps is set
to 400, and the initial gravitational constant G0 is set to 20.
The lower limit of hyperparameters 𝜃 is [0.001 0.001 0.001
in Table 4 and Fig. 11. The more consistent the green shaded 0.001] and the upper limit is [10 10 10 10]. Finally, the
figure is with the triangle under the dotted line, the better the optimized hyperparameter 𝜃 is [0.094 7.489 6.698 0.006],
model fitting effect is. and the optimized hyperparameter is constructed to obtain
By comparing with other models, it can be found that the
GSA-Kriging model has higher accuracy when using the
same training sample set and test sample set. Therefore, the
GSA-Kriging model is selected as a surrogate model for the
first stage of the grasping point layout optimization.
Then, GSA is used to optimize the first stage of the
grasping point layout optimization model. The GSA pop-
ulation size is set to 100, the maximum iteration step is
set to 800, and the initial gravitational constant G0 is set
to 20. The optimization curve of the first stage is shown
in Fig. 12.
Finally, the optimal positions of the four grasping points
on the primary datum plane are P1 (286.4, 154.4), P2 (480.6,
503.6), P3 (140.6, 768.8), and P4 (93.4, 482.6). At this time,
the strain energy of the car door sheet metal part predicted
by the model is 2.681 mJ. The optimal grasping point layout
is substituted into the finite element software for analysis,
and the strain energy of the car door sheet metal part under Fig. 16  Optimal grasping point layout
this layout is 2.802 mJ, with an error of 4.32%, which meets
the requirements of general engineering accuracy. the GSA-Kriging model. The predicted output of the Krig-
ing model and the GSA-Kriging model is shown in Fig. 13.

Table 6  Optimal layout of Primary grasping Coordinate values (X × Z) Edge grasping Coordinate values (X × Z)
grasping points point point

P1 (286.4, 154.4) P5 (795, 545.9)

P2 (480.6, 503.6) P6 (805, 989.5)
P3 (140.6, 768.8) P7 (566.1, 1370)
P4 (93.4, 482.6) P8 (− 193, 946.1)

13
2238 The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology (2023) 125:2225–2242

(a) 3D view (b) Top view

Fig. 17  The normal deformation of the door sheet metal part under optimal grasping point layout. (a) 3D view and (b) top view

(a) 3D view (b) Top view

Fig. 18  The normal deformation of the door sheet metal part under initial grasping point layout. (a) 3D view and (b) top view

Table 7  Comparison between Optimization strategy Two-stage optimization Global optimization

two-stage optimization and
global optimization The first stage The second stage

Number of variables 8 4 12
Number of model samples 460 120 ≈800
Calculate time of a sample (s) 80 s 65 s 110 s
The total time (h) 12.4 h ≈24.4 h

The radial basis function model, support vector machine prediction accuracy of each model is compared in Table 5
regression model, and BP neural network model are respec- and Fig. 14.
tively constructed with the same training samples and test The GSA-Kriging model is optimized by GSA. The popula-
samples, and their accuracy is compared and analyzed. The tion size of GSA is set to 100, the maximum iteration step is

13
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology (2023) 125:2225–2242 2239

Fig. 19  The experimental setup

Finally, after two-stage optimization based on the GSA-

Kriging model, the optimal layout of grasping points is
shown in Table 6 and Fig. 16.
Under the optimal grasping point layout, the normal
deformation of each node of the car door sheet metal
part is shown in Fig. 17, with the maximum deforma-
tion of 0.245 mm and the minimum deformation of
1.204 × ­1 0 −4 mm. It can be seen from Fig. 17 that the
Fig. 20  Distribution of grasping points
normal deformation of the car door sheet metal part in
most areas is less than 0.1 mm, and only a small part of
the normal deformation is 0.2 mm–0.25 mm. Under the
initial grasping point layout, the normal deformation of
the car door sheet metal part is shown in Fig. 18, with the
Table 8  Boundary values of the grasping points maximum deformation of 0.8 mm. The comparison shows
Grasping Variable coordinate values Initial that the optimized grasping point layout greatly reduces
points coordinate the deformation of the sheet metal part and makes the
values whole sheet metal part in a small deformation state.
P1 X1 ∈ [0,200], Y1= Y2 ∈ [0,150] (140, 60) The more the number of surrogate model design vari-
P2 X2 ∈ [200,400], Y1= Y2 ∈ [0,150] (275, 60) ables, the higher the calculation cost. When 8 grasping
P3 X3 ∈ [0,200], Y3= Y4 ∈ [150,3000] (140, 240) points are used for simultaneous optimization, the num-
P4 X4 ∈ [200,400], Y3= Y4 ∈ [150,300] (275, 240) ber of variables of the surrogate model is 12. According
to engineering experience and characteristics of the sur-
rogate model, the expected sample size and calculation
time are shown in Table 7. (We have spent a lot of time
set to 400, and the initial gravitational constant G0 is set to 20. on global optimization, but the calculation cost is too
The optimization curve of the second stage is shown in Fig. 15. large, and the accuracy of the model is difficult to meet
The optimal positions of the four edge grasping points the requirements, finally choose to give up the method).
obtained by the final optimization are P5 (795, 545.9), P6 According to the corresponding data of both methods,
(805, 989.5), P7 (566.1, 1370), and P8 (− 193, 946.1). At this it can be found that the two-stage optimization method
time, the strain energy of the car door sheet metal part pre- can greatly reduce the calculation cost compared with the
dicted by the model is 2.303 mJ. The optimal layout of the global optimization method. At the same time, it can be
grasping points is substituted into the finite element software seen from the case study that the two-stage optimization
for analysis, and the strain energy of the car door sheet under method can effectively suppress the deformation in the
this layout is 2.378 mJ, with an error of 3.15%, which meets process of grasping sheet metal parts, so as to achieve the
the requirements of general engineering accuracy. purpose of improving the assembly accuracy.

13
2240 The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology (2023) 125:2225–2242

Kriging predicting model output GSA-Kriging predicting model output

17 17
Expected output Expected output
Kriging prediction output GSA-Kriging prediction output

Stress deformation energy(mJ)

Stress deformation energy(mJ)

16 16

15 15

14 14
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Testing Sample set by LHS Testing Sample set by LHS

Fig. 21  Comparison of prediction effect between Kriging and GSA-Kriging

is 304 stainless steel, Young’s modulus is 1.94 × ­1011 pa,

Table 9  Precision comparison of several models and Poisson’s ratio is 0.29. As shown in Fig. 19, the end-
Several models RMSE R2 effector of the robot consists of four suction cups and
four fingers. The diameter of the suction cup is 20 mm
GSA-Kriging 3.97 × 10–2 0.9963 and the width of the finger is 46 mm. The position of
Kriging 5.27 × 10–2 0.9627 each suction cup can be moved and adjusted, and the
RBF 9.43 × 10–2 0.9225 suction force can be controlled by the vacuum pressure
SVR 6.61 × 10–2 0.9469 gage. The fingers are fixed in the proper position. The
BPNN 6.94 × 10–2 0.9403 end-effector of the robot is equipped with a laser dis-
placement sensor to measure the displacement of the
workpiece.
6 Experimental results According to the grasping stability and considering
the structure and arrangement of the end-effector of the
In order to further validate the proposed method, we robot, the grasping point layout strategy is shown in
have carried out a case study of a curved sheet part and Fig. 20. At the same time, the unit adjustment spacing
designed an experimental system to test the proposed of grasping points in the X and Y directions is 15 mm,
grasp method. The size of the curved sheet parts is and the coordinates of P1, P2, and P3, P4 are the same in
400 mm × 300 mm, the thickness is 0.3 mm, the material the Y direction. Boundary values of grasping points are

(a) Initial layout (b) Optimal layout

Fig. 22  Deformation of sheet part before and after optimization of grasping point position. (a) Initial layout and (b) optimal layout

13
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology (2023) 125:2225–2242
Fig. 23  The grasp under initial
layout and optimal layout. (a)
Initial layout and (b) optimal
layout
(a) Initial layout
given in Table 8. The coordinates of the four fingers on
the edge are respectively (103, 0), (297, 0), (103, 300),
and (297, 300). We set the suction force to 0.8 N.
We used Latin hypercube sampling and finite element
analysis to obtain 200 training set data and 20 test set
data and constructed the GSA-kriging model and other
models. Their precision comparison is shown in Fig. 21
and Table 9.
Therefore, we choose the GSA-Kriging model with the
highest accuracy as the surrogate model of grasping point
layout optimization, and GSA was used to optimize it. The
optimal positions of the four grasping points obtained by
the final optimization are P1 (80, 105), P2 (230, 105), P3
(80, 255), and P4 (320, 255). At this time, the strain energy
of the sheet metal part predicted by the model is 14.18 mJ.
The optimal layout of the grasping points is substituted
into the finite element software for analysis, and the strain
energy of the sheet under this layout is 14.00 mJ, with an
error of 1.26%, which meets the requirements of general
engineering accuracy. Figure 22 shows the deformation of
sheet part before and after optimization of grasping point
position. The maximum deformation of the sheet part
under the initial layout is 0.173 mm, and the maximum
deformation of the sheet part under the optimal layout is
0.0873 mm. The maximum deformation of the sheet is
reduced by 0.0857 mm, and deformation suppression effect
increased by 49.5%.
The grasp under these two layouts is tested as shown in
Fig. 23. The maximum deformation of the sheet part under the
initial layout is denoted as point A, and then, the displacement
of point A under the initial layout and the optimal layout was
respectively measured. We can see that the deformation at point
A of the sheet part is reduced by 0.1 mm, and the deformation
suppression effect (0.1 mm) is close to the simulation result
(0.0857 mm). It can be known that the optimal grasping point
layout effectively inhibits the deformation of the sheet part.
2241
(b) Optimal layout
7 Conclusion
This paper proposed a two-stage layout of grasping point
optimization strategy based on the GSA-Kriging model for
the grasping of sheet metal part. According to the number of
robot fingers and their respective feasible range, the grasping
points on the primary datum plane are optimized first, and
then, the remaining edge grasping points are optimized on
this basis. During the optimization process, the gravitational
search algorithm is used to optimize the hyperparameters of
the Kriging model, so as to build the GSA-Kriging model,
and the optimal layout of grasping points is obtained by using
GSA to search the model. The layout of grasping point opti-
mization of a certain car door sheet part is utilized as a case to
validate the proposed method. The optimization results reveal
that the GSA-Kriging surrogate model is more accurate and
more stable than Kriging and other surrogate models. At the
same time, the two-stage optimization method improves the
optimization efficiency while reducing the calculation cost
and burden. Finally, we have designed an experimental system
to test the proposed grasp method on a curved sheet part. The
experimental results are close to the simulation results. It can
be known that the optimal grasping point layout effectively
inhibits the deformation of the sheet part.
Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the Fund of the
National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant no. 52075403).
Author contribution Investigation, data collection, and analysis
were performed by Chenxi Zhu. Xiao-Jin Wan was in charge of the
whole trial. Zhengjie Zhou participated in the revision of the first
draft of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final
manuscript.
Funding Supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of
China (Grant no. 52075403).
Data availability The datasets used or analyzed during the current study
are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
13
2242 The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology (2023) 125:2225–2242
Code availability The code during the current study are available from
the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Declarations
Ethics approval Not applicable.
Consent to participate Not applicable.
Consent for publication All the authors have reached agreement for
publication.
Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests.
References
1. Krishnakumar K, Melkote SN (2000) Machining fixture layout
optimization using the genetic algorithm. Int J Mach Tools Manuf
40(4):579–598. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​s0890-​6955(99)​00072-3
2. Kashyap S, Devries WR (1999) Finite element analysis and opti-
mization in fixture design. Struct Multidiscip O 18(2–3):193–201.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s0015​80050​120
3. Li GL, Du SC, Huang DL, Zhao C, Deng YF (2019) Elastic mechanics-
based fixturing scheme optimization of variable stiffness structure
workpieces for surface quality improvement. Precis Eng 56:343–363.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​preci​sione​ng.​2019.​01.​004
4. Kulankara K, Satyanarayana S, Melkote SN (2002) Iterative fix-
ture layout and clamping force optimization using the genetic
algorithm. J Manuf Sci Eng-Trans Asme 124(1):119–125. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1115/1.​14141​27
5. Xing YF, Hu M, Zeng H (2015) Fixture layout optimization based
on a non-domination sorting social radiation algorithm for auto-
body parts. Int J Prod Res 53(11):3475–3490. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1080/​00207​543.​2014.​10036​62
6. Zhou T, Xiong ZQ, Yao W, Qin Y (2016) Flexible tooling layout
optimization for thin-walled workpieces based on improved ant
colony algorithm. J Propuls Technol 37(6):1165–1174. https://d​ oi.​
org/​10.​13675/j.​cnki.​tjjs.​2016.​06.​022
7. Liao YG (2003) A genetic algorithm-based fixture locating positions
and clamping schemes optimization. Proc IME Part B-J Eng Manuf
217(8):1075–1083. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​09544​05403​21700​805
8. Huang Q, Srijana Y, Gao S, Xu ZW, Wang XY (2018) Analysis of
adaptive clamping force of fixture based on finite element method.
IOP Conference Series: Mater Sci Eng 423(1):1–13. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1088/​1757-​899X/​423/1/​012116
9. Xing YF (2017) Fixture layout design of sheet metal parts based
on global optimization algorithms. J Manuf Sci E-T Asme
139(10):1–10. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1115/1.​40371​06
10. Milad K, Maryam GS, Abdolreza O (2020) Multi-objective opti-
mization of auto-body fixture layout based on an ant colony algo-
rithm. P I Mech Eng C-J Mec 234(6):1137–1145. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1177/​09544​06219​891756
11. Vishnupriyan S, Majumder MC, Ramachandran KP (2011) Opti-
mal fixture parameters considering locator errors. Int J Prod Res
49(21):6343–6361. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​00207​543.​2010.​532167
12. Wang H, Huang LJ (2015) Integrated analysis method of thin-
walled turbine blade precise machining. Int J Precis Eng Man
16(5):1011–1019. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s12541-​015-​0131-0
13. Hamedi M (2005) Intelligent fixture design through a hybrid sys-
tem of artificial neural network and genetic algorithm. Artif Intell
Rev 23(3):295–311. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10462-​004-​7187-z
13
14. Sundararaman K, Padmanaban K, Sabareeswaran M (2016) Optimi-
zation of machining fixture layout using integrated response surface
methodology and evolutionary techniques. P I Mech Eng C-J Mec
230(13):2245–2259. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​09544​06215​592920
15. Qin G, Wang Z, Rong Y (2017) A unified approach to multi-fixtur-
ing layout planning for thin-walled workpiece. P I Mech Eng B-J
Eng 231(3):454–469. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 177/0​ 95440​ 54155​ 85240
16. Yang Y, Wang ZQ (2017) Prediction model for aeronautical thin-
walled part fixture layout optimization based on SVR. Comput Integr
Manuf Syst 23(06):1302–1309. https://​doi.​org/​10.​13196/j.​cims.​2017.​
06.​016
17. Su J, Cao E, Hong Q (2014) Optimization of fixture layouts of
glass laser optics using multiple kernel regression. Appl Opt
53(14):2988–2997. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1364/​ao.​53.​002988
18. Rex FMT, Ravindran D (2017) An integrated approach for optimal
fixture layout design. P I Mech Eng B-J Eng 231(7):1217–1228.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​09544​05415​590991
19. Wang ZQ, Yang Y, Yang B, Kang YG (2016) Optimal sheet metal
fixture locating layout by combining radial basis function neural
network and bat algorithm. Adv Mech Eng 8(12):217–233. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1177/​16878​14016​681905
20. Dini G, Failli F (2000) Planning grasps for industrial robotized
applications using neural networks. Robot Comput Integr Manuf
16(6):451–463. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​s0736-​5845(00)​00021-1
21. Qi ZC, Zhang KF, Li Y, Cheng H (2015) Analysis and optimi-
zation for locating errors of large wing panel during automatic
drilling and riveting. Acta Aeronautica et Astronautica Sinica
36(10):3439–3449. https://​doi.​org/​10.​7527/​S1000-​6893.​2015.​
0221
22. Aderiani AR, Wrmefjord K, Sderberg R (2020) Optimal design
of fixture layouts for compliant sheet metal assemblies. Int J
Adv Manuf Technol 110(7):2181–2201. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s00170-​020-​05954-y
23. Yu KG (2019) Robust fixture design of compliant assembly
process based on a support vector regression model. Int J Adv
Manuf Technol 103(1–4):111–126. https://​d oi.​o rg/​1 0.​1 007/​
s00170-​019-​03488-6
24. Lu C, Wang Y (2017) Positioning variation analysis for the
sheet metal workpiece with N-2-1 locating scheme. Int J Adv
Manuf Technol 89(9–12):3021–3035. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s00170-​016-​9284-y
25. Xiong CH (2007) Fundamentals of robotic grasping and fixturing.
World Scientific
26. Xiong CH, Li YF, Ding D, Xiong YL (1999) On the dynamic
stability of grasping. Int J Robot Res 18(9):951–958
27. Wan XJ, Yang JQ, Zhang HJ (2018) Optimization of fixture lay-
out based on error amplification factors. J Comput Inf Sci Eng
18(4):041007. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1115/1.​40406​07
28. Sacks J, Welch WJ, Mitchell TJ (1989) Design and analysis of
computer experiments. Stat Sci 4(4):409–423
29. Nielsen HB, Lophaven SN, Sondergaard J (2002) DACE, a MAT-
LAB kriging toolbox
30 Rashedi E, Nezamabadi-Pour H, Saryazdi S (2009) GSA: a gravi-
tational search algorithm
Publisher's note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds
exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the
author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted
manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of
such publishing agreement and applicable law.