1 / 21

Gleason Works Chamfering and Deburring Project

This critical design review focuses on improving the chamfering and deburring processes at Gleason Works, a leading supplier of gear cutting technology. The project team aims to address issues with sharp edges, burrs, and efficiency in the current processes. The design proposal includes a smaller footprint, more tilt capabilities, and a lower cost solution. The review also covers topics such as chip removal, automation, enclosure, and stress analysis.

htomlinson
Download Presentation

Gleason Works Chamfering and Deburring Project

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Critical Design Review Senior Design Team 05: Gleason Works – Chamfering and Deburring Project

  2. Team Introduction • Project Manager: Vincenzo Mansueto -ME • Lead Engineer: Matthew Liddick -ME • Team Member: Brian Banazwski -ME • Team Member: Mark Trotta -ME • Team Member: Julie Wilcox -ME • Team Member: Phil Raduns -EE • Team Member: Greg Baesl -ISE • Faculty Advisor: Bill Scarbrough • Gleasons Representative: Eric Mundt

  3. Company Background • Leading world-wide supplier of gear cutting technology • Subdivision of Gleason Corporation • Primary Market • Automobile and truck industries • Secondary Market • Aerospace, Farm, Construction, Marine

  4. Defining the Need • Cutting process for creating gears leaves behind sharp edges and burrs • Danger to workers • Gear strength • Contamination • Aesthetic • Two current processes need improvement or modification

  5. On Machine Apparatus • Not capable of tilt in both directions • Has no scrapper • Burrs still exist after chamfer

  6. GTR 250 • Too slow • 30 rpm max on work spindle • Too expensive • Accuracy of machine is excessive for process • Large footprint

  7. Design Requirements and Deliverables • Requirements • Chamfer and deburr in same cycle • Capable of machining various sizes of gear sets • Price below $130k • Cycle time under 1 minute • As many commercial parts as possible • Decrease footprint • Deliverables • Top level ProE drawings • Market assessment

  8. Design Proposal • ~70% smaller foot-print than GTR • More tilt capabilities than both existing • Lower cost

  9. Process Demonstration

  10. How we arrived at our design • Work Break-down Structure • Cutting Tool Apparatus • Work Piece Apparatus • Stock Divider • Electronics • Enclosure • Customer Interactions • Current process investigations

  11. Tilt Structure

  12. Stock Divider

  13. Time Study

  14. Max Torque Curve

  15. Electrical Components • Servo/Spindle Motors • Drives • CNC Controller

  16. Cost Analysis

  17. Cost Analysis Continued

  18. Future Topics • Chip removal • Automation • Enclosure • More in depth stress analysis • Further VNC analysis to ensure adequate part range and cycle time

  19. Questions? Contact Info: vrm0298@rit.edu

  20. Time Study Breakdown • Test Conditions - Trial #2 • 1,500 RPM – Chamfer Motor • 41 Teeth – Bevel Ring Gear • 4 Revolution & 4-Start Cutter • 0.75mm • Total Cycle Time = 129 sec • Total Chamfering Time = 13.4 sec • Actual Chamfering Time = ~3 sec • Tooth Cutting Time = 109 sec

  21. Max Torque Breakdown • Test Conditions • 1,500 RPM – Chamfer Motor • 41 Teeth – Bevel Ring Gear • 4 Revolution & 4-Start Cutter • 0.75mm and 1.25mm Chamfer Depth • Trial #1 = 41.0 in-lbf  0.75mm • Trial #4 = 92.5 in-lbf  1.25mm • Trial #5 = 95.6 in-lbf  1.25mm • Trial #3 = Off Chart  1.25mm

More Related