381

Size optimization of cam mechanisms with translating roller followers

Q Yu and H P Lee Department of Mechanical and Production Engineering, National University of Singapore

Abstract: The problem of size optimization of a cam mechanism with a translating roller follower is analysed in this paper using non-linear programming techniques and a family of parametric polynomials for describing the motion curve. The present method can include many factors, such as the kinematic features, including the acceleration, the velocity, the boundary conditions and the symmetry of the motion curve, the curvature of the cam prole and the amount of oset of the follower, in the process of optimization and can provide many choices for meeting various design requirements. Examples are presented to illustrate the proposed design method. Keywords: cam, roller follower, size minimization, parametric polynomials

NOTATION a a m a max A(h) c acceleration of the follower maximum acceleration of the follower permitted maximum acceleration of the follower second derivative of the normalized motion curve S(h)=d2S/dh2 a prescribed quantity to control the variation of the radius of curvature for the case of negative curvature a quantity dening the dimension of the cam shown in Fig. 1 quantity of the oset of a translating follower objective function for optimization ith function of the constraints for optimization maximum displacement for the follower or the lift of the follower permitted minimum radius of the pitch circle of a cam disc radius of the roller radius of the pitch circle of a cam disc follower displacement normalized motion curve normalized motion curve independent ith order polynomial, to modify the motion curves time derivative of the normalized motion curve =dS/dh

a [a ] 1 [a ] 2 a a 1max 2max

b i h r r min w v

d e F G i H R min

pressure angle of the follower maximum pressure angle of the follower for the rise interval maximum pressure angle of the follower for the return interval permitted maximum pressure angle of the follower for the rise interval permitted maximum pressure angle of the follower for the return interval parameter of the motion curve expressed by polynomials normalized cam angle radius of curvature of a cam prole minimum radius of curvature of a cam prole cam angle angular velocity of the cam

1 INTRODUCTION The problem of cam size minimization is one of the important topics in cam mechanism design. The size optimization of a cam mechanism with a translating roller follower is traditionally solved by graphical methods presented in many works [1, 2]. When there are other requirements such as the geometric and the kinematic features of the cam motion, the curvature of the cam prole and the amount of oset of the follower that need to be taken into consideration for a specic design, the graphical method appears to be inecient and primitive to complete the design task due to the complex non-linear relationships among those constraints. An
Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 212 Part C

R r R 0 s S(h) S 0 SI i t V(h)

The MS was received on 2 May 1995 and was accepted for publication on 24 November 1997.
C04195 IMechE 1998

382

Q YU AND H P LEE

improvement in the accuracy and speed of this design process has recently been achieved with the use of modern CAD (computer aided design) software and optimization techniques. Moreover, spline functions have also been used to produce very exible motion curves [37] for cam synthesis. A survey of software for general mechanism design can be found in reference [8]. In this paper, a standard non-linear optimization technique is used to investigate the eect of the features of a motion curve, such as the velocity, the acceleration, the boundary continuity and the symmetry of the motion curve described by a family of parametric polynomials [9], on the minimum size of the cam. The present design method can be used as a simple alternative for the existing design methods for cam synthesis, as the present family of parametric polynomials for describing the motion curve and the corresponding objective function for optimization and constraints is simple in form, with the resulting mathematical equations amenable to numerical computation. Examples are given to show the method of size optimization subjected to multiple constraints. The relationship between the cam size and various kinematic features of the motion curve and the curvature constraints is presented and discussed.

It is known that the size of the cam disc can be varied by the radius of the pitch circle of the cam for a prescribed design problem. Therefore the objective function can be written as F=min{R } (1) 0 where R =(d2+e2) is the radius of the pitch circle of 0 the cam. In the graphical method to minimize the cam size, two important factors that aect the cam size are the permitted maximum pressure angles of both the rise and the return intervals of the cam angle. These conditions can be expressed as G =[a ]a 0 1 1 1max and

(2)

G =[a ]a 0 2 2 2max where the terms [a ] and [a ] are the maximum pressure 1 2 angles for the rise and the return intervals respectively. The pressure angle can be calculated by ds/dwe (3) s+(R2 e2) 0 The maximum pressure angles of both the rise interval a and the return interval a in equation (2) can 1max 2max be determined using equation (3) if the motion curve s(w) is prescribed. The prescribed motion curve is commonly known as the cam law. The radius of curvature of the theoretical prole, or the pitch curve, is a=tan1 1 r= [1+C(s sin as cos a)] C where C= cos a , s+(R2 e2) 0 s= ds dw and s= d2s dw2 (5) (4)

OBJECTIVE FUNCTION AND CONSTRAINTS FOR OPTIMIZATION

A cam mechanism with a translating roller follower is shown in Fig. 1. The symbols R and R represent the r 0 radius of the roller and that of the pitch circle for the cam prole, while s(w) and a are the prescribed motion curve and the pressure angle. The quantity w indicates the cam angle and e is the amount of oset of the follower. The quantity v=dw/dt indicates the rotating speed of the cam. The theoretical prole shown in Fig. 1 is also known as the pitch curve.

The curvature constraint of the cam prole shown in Fig. 1 can be established as follows: 1. The minimum positive radius of curvature, r , of min the actual cam prole should be greater than or equal to a prescribed minimum value, R , so that the cusp min phenomenon can be avoided. 2. The absolute value of the negative radius of curvature of the actual prole should be greater than the radius of the roller R so that the roller can t into the conr cave part of the cam prole. Mathematically, these conditions can be expressed as G =r R R 0 for r0 (6) 3 min r min G =|r |R c0 for r<0 (7) 4 min r where c is a positive constant to control the variation of the radius of curvature along the cam prole for the case of negative curvature. A cam design with part of the cam prole having a negative radius of curvature exactly equal to or very close to the radius of the roller may not be desirable. The roller may lose contact with the cam
C04195 IMechE 1998

Fig. 1 A cam mechanism with a translating roller follower

Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 212 Part C

SIZE OPTIMIZATION OF CAM MECHANISMS WITH TRANSLATING ROLLER FOLLOWERS

383

if there is a slight mismatch during the manufacturing or assembly process. The minimum magnitude r in min equations (6) and (7) for both the cases of positive and negative curvatures can be determined when the motion curve s(w) is given. The acceleration of the follower, a, is always considered as an important factor for evaluating the quality of a cam motion. To prevent the possible unexpected large value of the maximum acceleration of the follower, a limitation on the maximum acceleration value, [a ], of the follower m is necessary. This constraint can be written as G =[a ]|a |0 (8) 5 m max The magnitude of the maximum acceleration |a | max can also be calculated when the motion curve s(w) is known. A more general consideration, which is not implemented in the present formulation, is to impose dierent magnitudes of maximum acceleration and maximum deceleration for the follower motion. For a specic design problem, other constraints may also be imposed on the mathematical model for optimization to satisfy specic requirements. It can be seen from Fig. 1 that for the size optimization of the cam mechanism, the two independent structural parameters are the quantity of the oset e and the dimension d. Constraints relating to the stress and strength of the follower and the cam are not included in the present formulation. 3 PARAMETRIC POLYNOMIAL FOR OPTIMIZATION

type polynomial, S is an original function which can be 0 any of the DRD-type motion curves satisfying the prescribed boundary conditions, b (i=4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11) are i parameters and SI (i=4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11) are independent i functions used to modify the features of the motion curve and the cam prole. The subscript of the notation of the independent functions denotes the highest order of the prescribed polynomial. Table 1 shows the expression of the independent functions and their features for the boundary continuity and symmetry of their acceleration curves. The kinematic features, such as the velocity and acceleration of those functions, are presented in Fig. 2. Details of the formulation of these functions are discussed in reference [9]. If the original function S is a normalized 23 poly0 nomial, S =3h22h3 (10) 0 the boundary continuity and symmetric feature of the acceleration curve can be easily varied, as shown in Table 2. The term any in Table 2 denotes that the corresponding b can impose any value without causing the i resulting expression for S(h) to violate the prescribed kinematic features. These values of b are determined by i rst expressing S(h) and S(h) in terms of b and then i examining the eects of b on these derivatives. i The expression for S(h) in equation (9) can also be used to describe a normalized displacement S(g) of the return interval of the follower simply by applying the following substitution: g=1h (11) The relation between the expected follower motion s(w) and the normalized motion curve S(h) is s(w)=HS(h) (12) where the normalized cam angle h=(1/Dw)w. The constant H represents the change of the prescribed maximum distance, commonly known as the lift of the

The parametric polynomial used in this paper has the following form: S(h)=S +b SI +b SI +b SI +b SI 0 5 5 7 7 9 9 11 11 +b SI +b SI (9) 4 4 6 6 where S(h) is a normalized DRD (dwellrisedwell )-

Table 1 The expressions of the independent functions

Symbol SI 5 SI 7 SI 9 SI 11 SI 4 SI 6 Expression of polynomials 3h2+12h315h4+6h5 10h3+50h490h5+70h620h7 35h4+210h5490h6+560h7315h8+70h9 126h5+882h62520h73780h8+3150h91386h10+252h11 3h26h3+3h4 10h330h4+150h510h6 Continuity Velocity Acceleration Jerk S(4) Velocity Acceleration Feature ASA* ASA ASA ASA SA SA

* ASA denotes that the corresponding acceleration curve is antisymmetric about the mid-point of the rise interval. SA denotes that the acceleration curve is symmetrical about the mid-point.

Table 2 The values of parameters and the kinematic features of S(h)

b 5 b 7 b 9 b 11 Any Any Any Any Any b 4 b 6 Kinematic features of S(h) Continuous Continuous Continuous Continuous Continuous S(h), antisymmetric S(h) and antisymmetric S(h) S+(h), antisymmetric S(h) S(h) S(h)
Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 212 Part C

Any 1 1 Any 1
C04195 IMechE 1998

Any Any 1 Any Any

Any Any Any Any Any

0 0 0 Any 0

0 0 0 Any Any

384

Q YU AND H P LEE

follower with respect to a given variation in cam angle Dw, which is commonly known as the angle of lift.

4 OPTIMIZATION PROCESS Substituting equations (9) to (11) into equations (1) to (8), the objective function and the constraints described in the previous section are all functions of the parameters of the motion curve. Generally, the parameters in expression (9) and the structural parameters e and d, shown in Fig. 1 can be taken as the variables for the size optimization of the cam. As the values of the objective function and the constraints described above are nonlinear functions of these variables, the optimization can be performed with a generalized non-linear programming technique. In this paper the optimum results are obtained using the variable metric method (DFP) for a generalized objective function, which is a combination of the objective function F and the constraints G i (i=1, 2, 3, 4, 5) multiplied by a sequence of penalty factors. Details of the algorithm can be found in reference [10].

5 DESIGN EXAMPLES AND DISCUSSION The prescribed motion curve of the follower for a cam cycle is shown in Fig. 3. The lift is assumed to be H=5 units. The unit can be any suitable unit with a linear dimension. The permitted pressure angles for both the rise and the return intervals are [a ]=30 and [a ]= 1 2 45 respectively. For the return motion of the follower, the force acting on the follower is not from the cam, so the permitted pressure angle can be set at a larger value compared with that for the rise motion. The radius of the roller is given as R =1.5 units. The minimum radius r of the positive curvature of the actual prole is limited to R =0.5 units and the quantity c=5 units. The permin mitted maximum acceleration of the follower is [a ]= m 13 units/s2. It should be emphasized here that the following results and conclusions are based on this particular set of design parameters. Other combinations of design parameters can be easily examined using the present method.

Fig. 2 Kinematic features of the independent functions

Fig. 3 The prescribed RDR motion curve

Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 212 Part C C04195 IMechE 1998

SIZE OPTIMIZATION OF CAM MECHANISMS WITH TRANSLATING ROLLER FOLLOWERS

385

Table 3 The optimum results for the size optimization

Results for optimum solution Number 1 2 3 4 R 0 e 2.15 1.63 1.44 1.51 b 5 Parameters for the rise interval b 7 b 9 b 11 b 4 b 6 b 5 Parameters for the return interval b 7 b 9 (0) 0.01 0.338 0.268 b 11 b 4 b 6

6.41 5.20 4.71 4.04

(1) (1) 0.356 0.269

(1) 0.804 0.029 0.232

(0) 0.366 0.556 0.516

(0) 0.391 0.471 0.619

(0) (0) (0) 0.12

(0) (0) (0) 0.4

(1) (1) 0.625 0.377

(1) 0.213 0.651 0.461

(0) 0.0 0.09 0.075

(0) (0) (0) 0.038

(0) (0) (0) 0.014

Using the objective function and the constraints discussed above, several solutions with dierent prescribed boundary continuities and the symmetrical property of the acceleration curve are obtained using the non-linear programming technique described in the preceding section. Details of these prescribed boundary continuities and the symmetrical property of the acceleration curve for each optimum result listed in Table 3 will be presented in the following paragraphs. Figures 2a to c show the velocity curves, the acceleration curves and the theoretical proles of the optimum results. For the rst result, it is assumed that the parameters of the motion curve are xed to be a 345 polynomial. There are only two variables, e and d, for the optimization. Since the motion curve is xed in the process of the optimization, the constraint on the maximum acceleration is not enforced in this case. For the second result, the motion curves are assumed to have a continuous acceleration prole which is antisymmetric about their corresponding intervals of cam motion. There are three parameters for each of the rise and return intervals, and two structural parameters, e and d, for the optimization. Therefore, the total number of variables for optimization is eight.

For the third result, both the velocity continuity and the antisymmetric acceleration property are enforced for the optimization. The number of variables for optimization is 10. For the fourth result, only the velocity continuity is enforced. The number of variables for the optimization is equal to 14. In all of the four optimum results, the constraints of pressure angles on both the rise and return intervals of the cam motion are enforced to their limits, i.e. G =0 1 and G =0. The constraint on the radius of the negative 2 curvature of the cam prole is also enforced to its limit, i.e. G =0, for all four optimum results. This implies 4 that the four resulting cam proles have the same minimum radius of negative curvature. However, the limiting value of the constraint on the radius of the positive curvature is not reached for each result. It can be concluded that the limitation on the negative curvature of the cam prole is a more critical factor in the size minimization than that on the positive curvature of the cam prole for the present prescribed design parameters. From the rst three optimum results, in which the motion curves have the property of antisymmetric accel-

Fig. 4 Velocity curves of the optimum results

C04195 IMechE 1998

Fig. 5 Acceleration curves of the optimum results

Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 212 Part C

386

Q YU AND H P LEE

prescribing the motion curve. The parameters in the expression for the motion curve described by the parametric polynomials enable the objective function for optimization as well as the various constraints related to the pressure angle, the oset, the curvature, the maximum velocity and the maximum acceleration of the follower to be expressed in various forms as functions of these parameters. Standard non-linear programming techniques can then be applied for nding the optimum design. The present method can be used as a simple alternative for current design methods.

REFERENCES
1 Chen, F. Y. Mechanics and Design of Cam Mechanisms, 1982 (Pergamon Press, New York). 2 Jesen, P. W. Cam Design and Manufacture, 1987 (Marcel Dekker, New York and Basel ). 3 Sandgre, E. and West, R. L. Shape optimization of cam proles using a B-spline representation. Trans. ASME, J. Mechanisms, Transmission and Automn in Des., 1989, 111, 195201. 4 Tsay, D. M. and Huey Jr, C. O. Cam motion synthesis using spline functions. Trans. ASME J. Mechanisms, Transmission and Automn in Des., 1988, 110, 161165. 5 Tsay, D. M. and Huey Jr, C. O. Application of rational B-splines to synthesis of cam-follower motion programs. Trans. ASME, J. Mech. Des., 1993, 115, 621626. 6 Yoon, K. and Rao, S. S. Cam motion synthesis using cubic splines. Trans. ASME, J. Mech. Des., 1993, 115, 441446. 7 Farish, M. Softwares meet new challenges. Engineering, 1994, 235, 3740. 8 Gonzales-Palacio, M. A. and Angeles, J. Cam Synthesis, 1993 ( Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands). 9 Yu, Q. and Lee, H. P. A new family of parameterized polynomial for cam synthesis. Trans. ASME, J. Mech. Des., 1995, 117, 653654. 10 Rao, S. S. Optimization: Theory and Applications, 1979 (John Wiley, New York).

Fig. 6 The theoretical cam proles (pitch curve) of the optimum results

eration, it can be seen from Figs 4 to 6 that the cam size will be smallest for small maximum velocities of the motion curve. This conclusion is also in agreement with the results obtained using the graphical method [2].

CONCLUSION

A method for the minimization of the cam size for a cam mechanism with a translating roller follower is presented in this paper using non-linear programming techniques and a family of parametric polynomials for

Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 212 Part C

C04195 IMechE 1998