Research Papers

System-Level Modeling and Parametric Identification of Electric Impact Wrench

[+] Author and Article Information
Shengli Zhang

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
University of Connecticut,
191 Auditorium Road,
Unit 3139, Storrs, CT 06269

J. Tang

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
University of Connecticut,
191 Auditorium Road,
Unit 3139, Storrs, CT 06269
e-mail: jtang@engr.uconn.edu

1Corresponding author.

Manuscript received December 8, 2015; final manuscript received March 10, 2016; published online June 24, 2016. Assoc. Editor: Tony Schmitz.

J. Manuf. Sci. Eng 138(11), 111010 (Jun 24, 2016) (16 pages) Paper No: MANU-15-1644; doi: 10.1115/1.4033044 History: Received December 08, 2015; Revised March 10, 2016

Electric impact wrench is an important tool used in manufacturing and maintenance services. It has complex mechanism and its operation involves dynamic events occurring at vastly different time scales, which poses challenges for efficient and accurate modeling to facilitate design optimization and control. This investigation establishes a first principle-based, system-level model of a representative impact wrench. The model explicitly incorporates the dynamic flexibility of gear transmission, spindle shaft, and impacting components into the kinematic relations that connect them together. The nonlinear impact and contact events, coupled with the rotational and translational motions of all components, are explicitly analyzed, and systematic parametric identification is performed based on a multi-objective optimization (MOO) approach. The model prediction is correlated with experimental studies.

Copyright © 2016 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.



Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Structure of impact wrench: (a) schematic, (b) hammer stopped by anvil, and (c)hammer bypassing anvil

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Energy flow within impact wrench

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Lumped-parameter modeling structure of impact wrench

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Configuration of planetary gear

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Impact between spindle and hammer

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Impacts between hammer and anvil: (a) type 2-1 impact, (b) type 2-2 impact, and (c) type 2-3 impact

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Penetration between hammer and spindle

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Finite element analysis to extract equivalent torsional stiffness: (a) meshed anvil, (b) boundary condition and load, and (c) angular displacement/deformation

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Test rig configuration

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Strain readings within one rotation of hammer: (a) only one rebound and (b) two rebounds

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

A typical increasing hydraulic pressure measured by tension calibrator

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

The impact torque of the first rebound Ti,1st, exp , the second rebound Ti,2nd, exp , and the impact duration Δti, exp  for the ith experiment

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Objective function values under different temperatures during AMOSA computation and the PO set

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Selection of true optimal solution after additional acceptance threshold is incorporated

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Comparisons of impact torque and impact duration obtained from experiment and model under initial, alternative, and true optimal parametric combinations: (a) impact torque comparison and (b) impact duration comparison

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Maximum output torques and model prediction errors: (a) maximum output torque under setup 3, (b) prediction error under setup 3, (c) maximum output torque under setup 4, and (d) prediction error under setup 4

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Rebounds within half-cycle rotation: (a) three rebounds under setup 1 at 400 rpm and (b) one rebound under setup 1 at 700 rpm

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Comparisons of increased rotations of anvil: (a) setup 1 at 400 rpm, (b) setup 1 at 600 rpm, (c) setup 2 at 800 rpm, and (d) setup 2 at 900 rpm

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

Comparisons of output torque under setup 2 at 900 rpm: (a) experimental result of torque and (b) model prediction of torque

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 20

Axial motion of hammer versus relative angle between hammer and anvil under different spindle speeds: (a) 400 rpm, (b) 500 rpm, (c) 600 rpm, and (d) 700 rpm

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 21

Engagement statuses between hammer and anvil

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 22

Axial motion of hammer (solid line) and engagement position (dashed line) under different spring stiffness values: (a) 16.5 N/mm, (b) 55 N/mm, and (c) 77 N/mm

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 23

Engagement percentage with respect to spring stiffness change

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 24

Output torque with respect to spring stiffness change




Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In