Simulating an Impact Driver with ABAQUS/Explicit

Viktor Wilhelmy
Manta Corporation 1000 Ford Circle Milford, OH 45150, USA www.iti-oh.com Viktor.wilhelmy@manta-oh.com viktor@wilcons.com

Abstract: A battery powered impact driver is capable of driving a 6 screw into a solid piece of wood, without the need of predrilling, in less than 10 seconds. The impact unit consists of a gear drive, spindle, spring, hammer and anvil, to which a tool is connected to drive the screw or bolt. The periodic torsional impacting action of the hammer is achieved by a windup and release mechanism. The dynamic interaction between these parts is simulated using ABAQUS/Explicit. With the model, it is possible to predict the kinematics of the impact mechanism, including torque spike characteristics and driving speed. Key characteristics of the model have been validated by tests. Thus, analysis leads the design towards finding the most efficient combination of cam lead angle, hammer release clearance, inertias, and other design variables. High-speed camera test video clips compare well with simulation animations.

1. Introductory Remarks
The current presentation is part of consulting work performed at Manta Corporation. The reader is requested to understand that due to confidentiality considerations, the extent and level of detail of disclosed material must remain limited.

2. A battery powered impact driver

The battery operated impact driver is a new type of hand tool for the construction industry and light mechanical industry (Fig. 1). It has become a highly desirable tool due to its portability and ability for continuous usage when alternating between two sets of batteries. Thanks to the impacting mechanism, it can produce torque impulses of sufficient magnitude and duration to drive a typical wood screw without the need of pre-drilling. Contrary to a conventional driver, it

2002 ABAQUS Users Conference

does not require a high pushing force on the part of the operator to keep the bit engaged while driving the screw. The key elements of the impact driver lay in the impact unit (Fig. 2). This unit is driven by a motor through a planetary gear and consists of a spindle with a V-grove, a steel ball, a spring compressed between a hammer and a disk at the top of the spindle, an anvil and a stopper (Fig. 3). The anvil has a chuck for attaching different drive bits. As the planetary gear output spindle rotates at a fairly constant speed, it winds up the spring when the hammer is impeded from rotation by the anvil, which feels the resistance of the screw. This windup happens because the steel ball is trapped in the spindle V-groove and simultaneously presses against an inverted V-shaped cavity on the inside of the hammer. The hammer rises and gathers momentum, so it eventually clears the top of the anvil. At this point, the spring has accumulated a large amount of elastic energy and wants to unwind. The only way for this to occur is by causing the hammer to rotate, as it starts moving down, guided by the ball in the groove. It will accelerate forward to maintain position with respect to the spindle, and eventually strike the anvil again as it lowers towards the next impact position. Because of the high velocity and kinetic energy of the hammer upon impact, the anvil will undergo a finite amount of rotation before it stops. At this point, the process is repeated and the next impact cycle is initiated. In the design of an impact driver, several design variable combinations may have to be considered to increase operation efficiency. For example, the spring stiffness and preload, hammer/anvil clearance, inertia and mass, V-groove cam lead angle, etc., all affect performance, i.e. driving speed. The purpose of simulation is to capture the effects of these design parameters and to be able to help predict tool efficiency. A simulation model (Fig. 4) is described in detail below. Selected stages of the operation described in this section can be observed in a series of high-speed camera frames in Fig. 5, together with equivalent simulation animation frames which will be discussed in later sections.

3. Model description
The anvil and hammer are modeled with solid C3D8R bricks (Figs. 4 and 5). The spindle is modeled with rigid elements and kept rotating at constant speed. The hammer spring is modeled with a series of preloaded springs whose upper end rotates with the hammer but is kept restrained vertically. The steel ball is not modeled explicitly for several reasons. The primary reason is that this would require a prohibitive level of detail throughout the model. Preliminary 2D studies have also suggested potential difficulties in contact stability because of the extremely small mass of this body in comparison to hammer and anvil. The kinematic constraints imposed between the hammer and spindle by the steel ball riding in the V-groove are instead modeled with constraint equations. This would be straight forward if the

2002 ABAQUS Users Conference

bottoming out of the hammer in the V-groove could be neglected. A single constraint equation would have to reverse its sign in this region, which of course, is not possible. This problem was addressed by defining two simultaneous constraint equations, which differed only by their opposite signs and by governing the vertical motion of two separate parallel penalty springs (Fig. 6). The two equations will cause the upper node of each spring to always travel in equal and opposite directions, in dependence of the rotation differences between spindle and hammer. Because the penalty stiffness in compression is zero, only the particular spring that tends to keep the hammer lifted will actually transmit a force and cause hammer motion. This model also permits the ball from departing the roof of the hammer V-cavity, as may physically happen (the ball is trapped both ways in the spindle V-groove, but only one way against the hammer cavity top). Today, connector capabilities are available in ABAQUS/Explicit level 6 version releases. These capabilities might be advantageous in this area, as they have proven to be in our current work with other power tool simulations. Woodscrew driving tests revealed that, after an initial rise period, the torque-rotation characteristics vary only moderately, or remain flat with depth over most of the driving range process. For design purposes, this study was conducted under the assumption that the threshold torque between successive impacts remains constant, using a typical value for the average wood screw driving application. A threshold torque is that torque which is required to initiate and maintain rotation. The screw is thus suited for modeling as a nonlinear spring with elastic-plastic characteristics (Fig.7). The elastic characteristics were estimated from screw shank dimensions and the plastic threshold was set to correspond to test measurement levels. In release 5.8 of ABAQUS/Explicit, no torsional nonlinear spring was available, so a grounded translational spring was coupled to the anvil rotation with the *EQUATION option. In addition, a parallel nonlinear dashpot was defined, in order to match measured torque spike rise and decay characteristics. This dashpot is very weak during rise, but stronger during the decay phase. Screw/bit backlash were similarly modeled by a combination of nonlinear dashpots and penalty type springs, (Fig. 8). Also, the elastic rebound characteristics of the anvil were controlled to match observed decay behavior using Rayleigh damping for that part. Friction was considered between the elastic contact surfaces of anvil and hammer. Other energy dissipating mechanisms exist, for example, in the hammer spring assembly. These were modeled with nonlinear dashpots that have different characteristics during rise and descent, to match observed behavior approximately. Friction models proved more involved to apply in this area. The potential for connector alternatives for this, as well as for all of the fairly complex mechanism behaviors described in the preceding paragraphs, will be the subject of future investigations.

4. Solution stability
The model was subjected to approximate initial velocity conditions in order to reduce severe startup response effects and to shorten the time to steady state. Energy dissipation mechanisms are

2002 ABAQUS Users Conference

present in most parts, helping solution stability and controlling noise. Examples of these mechanisms, as mentioned above, are the nonlinear dampers in the hammer spring area and the screw model, Rayleigh damping for the anvil, as well as friction between anvil and hammer. Severe stress pulses created by impact could create some noise in the solid element response of hammer and anvil. For this reason, an additional parameter was set to control hourglassing to levels beyond the default. Shell and solid elements in most applications undergo a limited amount of rigid body rotation. For computational efficiency, certain second order computations are not performed by default. In rotating bodies, where elements may be subjected to several revolutions, these effects become important. In version 5.8 of ABAQUS/Explicit, an undocumented option had to be specified for second order effects to be included, as follows:
*SECTION CONTROLS, NAME=XYZ,2ndorder=yes

If these controls are not set, accumulative model inaccuracies will be introduced with each element rotation. The error is inversely proportional to the number of increments per revolution, so it becomes less severe for small time steps. For version 6.2, the options can be found in the pertinenet documentation.

5. Selected model results

In Fig. 5, a sequence of simulation animation frames are compared side by side with the high speed camera images of the impact unit in operation. Fig. 9 shows the effect of the constraint equations and nonlinear springs of the model on the vertical hammer displacement. CE 1 represents the motion the first constraint equation imposes on node 1 of the first penalty spring (Fig.6). Similarly, CE 2 represents the exact opposite motion, which the second constraint equation imposes on node 2 of the second penalty spring. These are the two conflicting motions that each constraint equation would impose to the hammer if they were driving it directly. But the penalty springs are in between. The penalty springs can exert a force only upon positive relative displacement. For this reason, most of the time, equation CE1 and its associated penalty spring are in control. Only if the displacement governed by this equation becomes negative, the spring controlled by CE2 steers the hammer motion, since the displacement governed by it becomes positive. Thus, the hammer bottoms out and is always kept in the positive displacement domain. This is also shown in more detail in Fig. 10. Note that the steel ball is allowed to descend away from the inverted V-surface inside the hammer cavity. The behavior is indeed replicated computationally by the tension-only penalty springs, which tie hammer motion with the motion imposed by the constraint equations effectively only in one direction. The effect of the stopper, which limits hammer vertical upward travel, is also shown. Fig. 11 shows typical rotational velocities for hammer and anvil before and after an impact. It can be observed that the hammer gathers speed steadily, until reaching a maximum upon impact,

2002 ABAQUS Users Conference

causing a rapid decrease. At this point, the motion is transferred to the anvil, which accelerates sharply to a peak. As is characteristic for ABAQUS/Explicit, first derivatives, such as velocities, tend to be noisier than displacements. Fig. 12 shows a comparison of the same hammer velocity pulse of Fig. 11 with a test measurement. Considering the high speed sequence and short duration of events like this one, a remarkable overall agreement can be observed, aside from some noise, which is also noticeable in the test data. Another comparison with test measurements is shown for a single screw torque pulse in Fig. 13. The magnitude and duration of the pulse, which determine the amount of transmitted energy, and thus of the amount of screw rotation, agree well between analyses and test. The local shape (rise slope, decay slope, ring out) can also be matched closely to test by adjusting the characteristics of the nonlinear springs and dashpots of Fig. 8. Fig. 14 shows a series of analysis torque impulses, as seen by the screw. In this case, the simulation reaches steady state after a few initial impacts. When each of the large torque spikes reaches the torque threshold, screw rotation is initiated. For smaller torque spikes, the anvil-bitscrew torsional system responds elastically only and no permanent screw rotation occurs. Further insight into the behavior of the impact driver and the capabilities of the model is gained from Fig. 15. It shows the rotational displacement of the three essential parts: spindle, hammer and anvil. While the spindle moves on at constant speed (straight line), the hammer motion follows and oscillates as it slows down and accelerates in each impact cycle. Overall, it must travel the same amount as the spindle, since the steel ball in the cam system assembly ties the parts together. The anvil moves much slower, making progress with each impact. The progress is directly dependent on screw and wood characteristics and would be faster for a thin screw and softer wood, and slower for a bigger screw or harder wood. However, it can also depend on the efficiency of the particular design, as discussed below.

6. Modeling performance
Fig. 16 shows an example of a design study where a key design parameter was varied. The screw angular rotation is shown versus time for three cases. It can be seen that a small elastic rebound occurs after each impact, which rings out quickly. This is observed in practice. The model correctly predicted the relative effect of the design changes, as verified by tests. Thus, advanced analysis techniques were applied to help predict the product performance, in addition to the more conventional purposes of determining stresses or vibration.

2002 ABAQUS Users Conference

7. Conclusions
Some simplifications were made in modeling the behavior of the power tool. The torque spike and hammer velocity characteristics nevertheless came remarkably close to measured behavior, but it must be made clear that driving speed prediction precision can still be improved, especially in absolute terms. In relative terms, the simulation is very useful for predicting which design change is expected to be the more favorable regarding performance. The improvement of model accuracy will be the subject of future activities. Model expansions can include interaction with the motor and may also include the tool body, for evaluation of the effects of vibration on human response, or feel. In the product development environment, the modeling of product performance and efficiency is an interesting application extension of advanced FEA analysis tools such as ABAQUS/Explicit. The benefit is that a consistent model can be used for this purpose as it is for the other, more traditional objectives of stress and vibration evaluation that are also part of the development process. This stands in contrast to conventional practice of applying an array of unrelated individual tools and is a step forward in the Analysis Leads Design (ALD) product development approach.

8. Acknowledgements
Without Manta Corporations client product knowledge and expertise, in particular in the performance of advanced and accurate test work, this project would not have been possible. Their help and cooperation and their funding of this effort is duly acknowledged. The technology developed in this team environment is shared by all of its members.

2002 ABAQUS Users Conference

Motor

Impact unit

Battery

Figure 1. CAD model of a battery powered impact driver

Spring Hammer Motor Shaft

Chuck

Planetary Gear

Stopper

Anvil

Figure 2. Impact unit and key elements

2002 ABAQUS Users Conference

Spindle

Hammer

V-shaped cavity Steel ball

Figure 3a. Hammer with inverted V-shaped cavity

Stopper

Spring V-groove Anvil

Figure 3. Impact unit assembly (stopper not shown)

Figure 4. Simulation model of impact unit

2002 ABAQUS Users Conference

(1) Cycle start. Hammer against anvil causes rotating spindle to wind up the spring

(2) Hammer rise

(3) Hammer clears anvil

Figure 5. High speed camera frames comparing various stages of the impact mechanism operation with simulation

2002 ABAQUS Users Conference

(4) Hammer starts descent and accelerates, moving to next impact position

(5) Hammer impacts anvil and initiates anvil rotation

(6) Anvil rotation is completed Hammer reaches lowest position and a new cycle is started

Figure 5 (Continuation). High speed camera frames comparing various stages of the impact mechanism operation with simulation

10

2002 ABAQUS Users Conference

Constraint equation 1 (CE1): Constraint equation 2 (CE2):

u z1 = ( H S ) tan
1 0

u z 2 = ( H S ) tan 2
100 * K ball

Force

100 * K ball

Relative displacement

K ball

C ball

Hammer Centerline

Uzn S Kball

= vertical displacement, node n = hammer rotation = spindle rotation = cam lead angle = steel ball stiffness

Figure 6. Penalty springs and constraint equations to characterize spindle and hammer interaction

Threshold

Springs

*EQUATION Relates Spring Extension with Anvil Rotation

Dashpots Screw Bit backlash

Figure 7. Translational elastic-plastic spring representing main screw characteristics

Figure 8. Additional elements to characterize screw behavior, such as backlash and torque spike rise and decay

2002 ABAQUS Users Conference

11

See detail area below

0 0 Vertical Displacement, [mm] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hammer

CE1

CE2

Zero penalty force region

Time, [s]

Figure 9. Effect of constraint equations and penalty springs on hammer vertical displacement

Bottoming out Hammer

Vertical Displacement, [mm]

Hit stopper
0

CE1
0

Zero penalty force region

0 Time, [s]

CE2

Figure 10. Detail of hammer vertical displacement

12

2002 ABAQUS Users Conference

600 500 400 300 200 100 0 -100 -200 Time, [s]

Anvil Hammer

Rotational Velocity, [rad/s]

Figure 11. Hammer and anvil velocity before and after impact

600 500 400 Rotational velocity, [rad/s] 300 200 100 0 0 -100 -200 Time, [s] 0 0 0 0 0 0

Test

Analysis

Figure 12. Hammer rotational velocity comparison of analysis versus test

2002 ABAQUS Users Conference

13

Torque, [Nm]

Analysis I Test

0 0 0

Analysis II
-1 Time, [s]

Figure 13. Screw torque pulse comparison of analysis versus test

4 4 3 3 Torque, [Nm] 2 2 1 1 0 -1 -1 Time, [s]

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

Figure 14. Screw torque signal versus time

14

2002 ABAQUS Users Conference

20 18 16 14 Rotation, [rad] 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 Time, [s] 0.08 0.1 0.12

Spindle

Hammer Anvil

Figure 15. Rotation of spindle, hammer and anvil

2.5

Change II

2 Rotation, [rad]

Change I

1.5

0.5

Baseline

0 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 Time, [s] 0.08 0.1 0.12

Figure 16. Screw rotation versus time for various design parameters

2002 ABAQUS Users Conference

15