This paper summarizes a theory to support the design of assemblies. It describes a top-down process for designing kinematically constrained assemblies that deliver geometric key characteristics (KCs) that achieve top-level customer requirements. The theory applies to assemblies that take the form of mechanisms (e.g., engines) or structures (e.g., aircraft fuselages). The process begins by creating a kinematic constraint structure and a systematic scheme by which parts are located in space relative to each other, followed by declaration of assembly features that join parts in such a way as to create the desired constraint relationships. This process creates a connective data model containing information to support relevant analyses such as variation buildup, constraint analysis, and establishment of constraint-consistent assembly sequences. Adjustable assemblies, assemblies built using fixtures, and selective assemblies can also be described by this theory.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Adams, J. D. 1998 (Feb.) Feature-based analysis of selective limited motion in assemblies. MS thesis, Mechanical Engineering Department, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
2.
Adams, J. D., and Whitney, D. E. 1999. Application of screw theory to constraint analysis of assemblies of rigid parts. (Submitted to ISATP 99.)
3.
Baldwin, D. F., Abell, T. E., Lui, M. -C., De Fazio, T. L., and Whitney, D. E. 1991. An integrated computer aid for generating and evaluating assembly sequences for mechanical products . IEEE J. Automat. Robot.7(1): 78–94 .
4.
Bjørke, O. 1989. Computer-Aided Tolerancing, 2nd ed. New York: ASME .
5.
Bourjault, A. 1984 (Nov.) Contribution a une approche methodologique de l’assemblage automatise: Elaboration automatique des sequences operatoires. PhD dissertation, Universite de Franche-Comte.
6.
Cunningham, T. W. 1996 (Feb.). Migratable methods and tools for performing corrective actions in automotive and aircraft assembly. MS thesis, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
7.
De Fazio, T. L., Edsall, A. C., Gustavson, R. E., Hernandez, J. A., Hutchins, P. M., Leung, H. -W., Luby, S. C., Metzinger, R. W., Nevins, J. L., Tung, K. K., and Whitney, D. E. 1990 (Chicago, IL, Sept.) A prototype for feature-based design for assembly . Proc. of the 1990 ASME Design Automat. Conf., vol. DE 23-1. New York: ASME, pp. 9–16 . (Also ASME J. Mechanical Design 115: 723–734, 1993.)
8.
Denavit, J., and Hartenberg, R. S. 1955. A kinematic notation for lower pair mechanisms based on matrices . J. Appl. Mechanics22(June): 215–221 .
9.
Eversheim, W., and Baumann, M. 1991. Assembly-oriented design process . Comp. Industry17: 287–300 .
10.
Faux, I. D. 1986 (Dec.). Reconciliation of design and manufacturing requirements for product description data using functional primitive part features. Technical Report, CAM-I R-86-ANC/GM/PP-01.1.
11.
Finkel R., et al. 1975 (Tblisi). An overview of Al, a programming language for automation . Proc. of the 4th IJCAI, pp. 758–765 .
12.
Gossard, D. C., Zuffante, R. P., and Sakurai, H. 1988. Representing dimensions, tolerances. and features in MCAE systems . IEEE Comp. Graphics Applications (March): 51–59 .
13.
Gui, J., and Mantyla, M. 1994. Functional understanding of assembly modeling . CAD26: 435–451 .
14.
Guilford, J., and Turner, J. 1993. Advanced tolerance analysis and synthesis for geometric tolerances . ASME Manufactur. Rev. (Dec.).
15.
Gustavson, R. E. 1990 (May). SPM: A connection from product to assembly system. Technical Report, C. S. Draper Laboratory.
16.
Hart-Smith, L. J. Interface control: The secret to making DFMA succeed. Technical Report 972191, SAE .
17.
Heisserman, J., and Mattikalli, R. 1998 (Atlanta, GA, Sept.) Representing relationships in hierarchical assemblies (paper DETC98 DFM-5749) . Proc. of the ASME Design Eng. Tech. Conf. New York: ASME.
18.
Homem de Mello, L. S., and Sanderson, A. C. 1988 (Dec.). Automatic generation of mechanical assembly sequences. Technical Report CEM-RI-TR-88, CMU.
19.
Hu, S. J. 1887. Stream-of-variation theory for automotive body assembly . Annals CIRP46(1): 1–6 .
20.
Kamm, L. J. 1990. Designing Cost-Effective Mechanisms. New York: McGraw-Hill .
21.
Ko, H., and Lee, K. 1987. Automatic assembling procedure generation from mating conditions . CAD19(1): 3–10 .
22.
Konkar, R. 1993. Incremental kinematic analysis and symbolic synthesis of mechanisms. PhD dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
23.
Konkar, R., and Cutkosky, M. 1995. Incremental kinematic analysis of mechanisms . J. Mechanical Design117(Dec.): 589–596 .
24.
Kriegel, J. M. 1994 (Nov.) Exact constraint design (paper 94-WA DE-18). Proc. of the ASME Intl. M. E. Congress and Exhibition (Winter Annual Meeting). New York: ASME .
25.
Lee, K., and Gossard, D. C. 1985. A hierarchical data structure for representing assemblies, part 1 . CAD17(1): 15–19 .
26.
Lee, D. J., and Thornton, A. C. 1996a (Boston, MA, March). Enhanced key characteristics identification methodology for agile manufacturing . Proc. of the 5th Agility Forum.
27.
Lee, D. J., and Thornton, A. 1996b (Aug.). The identification and use of key characteristics in the product development process. Proc. of the ASME 8th Design Theory and Methodology Conf. New York: ASME .
28.
Mantripragada, R., and Whitney, D. E. 1998. The datum flow chain: A systematic approach to assembly design and modeling . Res. Eng. Design10: 150–165 .
29.
Mantyla, M. 1990. A modeling system for top-down design of assembled products . IBM J. Res. Development34(5): 636–659 .
30.
Munk, C., and Strand, D. 1992 (13–15 Oct.). AFPAC-accurate fuselage panel assembly cell (paper 922411) . Presented at Aerofast 92, SAE.
31.
Muske, S. Application of dimensional management on 747 fuselage. Technical Report 975605, SAE .
32.
Nevins, J. L., Whitney, D. E., and Simunovic, S. N. 1973 (Nov.) System architecture for assembly machines. Technical Report R-764, C. S. Draper Laboratory.
33.
Otto, K. N., and Antonnson, E. K. 1993. Tuning parameters in engineering design . ASME J. Mech. Design115: 14–19 .
34.
Paul, R. P. 1972. Modeling, trajectory calculation, and servoing of a computer-controlled arm. Memo AIM 177, Stanford University AI Lab .
35.
Paul, R. P. 1981. Robot Manipulators. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press .
36.
Popplestone, R. J., Ambler, A. P., and Bellos, I. 1978. RAPT: A language for describing assemblies . Industrial Robot5(3): 131–137 .
37.
Pratt, M. J. 1993. Applications of feature recognition in the product life cycle . Intl. J. Comp.-Integrated Manufact.6(1–2): 13019-13019 .
38.
Shah, J. J., and Mantyla, M. 1995. Parametric and Feature-Based CAD CAM: Concepts, Techniques, and Applications. New York: Wiley .
39.
Shah, J. J., and Rogers, M. 1993. Assembly modeling as an extension of feature-based design . Res. in Eng. Design5: 218–237 .
40.
Shalon, D., Gossard, D., Ulrich, K., and Fitzpatrick, D. 1992. Representing geometric variations in complex structural assemblies on CAD systems . ASME Adv. Design Automat.44(2): 121–132 .
41.
Simunovic, S. N. 1976 (Jan.) Task descriptors for automatic assembly. MS thesis, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
42.
Slocum, A. H. 1991. Precision Machine Design. New York: Prentice-Hall .
43.
Söderberg, R., and Johannesson, H. 1998 (Atlanta, GA, Sept.). Spatial incompatibility—part integration and tolerance allocation in configuration design (paper DETC98 DTM-5643) . Proc. of ASME DETC’98. New York: ASME.
44.
Srikanth, S., and Turner, J. 1990. Toward a unified representation of mechanical assemblies . Eng. Comp.6: 103–112 .
45.
Suh, N. P. 1990. The Principles of Design. New York: Oxford .
46.
Sweder, T. A., and Pollock, J. 1994 (Seattle, WA, Nov.). Full vehicle variability modeling (paper 942334) . Presented at the Intl. Truck and Bus Meeting, SAE.
47.
Tsai, J. -C., and Cutkosky, M. R. 1997. Representation and reasoning of geometric tolerances in design. AIEDAM, vol. 11, pp. 325–341.
48.
Ulrich, K. T. 1993. The role of product architecture in the manufacturing firm. Res. Policy 24-24.
49.
Ulrich, K. T., and Ellison, D. J. 1998. Customer requirements and the design-select decision . Proc. of the Automotive Eng. Aerospace Tech. Conf. (Also Working Paper 97-07-03, University of Pennsylvania, Wharton School.)
50.
Veitschegger W. K., and Wu, C. -H. 1986. Robot accuracy analysis based on kinematics . IEEE J. Robot. Automat.2(Sept.): 227–233 .
51.
Waldron, K. J. 1966. The constraint analysis of mechanisms . J. Mechanisms1: 101–114 .
52.
Wang, N., and Ozsoy, T. M. 1990 (Chicago, IL, Sept.) Automatic generation of tolerance chains from mating relations represented in assembly models . Proc. ASME Adv. in Design Automat. Conf., vol. 1. New York: ASME, pp. 227–233 .
53.
Whitehead, T. N. 1954. The Design and Use of Instruments and Accurate Mechanisms. New York: Dover .
54.
Whitney, D. E., Gilbert, O., and Jastrzebski, M. 1994. Representation of geometric variations using matrix transforms for statistical tolerance analysis in assemblies . Res. Eng. Design6: 191–210 .
55.
Wilson, R. H. 1991. Maintaining geometric dependencies in assembly planning. In Homem de Mello and Lee (eds.) Computer-Aided Mechanical Assembly Planning. Boston: Kluwer , pp. 244–262.
56.
Wu, C. H., and Kim, M. G. 1994. Modeling of part-mating strategies for automating assembly operations for robots . IEEE Trans. Systems Man Cybernet.24(7): 1065–1074 .
57.
Zhang, G., and Porchet, M. 1993. Some new developments in tolerance design in CAD . ASME Adv. Design Automat.65(2): 175–185 .
