Functional tolerancing of a mechanical part depends on the assembly and manufacturing function. This paper presents an approach for functional tolerance design and optimization. Functional surfaces are classified according to ISO specification. Dimensional and geometric tolerance types are specified based on design rules. Well-constrained analysis is presented to avoid over- and under- constrained tolerance design. A tolerance values optimization model is established with manufacturing cost functions and assembly stackup constraints. A computer-aided tolerancing (CAT) system is developed to provide designer with an effective tool for ensuring the functional tolerancing of the entire assembly. The system is applied to perform a tolerance design for a three-dimensional (3D) assembly.
KandikjanTShahJ JDavidsonJ KA mechanism for validating dimensioning and tolerancing schemes in CAD systems. Computer Aided Des., 2001, 33(10), 721–737.
2.
WuYShahJ JDavidsonJ KComputer modeling of geometric variations in mechanical parts and assemblies. J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Engng, 2003, 3(1), 54–64.
3.
ShenZ SShahJ JDavidsonJ KAutomatic generation of min/max tolerance charts for tolerance analysis from CAD models. Int. J. Comput. Integrated Mfg, 2008, 21(8), 869–884.
4.
ShenZ SShahJ JDavidsonJ KAnalysis neutral data structure for GD&T. J. Intell. Mfg, 2008, 19(4), 455–472.
5.
ShahJ JYanYZhangB CDimension and tolerance modeling and transformations in feature based design and manufacturing. J. Intell. Mfg, 1998, 9(5), 475–488.
6.
Clément, A., Desroches, A., and Rivière, A. Theory and practice of 3D tolerancing for assembly. Proceedings of Second CIRP Seminar on Computer-aided tolerancing, Penn State University, 1991.
7.
DesrochersAClémentADimensioning and tolerancing assistance model for CAD/CAM systems. Int. J. Advd. Mfg. Technol., 1994, 9, 352–361.
8.
TsaiJ CCutkoskyM RRepresentation and reasoning of geometric tolerances in design. Artif. Intell. Engng Des., Analysis Mfg, 1997, 11(4), 325–341.
9.
ZhaoXKetharaPasupathyT MWilhelmR GModeling and representation of geometric tolerances information in integrated measurement processes. Comput. Ind., 2006, 57(4), 319–330.
10.
RoyULiBRepresentation and interpretation of geometric tolerances for polyhedral objects – I. Form tolerances. Comput. Aided Des., 1998, 30(2), 151–161.
11.
RoyULiBRepresentation and interpretation of geometric tolerances for polyhedral objects. II. Size, orientation and position tolerances. Comput. Aided Des., 1999, 31(4), 273–285.
12.
KurfessT RBanksD LStatistical verification of conformance to geometric tolerance. Comput. Aided Des., 1995, 27(5), 353–361.
TreacyPOchsJ BOzsoyT MWangNAutomated tolerance analysis for mechanical assemblies modeled with geometric features and relational data structure. Comput. Aided Des., 1991, 23(6), 444–453.
15.
SinghP KJainP KJainS CImportant issues in tolerance design of mechanical assemblies. Part 1: tolerance analysis. Proc. IMechE, Part B: J. Eng. Manuf., 2009, 223(10), 1225–1247. DOI: 10.1243/09544054JEM1304A.
16.
BjørkeOComputer-aided tolerancing, second edition, 1989, New York, ASME Press.
17.
DongZHuWXueDNew production cost-tolerance models for tolerance synthesis. J. Engng Ind., 1994, 116(2), 199–206.
18.
LinZ CChangD YCost-tolerance analysis model based on a neural networks method. Int. J. Prod. Res., 2002, 40(6), 1429–1452.
19.
DimitrellouS CDiplarisS CSfantsikopoulosM MTolerance elements: an alternative approach for cost optimum tolerance transfer. J. Engng Des., 2008, 19(2Special Issue: Cost Engineering, 173–184.
20.
SinghP KJainP KJainS CImportant issues in tolerance design of mechanical assemblies. Part 2: tolerance synthesis. Proc. IMechE, Part B: J. Eng. Manuf, 2009, 223(10), 1249–1287. DOI: 10.1243/09544054JEM1304B.
21.
Singh, P. K., Jain, P. K., and Jain, S. C. Manufacturing cost models in tolerance design of mechanical assemblies. Proceedings of International Conference on CAD, CAM, robotics and autonomous factories (INCARF – 03), IIT Delhi, Auguse, 2003, pp. 11–13.
22.
NgoiB K AMinO JOptimum tolerance allocation in assembly. Int. J. Advd. Mfg. Technol., 1999, 15, 660–665.
23.
JeangARobust tolerance design by response surface methodology. Int. J. Advd. Mfg. Technol., 1999, 15, 399–403.
24.
ChaseK WGaoJMaglebyS PSorensenC DIncluding geometric feature variation in tolerance analysis of mechanical assemblies. IIE Trans/, 1996, 28, 795–807.
25.
ZouZMorseE PApplications of the GapSpace model for multidimensional mechanical assemblies. J. Comput. Inf. Sci. Engng, 2003, 3(1), 22–30.
26.
SamperSGiordanoMTaking into account elastic displacements in 3D tolerancing models and application. J. Mater. Processing Technol., 1998, 78(1–3), 156–162.
27.
Baysal, M. M., Roy, U., Sudarsan, R., Sriram, R. D., and Lyons, K. W. The open assembly model for the exchange of assembly and tolerance information: overview and example. Proceedings of the ASME design engineering technical conference, 2004, vol. 4, pp. 759–770.
28.
NassefA OElMaraghyH AAllocation of geometric tolerances: new criterion and methodology. Annls. CIRP, 1997, 46(1), 101–106.
29.
IslamM NFunctional dimensioning and tolerancing software for concurrent engineering applications. Comput. Ind., 2004, 54(2), 169–190.
30.
AnselmettiBGeneration of functional tolerancing based on positioning features. Comput. Aided Des., 2006, 38, 902–919.
31.
Chase, K. W., Magleby S. P., and Glancy, C. G. A comprehensive system for computer-aided tolerance analysis of 2-D and 3-D mechanical assemblies. Proceedings of the 5th CIRP Seminar on Computer-aided tolerancing, Toronto, Ontario, April 1997, pp. 28–29.
32.
SrinivasanVA geometrical product specification language based on a classification of symmetry groups. Comput. Aided Des., 1999, 31, 659–668.
33.
Srinivasan, V. An integrated view of geometrical product specification and verification. Proceedings of 7th CIRP Seminars on Computer aided tolerancing, Cachan, France, 24–25 April 2001, pp. 7–18.
34.
Hu, J., Wu, Z. T., and Yang, J. X. Variational geometric constraints network for computer aided tolerancing. Proceedings of 7th CIRP Seminars on Computer aided Tolerancing, Cachan, France, 24–25 April 2001, pp. 213–222.
35.
ChiabertPOrlandoMAbout a CAT model consistent with ISO/TC 213 last issues. J. Mater. Processing Technol., 2004, 157–158, 61–66.
36.
SuhN PThe principles of design, 1990, New York, Oxford University Press.
37.
DenavitJHartenbergR SA kinematic notation for lower-pair mechanisms based on matrices. Trans. ASME, J. Appl. Mech, 1955, 23, 215–221.
38.
Reuleaux, F. Theoretische Kinematik: Grundzüge einer Theorie des Maschinenwesens (Vieweg, Braunschweig). Translated by A. B. W. Kennedy (1876) as The Kinematics of Machinery (MacMillan, London). Reprinted (1963) with a new introduction by Ferguson E S, 1875 (Dover, NY).
39.
HuntK HGeometry – the key to mechanical movements. Mech. Machine Theory, 1976, 11(2), 79–89.
40.
RequichaA AChanS CRepresentation of geometric features, tolerances, and attributes in solid modelers based on constructive geometry. IEEE J. Robotics and Automn, 1986, 2(3), 156–166.
41.
American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME). ASME Y14.5M. Dimensioning and Tolerancing, 1994, New York, ASME.
42.
WuJQuality assisted multiobjective and multidisciplinary genetic algorithms, 2001, PhD Dissertation, University of Maryland.
43.
HuJStudy on theories and methods of geometric tolerance design based on variational geometric constraints network, 2001, Hangzhou, China, PhD Dissertation, Zhejiang University.
