Modeling and Simulation of Assembly Constraints in Tolerance Analysis of Rigid Part Assemblies

2013 ◽  
pp. 209-229
Author(s):  
Pasquale Franciosa ◽  
Salvatore Gerbino ◽  
Stanislao Patalano
Author(s):  
Jinsong Gao ◽  
Kenneth W. Chase ◽  
Spencer P. Magleby

Abstract Two methods for performing statistical tolerance analysis of mechanical assemblies are compared: the Direct Linearization Method (DLM), and Monte Carlo simulation. A selection of 2-D and 3-D vector models of assemblies were analyzed, including problems with closed loop assembly constraints. Closed vector loops describe the small kinematic adjustments that occur at assembly time. Open loops describe critical clearances or other assembly features. The DLM uses linearized assembly constraints and matrix algebra to estimate the variations of the assembly or kinematic variables, and to predict assembly rejects. A modified Monte Carlo simulation, employing an iterative technique for closed loop assemblies, was applied to the same problem set. The results of the comparison show that the DLM is accurate if the tolerances are relatively small compared to the nominal dimensions of the components, and the assembly functions are not highly nonlinear. Sample size is shown to have great influence on the accuracy of Monte Carlo simulation.


2017 ◽  
Vol 91 ◽  
pp. 46-59 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lazhar Homri ◽  
Edoh Goka ◽  
Guillaume Levasseur ◽  
Jean-Yves Dantan

Author(s):  
James R. Stoddard ◽  
Marvin Law

Current CAD system approaches to assembly representation do not support the full range of needs for an assembly model. They cannot account for the natural manufacturing and assembly variability that occurs in the assembled interfaces. The current solvers work well for idealized assembly design behaviors at nominal conditions, but in order to make accurate predictions about assembly performance and product quality the variability of the assembled interfaces must be comprehended in the assembly model. This paper will outline two key issues to support a robust approach to assembly modeling based on characterizing the true mating surface contact between parts in the assembly. These assembly interface definitions are adaptable enough to achieve an exact constraint design to ensure a stable analysis. These approaches are based in kinematic theory and support the efficient solution of the assembly constraints in the presence of geometric variation. An example of this approach within the context of a tolerance analysis application will be presented.


2003 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 2-14 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alain Desrochers ◽  
Walid Ghie ◽  
Luc Laperrie`re

Because of uncertainties in manufacturing processes, a mechanical part always shows variations in its geometrical characteristics (ex. form, dimension, orientation and position). Quality then often reflect how well tolerances and hence, functional requirements, are being achieved by the manufacturing processes in the final product. From a design perspective, efficient methods must be made available to compute, from the tolerances on individual parts, the value of the functional requirement on the final assembly. This is known as tolerance analysis. To that end, existing methods, often based on modeling of the open kinematic chains in robotics, are classified as deterministic or statistical. These methods suppose that the assembled parts are not perfect with regard to the nominal geometry and are rigid. The rigidity of the parts implies that the places of contacts are regarded as points. The validation or the determination of a tolerance zone is therefore accomplished by a series of simulation in specific points subjected to assembly constraints. To overcome the limitations and difficulties of point based approaches, the paper proposes the unification of two existing models: the Jacobian’s matrix model, based on the infinitesimal modeling of open kinematic chains in robotics, and the tolerance zone representation model, using small displacement screws and constraints to establish the extreme limits between which points and surfaces can vary. The approach also uses interval algebra as a novel method to take tolerance boundaries into account in tolerance analysis. The approach has been illustrated on a simple two parts assembly, nevertheless demonstrating the capability of the method to handle three-dimensional geometry. The results are then validated geometrically, showing the overall soundness of the approach.


Author(s):  
Zhengshu Shen ◽  
Gaurav Ameta ◽  
Jami J. Shah ◽  
Joseph K. Davidson

This paper reviews four major methods for tolerance analysis and compares them. The methods discussed are (1) 1D tolerance charts, (2) variational analysis based on Monte Carlo simulation, (3) vector loop (or kinematic) based analysis, and (4) ASU T-Maps© based tolerance analysis. Tolerance charts deal with tolerance analysis in one direction at a time and ignore possible contributions from the other directions. Manual charting is tedious and error-prone, hence attempts have been made for automation. Monte Carlo simulation based tolerance analysis is based on parametric solid modeling; its inherent drawback is that simulation results highly depend on the user-defined modeling scheme, and its inability to obey all Y14.5 rules. The vector loop method uses kinematic joints to model assembly constraints. It is also not fully consistent with Y14.5 standard. ASU T-Maps based tolerance analysis method can model geometric tolerances and their interaction in truly 3-dimensional context. It is completely consistent with Y14.5 standard but its use by designers may be quite challenging. T-Maps based tolerance analysis is still under development. Despite the shortcomings of each of these tolerance analysis methods, each may be used to provide reasonable results under certain circumstances. No guidelines exist for such a purpose. Through a comprehensive comparison of these methods, this paper will develop some guidelines for selecting the best method to use for a given tolerance accumulation problem.


2005 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 247-256 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhengshu Shen ◽  
Gaurav Ameta ◽  
Jami J. Shah ◽  
Joseph K. Davidson

This paper reviews four major methods for tolerance analysis and compares them. The methods discussed are: (1) one-dimensional tolerance charts; (2) parametric tolerance analysis, especially parametric analysis based on the Monte Carlo simulation; (3) vector loop (or kinematic) based tolerance analysis; and (4) ASU Tolerance-Map® (T-Map®) (Patent pending; nonprovisional patent application number: 09/507, 542 (2002)) based tolerance analysis. Tolerance charts deal with worst-case tolerance analysis in one direction at a time and ignore possible contributions from the other directions. Manual charting is tedious and error prone, hence, attempts have been made for automation. The parametric approach to tolerance analysis is based on parametric constraint solving; its inherent drawback is that the accuracy of the simulation results are dependent on the user-defined modeling scheme, and its inability to incorporate all Y14.5 rules. The vector loop method uses kinematic joints to model assembly constraints. It is also not fully consistent with Y14.5 standard. The ASU T-Map® based tolerance analysis method can model geometric tolerances and their interaction in truly three-dimensional context. It is completely consistent with Y14.5 standard but its use by designers may be quite challenging. The T-Map® based tolerance analysis method is still under development. Despite the shortcomings of each of these tolerance analysis methods, each may be used to provide reasonable results under certain circumstances. Through a comprehensive comparison of these methods, this paper will offer some recommendations for selecting the best method to use for a given tolerance accumulation problem.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document