IJAMS

Design Tolerance Suitable for Manufacturing and Assembly in Concurrent Engineering

Pavel G. Ikonomov
Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering Department School of Engineering & Applied Science 46-128/A Engr. IV, Mailcode 159710 420 Westwood Plaza, Los Angeles, CA, 90024 Tel: 310-794-4082, Fax: 310-206-4830 pavel@seas.ucla.edu

Emiliya Dimitrova Milkova

923 Levering Ave. Los Angeles, CA, 90024 E-mail: emiliya@hotmail.com

Suren Dwivedi
Endowed Chair Professor Department of Mechanical Engineering University of Louisiana at Lafayette Lafayette, LA 70504 dwivedi@louisiana.edu Concurrent Engineering technology reduces the length of the design-manufacturing cycle while at the same time has a higher requirement for quality and tolerances. Most of the inadequacies of tolerance assignment at the design stage are discovered late, at the production or assembly stage. A computer model to be used by the designer for suitable tolerance assignment to meet manufacturability and assemblability requirements is needed. In order to carry out tolerance assignment we propose the introduction of a statistical tolerance model at the design stage. Evaluation of manufacturing tolerances will inspect the validity of design tolerances and define whether re-design or adjustments of the design are needed. Similarly evaluation of assembly tolerances that will define assemblability of the proposed design will be done.

1. Introduction

101

PAVEL G. IKONOMOV, EMILIYA DIMITROVA MILKOVA

By providing manufacturability we can help the designer to modify the design, if necessary to balance the needs for efficient machining against the needs for quality product. The process plan precedence influences greatly how we achieve machining tolerance requirements. Fixture problems and change of the designated datum also influence accuracy. There are numerous papers dealing with design, process planning and scheduling problems. For the purpose of simplicity we will assume that the process planning problem is solved regarding the sequence optimization, machine tool and fixture selection. An automatic way to generate and evaluate alternative operation plans for a given design was proposed by Gupta[1]. Even though the planning process is integrated, the main problem to be solved is how to reach the prescribed accuracy and assemblability of the designed part. If we can prove that the designers decision is correct, the green light can be given for the transformation from design stage to production stage. In most cases the design model is assumed to have flaws, so redesign will be necessary. We have emphasized here the importance of tolerance checking and assistance to the designer in choosing correct and possible to manufacture tolerances. Similar problems arise with assemblability.

Real World

Computer Interface

Manufacturing tolerance simulation

Part A

Nominal Shape Properties Tolerance Statistical Tolerance

Designer Computer Manufacturing and Assembly tolerance simulation Part B Tolerance Statistical Tolerance

Output

Part A
Input

Part B
Dat a

Manufacturing tolerance simulation

Nominal Shape Properties

flow

Design Tolerance Suitable for Manufacturing and Assembly in Concurrent Engineering

102

2. Design and manufacturing systems 2.1 Concept of the concurrent engineering

Concurrent Engineering technology shortens the design-production cycle while at the same time requirements for quality and especially tolerances are high. Shifting of the manufacturing design, assembly design and verification to the early stage of the design of the product will have an immense impact on the way product is developed from conceptual stages to realization. [2] 2.2 Design system for tolerance assignment

The designer works interactively with the computer to design parts in accordance with the worst-case tolerance. When those tolerances cannot be met statistical manufacturing tolerances and assembly statistical tolerances are applied instead. This ensures that the designed parts can be machined and assembled at the actual manufacturing process to follow. The proposed evaluation system for tolerance for manufacturing and assembly works in an interactive way, see Figure.1. For easy perception we divide the working space into Real world and Computer interface. The Real world is the way designers see the part and its assembly on the monitor screen. The computer interface displays data and is used for interaction between the designer and data. The Database contains manufacturing and assembly data and is built with a specific data structure. 3. Tolerance analysis at design stage Concurrent engineering places a great significance on the role of the designer. Small errors in the design phase will have a significant impact on the manufacturing and assembly phases. It is desirable to clear all possible obstacles affecting tolerance requirements. There are many considerations regarding achievement of the described accuracy of the machine part. Here we will specify some general requirements, solutions and the needs of tolerance evaluation. There is not possible to predict all variation of manufacturing process, but we shall be able to help designer with tolerance setting based on existing variation (mathematical) or statistical tolerance practices

103

PAVEL G. IKONOMOV, EMILIYA DIMITROVA MILKOVA

manufacturing and assembly stages tolerances are checked. The designer develops the part according to function requirements. He checks the designed product for conformance with worstcase tolerance. The designed product model is submitted for manufacturing. Here manufacturability check is performed on the product model against manufacturing tolerance. Next the part is produced following worst-case tolerance or statistical tolerances. Statistical tolerances are used when costs for achieving worst-case tolerance is very high or it is not possible to produce all the parts with the prescribed tolerance. In some cases when it is not possible to produce the part, the design model is returned for redesign. After manufacturing the product, it is checked for manufacturing tolerance and then sent to the assembly. At assembly phase part is checked against worst-case tolerance or statistical tolerance. Statistical tolerance is used when costs for achieving worst-case tolerance is very high or it is not possible to assemble all the parts with prescribed tolerance. In some cases when it is not possible to assemble the parts, the design model is returned for redesign. Assembly checking is performed on the parts and if they satisfy assembly tolerance then the products are certified.
Worst case tolerance Manufacturing tolerance Assembly tolerance A1 Functional Requirements Worst case (ISO) tolerance Functional Requirements A11 Design Check Manufacturing tolerance Assembly tolerance Manuf. Product certified

Product Model

Product certified

Workpiece Workpiece Other Parts

Real A12 Manufacturing Manuf. Part and Statistical data Check Other Parts Practical test

Real A13 Assembly Check Practical test

Product certified

Design Tolerance Suitable for Manufacturing and Assembly in Concurrent Engineering 104

This is the reason we propose application of the statistical tolerance in the design phase. Mathematical interpretation of the statistical tolerance that is well known shall be introduced to the designer as an alternative to worst-case tolerancing. Further an ISO statistical tolerance
Functional restriction Functional restriction Worst case (ISO) tolerance Manufacturing restrictions Assembly restrictions

Manufacturing restrictions

A11

Design Req.

Design Requirements Estimation A111 Design Tolerance

Statistical manuf. data Statistical assembly data

Manuf. Product EstimationA112 model Product Model with Manufacturing Statistical certified tolerance Statistical or ISO tolerance manufacturing data Statistical assembly data 6 sigma group compensation method Estimation A113 Product Assembly Tolerance model certified 6 sigma group compensation method

Initial Product Model

Assembly restrictions

Product model certified

6 sigma group compensation method

Figure 3. Statistical Tolerance.

standard shall be developed.

on the real design-production process, shown in Figure 2. This will ensure proper tolerance assignment at the design stage and production process without design flaws, as
105 PAVEL G. IKONOMOV, EMILIYA DIMITROVA MILKOVA

the consideration regarding manufacturing and assembly requirements has been done at the design stage From the above it follows that the designation of the adequate tolerance based on the existing manufacturing and assembly practices will ensure manufacturability and assemblability of the designed products. On the other hand, such a system gives the designer greater flexibility to assign bigger tolerance, so cheaper products can be produced. 4. Variation method for accuracy calculation
Manufacturing or assembly requirements ro machine error Calculate variation tolerance dro surface dim., form error

Reshetovs method machine accuracy estimation

Variation method for accuracy calculation of machine surfaces is based on Reshetov - Portmans method for machine tools accuracy estimation [3]. It is based on the mathematical model of the main error of the mechanical system.

The errors of position of the machine units and elements are input parameters, and the errors of dimension position and form of machined surface are output parameters. The model uses form shaping system code to represent different machining processes. This code is further used in calculation of the accuracy of machined surfaces. The models of form shaping system of cutting tool for single point, linear tool and surface tool are constructed and also machine layout can be achieved. From those models calculation of form-shape layout output is done. Positional error vector and nominal radius vector of the surfaces are calculated using the following equations.
r0 =

A r
0,l

(1)

S1 S2=S1 S3=S4 Real situation Gap S4 V V Design view Interference S2 S3

Figure 4. Dimensional restriction.

Design Tolerance Suitable for Manufacturing and Assembly in Concurrent Engineering

106

m r0 = q0i d r0 q i=1 0i

(5)

Where rb is defined as a sum of vector of dimensional and positional errors. eb is the matrix (4x4) of the positional error of the coordinate system, which is coupled with base surface relative to the main system [3]. The elements q are used to estimate dimensional and positional errors. Form errors can be estimated as standard deviation from base surfaces. Second method is by constructiion of new surfaces that includes distortion of the form of the nominal surfaces. For details refer to the origin source [3]. This method for evaluation of accuracy can be applied to calculation of tolerances from the designer when machining specifications are known. 5. Worst-case (standard) tolerance When solving tolerancing problems, one must choose between worst-case tolerancing and statistical tolerancing. Worst-case tolerance is the standard tolerance that guarantee 100% inter-

works in case of top-down assembly approach, when the same CAD system is used for all members of the enterprise. In case of concurrent engineering usage of the same type of CAD
107 PAVEL G. IKONOMOV, EMILIYA DIMITROVA MILKOVA

software is impossible, so we have to find some common solution for each participant. We
Dimensional restriction impossible assembly

Interference Gap t Geometrical tolerance restriction (positional tolerance)

Figure 5. Geometrical tolerance restriction.

propose virtual assembly as a solution. The aim of this virtual assembly is to support participants in concurrent engineering, suppliers and contractors, during their design processes. The needs of the designers we will explain with the aid of some examples. We specify two levels of checking for assemblability regarding tolerances. [2] The first level is the ordinary dimension restriction, related to size and form, usually defined on the part drawing (Figure 4). The second level check is for geometrical restriction derived from relations between mating parts or from geometrical tolerance requirements (Figure 6). Simply stated this is to ensure that geometrical restriction from one part will not interfere with physical dimension of the other part. That means to meet geometrical tolerance requirements.

Lets analyze the problem of the Virtual assembly depicted in Figure 4. Suppose we have a simple assembly, requiring mating surface S1 with S2 and S3 with S4. As can be seen alignment of the two parts are correct, but surfaces S1 and S2 leave a gap and S3 and S4 interfere. The designers specify assembly, use visualization tools and verify visually the correctness of the assembly, without considering tolerances.
Design Tolerance Suitable for Manufacturing and Assembly in Concurrent Engineering
108

5.2.2 Geometrical tolerance restriction Geometrical restrictions are more complicated in their matter. They are derived from functional requirement of the parts. Ordinarily they are represented with geometrical tolerances and aim to give unconditional geometrical assembly between parts. Their nature is static, but the complicated three dimensional spatial relationships between related parts is an intricate problem. Lets analyze the problem of the Virtual assembly depicted in Figure 6. Suppose we have a simple assembly, requiring mating surfaces of the upper and lower part. It is possible to find a solution for dimensional and geometrical restriction, but still both parts cannot be assembled. The designers shall have a mechanism to prevent such mistakes. The only way to do that is to consider the mating parts dimensions, geometry and tolerances. We had proposed Virtual gauge base Virtual assembly solution that is based on geometrical tolerance. An extended Virtual assembly model using STEP standard Express-G model schema shown in earlier publication. [2] 6. Statistical tolerances6.1 Statistical tolerances method Statistical tolerance methods differ from worst-case tolerance in that they allow tolerances to be increased which lead to a more economical process. Statistical tolerances are determined by a target, tx, and maximum standard deviation, x,. They are Manufacturing or assembly denoted by tx3 x. They are more commonly denoted by tx= requirements Worst case x. When using the <ST> symbol, it is most common to have Calculate tolerance Increased statistical x = 3 x. However, this relationship is not formalized in the statistical tolerance tolerance standards and the six sigma approach uses 6
method

x = 6 x. [4]

2 i

= i =1 i
m1

(6)

109

PAVEL G. IKONOMOV, EMILIYA DIMITROVA MILKOVA

mean

t
:

'mean( m1)

(9)

i =1/3 for equality distribution law, i =1/6 for Simpson law, i =1/9 for normal distribution law. More accurate calculation gives.

k = t
: i

i 2

(10)

Tolerance increasing can be calculated.

R=

m 1
' mean

(11)

The basic advantage of the statistical method is the possibility to increase tolerances, comparatively to the worst-case tolerance method. That makes possible for the designer to designate higher tolerances for design parts that have tolerances that cannot be met by the traditional worst-case tolerance method. It also makes sure that parts can be produced with existed machines and assembly can be carried out. When there is an additional increase of the tolerance or special requirements for manufacturing and assembly, the group method and the compensation method can be used.
6.2 Group (selective) method and method of compensation (regulation) link

6.2.1 Group method

Worst case tolerance Manufacturing or assembly requirements Calculate Increased

Kmean

= Khole Kpin = ( k 1) hole + +

holen

+ z1 ( k 1)
min

pin

(14)
pin

Design Tolerance Suitable for Manufacturing and Assembly in Concurrent Engineering

Table 1. Relative increasing R of the medium value of the tolerance related to risk percentage mean.
Risk % 0.27 0.27 0.27 1 1 1
110

mean 1/3 1/6 1/9 1/3 1/6 1/9

R 1.41 2 2.45 1.65 2.35 2.85

Kmean

= z1 + hole = z1 + pin
min min

(15)

The group method allows an increase in accuracy for high-precision group products, like bearing, engines, machine cutting tools, etc. [5] 6.2.2 Method of compensation (regulation)
Worst case tolerance Manufacturing or assembly requirements Calculate statistical tolerance Increased statistical tolerance Compensation statistical method

111

PAVEL G. IKONOMOV, EMILIYA DIMITROVA MILKOVA

k changes to the mean value as a result increased tolerance of of the compensation link [5]. If
(a1 + a2 + a3 + a4 + a5 ) parts with EXA parts with EXB (b1 + b2 + b3 + b4 + b5 )

Desired fit

Part X A a5 b5 b4 b3 b2 a4 a3 a2 b1 Part XB a1

Figure 7: Parts machined with approximately equal capabilities.

= 2
k

we have symmetrical value of the tolerances the equation is simplified to:

max

(18)

From the above it is clear that the designer shall pay attention not only to the standard tolerance practice based on ISO standard, but common factory and industry practice in order to develop products that meet manufacturability and assemblability requirements. 7. Meeting of manufacturing principle for Interchangeability 7.1 Direct selection

Design

Tolerance

Suitable

for

Manufacturing

and

Assembly

in

Concurrent

Engineering

112

(a1 + a2 + a3 + a4 + a5 ) parts with EX A Desired fit Part XA

a5 c3 b5 c3 parts with EX B3 c2 parts with EX B2 c1 parts with EXB1 b4 c2 b3

a4 c1 b2 b1

a3

a2

a1

Part XB The distribution of process B Sum distribution

Figure 9: Different capabilities. Both processes has wider than design tolerance.
n=

PC + PC TX + TX
A A

(19)

For example, if designed tolerance is one tent of proposed process capabilities, there are 10 groups. The amount of mismatch can reach 10% depends of symmetry of process capabilities.
parts with EX A (a1 + a2 + a3 + a4 + a5 ) Desired fit

113

PAVEL G. IKONOMOV, EMILIYA DIMITROVA MILKOVA

7.2.2 Unequal Capabilities, one better than the Design Tolerance For different capabilities of the processes by which parts are machined, and when one narrow than the design tolerance. The process with widest capability is placed at nominal dimension of the part, for example A, after machining of the parts of type A, they are graded into groups. At last the process of making B-parts is positioned against A-groups to achieve desired fit. The mismatching can be kept at negligible level.

7.2.3 Unequal Capabilities, both wider than the Design Tolerance For different capabilities of the processes by which parts are machined, and when both are wider than the design tolerance. The process with widest capability is placed at nominal dimension of the part, for example A, after machining of the parts of type A, they are graded into groups. At last the process of making B-parts is positioned against A-groups in such way that the sum distribution obtained becomes as similar to the distribution of A-parts. In Figure 9 the numbers c1, c2, and c3 must be chose so that the bi becomes equal as possible to ai and the expectation sum distribution of B-parts give desired fir with distribution of A-parts. The mismatching can be kept at small depends on the knowledge about distribution. 8. Conclusions We proposed a model for design tolerance suitable for manufacturing and assembly in concurrent. In order to carry on tolerance requirement we propose introduction of statistical tolerance model to design stage. For checking of machining and assembly tolerance we proposed usage of worst-case tolerance when 100% inter-exchangeability of the design parts is required. To reduce tolerance requirements in order to design products according to the actual manufacturing and assembly practice, usage of statistical tolerance, 6 sigma, group method and method of compensation (regulation) is proposed. Necessary mathematical equations and considerations are provided. Using statistical tolerance will improve designers work, reduce tolerance requirements and needs for redesign in concurrent engineering environmental that place great importance on the

Design

Tolerance

Suitable

for

Manufacturing

and

Assembly

in

Concurrent

Engineering

114

[4] W. A. Taylor, Process Tolerancing: A solution to the dilemma of worst-case statistical tolerancing, 1997, http://www.variation.com/var-soft.html [5] B. C. Balakshin, Theory and practice of machine building, Vol.2, pp. 65-88, 1982. [6] Q. Bjorke, Computer-Aided Tolerancing, pp. 6.4-6.9, 1978. [7] Latombe Jean-Claude, Robot motion planning, pp.5-43, 1991.