Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Department of Industrial Engineering, Feng Chia University, Taichung, Taiwan, Republic of China
SUMMARY
Most tolerance design optimization problems have focused on developing exact methods to reduce manufacturing
cost or to increase product quality. The inherent assumption with this approach is that assembly functions are
known before a tolerance design problem is analyzed. With the current development of CAD (Computer-Aided
Design) software, design engineers can address the tolerance design problem without knowing assembly functions
in advance. In this study, VSA-3D/Pro software, which contains a set of simulation tools, is employed to generate
experimental assembly data. These computer experimental data will be converted into other forms such as total
cost and Process Capability Index. Total cost consists of tolerance cost and quality loss. Then, empirical equations
representing two variables can be obtained through a statistical regression method. After that, mathematical
optimization and sensitivity analysis are performed within the constrained desired design and process space.
Consequently, tolerance design via computer experiments enables engineers to optimize design tolerance and
manufacturing variation to achieve the highest quality at the most cost effective price during the design and
planning stage. Copyright 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
KEY WORDS :
1. INTRODUCTION
One robust design method, the experimental design
approach, is used by quality engineers to reduce
the effects of variation [1,8]. Experimental design
methods play a major role in engineering design
activities, during which new products are developed
and existing ones are improved. These methods
have broad application in many industries, and
may lead to the development of products with
enhanced functionality and quality, lower cost, and
shorter design and development stages. In some
circumstances, simple physical experiments may
become impractical, particularly at the beginning of
the design stage; fortunately, however, with recent
developments expanding the power of computers and
software, many products are now routinely designed
with the aid of computer experiments [13]. As a
result, these complicated tasks become workable in
many practical applications. Computer experiments
sometimes replace physical experiments, reducing
the cost of experimentation and, perhaps more
importantly, speeding up product development.
This study discusses an assembly design experiment
Correspondence to: A. Jeang, Department of Industrial Engineer-
132
A. JEANG
2. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The following background information needs to be
introduced before this approach is developed: resultant
tolerance and resultant variance, computer experiment for problem simulation, process capability index,
tolerance-cost function, quality loss function, statistical regression model, and optimization techniques.
They are introduced in the following.
2.1. Resultant tolerance and resultant variance
An assembled product consists of many components created by different processes; thus, the question
becomes how to determine which combination of
component tolerances is best. Therefore, in addition
to tolerance design for a single component of a product, most design problems should allocate component
tolerances so that the output dimensions of a final
assembled product fall into acceptable ranges. The
assembly dimensions of a completed product are a
combination of the dimensions of several components.
This causes the overall assembly dimensions to vary.
Tolerance analysis relates to the variation of total
assembly tolerances (resultant tolerances) to the variation of component tolerances.
2.2. Computer experiment for problem simulation
To analyze a tolerancing problem properly, functional relationships between the component dimensions and assembly dimensions should be identified
beforehand. These functions will be referred to as
assembly functions in the following discussion. Assembly functions may appear in any form. However,
these functions are usually not known, are difficult to
obtain, or are in very complex forms. For example, it is
difficult to contain the features of multiple dimensions
or geometric tolerances in assembly functions. In addition, designers prefer to have as many feasible designs
as possible to allow for changes as the design team
encounters complexities. These arguments make it
necessary to define various assembly functions before
tolerancing analysis. This becomes an impractical task
due to the hundreds or even thousands of calculations
needed for design activities. Fortunately, with the
recent development of expanded power in computers
and software, most of these tasks are workable. In this
study, the VSA-3D/Pro model, a 3D tolerance analysis
integrated with Pro/E, is employed to analyze the
presented tolerancing problem [12]. Figure 1 depicts
that five tools in VSA-3D/Pro model are used to
generate a complete VSA-3D model for an assembly. They include VSA-APP, Pro/E, VSA-GDT/Pro,
Copyright 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
133
i=1
n
i=1
ai Xi +
n
i=1
bi xi2 +
n
n
cij Xi Xj
i=1 j =1
(3)
Qual. Reliab. Engng. Int. 2001; 17: 131139
134
A. JEANG
Figure 3. Xbase
F (X)
(4)
subject to
fj (X) bj
(5)
Figure 5. Shaft
135
Figure 6. Motor
3. AN APPLICATION
This application is related to a motor assembly which
consists of items such as Xbase, crank, shaft, and
motor base. Figures 27 depict graphic representations
of the motor assembly with dimensioning and
tolerancing schemes. The relevant information for the
above figures is provided in Table 1. The ordering
numbers in the first row from Table 1 are also shown
in Figures 37 for the purpose of easy reference. The
component tolerances provide the main contribution
to the variations of final assembly dimensions. There
is only one assembly dimension, which is called
clearance in this example. The object is to determine
an appropriate tolerance allocation so that there is
sufficient space between the crank and the Xbase.
To ensure that the product functionality is performed
properly, the dimension value of clearance should
not fall below the lower design limit 0.70 cm with
target value 0.89 cm. Among geometrical features,
Xbase flatness, motor base flatness, motor shaft size,
and motor shaft perpendicularity are the relevant
factors which influence the clearance measurement.
Hence, these four features will be selected as input
factors in the computer-aided tolerancing analysis.
For convenience, they are called factors A, B, C,
and D, which are shown in the second column of
Copyright 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Figure 7. Crank
136
A. JEANG
Tolerance
and size no.
Component
Geometry
feature
Illustration
X base
(A)
Flatness
Surface on
X base
Motor
base
Motor base
(B)
Profile
Surface on
motor base
Surface on the
bottom of
motor base
Size of shaft (with
target value
2.0 cm)
Perpendicularity
of shaft
Flatness
Motor shaft
(C)
Size
Motor shaft
(D)
Perpendicularity
Motor shaft
Profile
Motor
Size
Motor
Position
Crank
Size
10
Crank
Perpendicularity
Profile of
shaft
Hole size
of motor
Hole position
of motor
Hole size
of crank
Hole perpendicularity
of crank
Possible tolerance
levels
Influence on
clearance?
0.05
0.08
0.10
Yes
0.05
0.08
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.05
0.10
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
137
Run
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
X base
flatness
tA
Motor base
flatness
tB
Motor shaft
size
tC
Motor shaft
perpendicularity
tD
Mean
Std.
Index
Cpk
Total
cost
TC
0.10
0.05
0.10
0.05
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.05
0.05
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.08
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.10
0.05
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.08
0.08
0.05
0.08
0.05
0.05
0.08
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.08
0.08
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.05
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.20
0.20
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.20
0.20
0.15
0.15
0.20
0.20
0.15
0.20
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.20
0.20
0.15
0.15
0.20
0.20
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.05
0.10
0.05
0.05
0.10
0.10
0.05
0.05
0.10
0.05
0.10
0.05
0.10
0.05
0.10
0.05
0.10
0.05
0.10
0.05
0.10
0.05
0.05
0.10
0.10
0.05
0.10
0.10
0.05
0.10
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.8877
0.8893
0.8867
0.8895
0.8878
0.8880
0.8879
0.8884
0.8883
0.8885
0.8885
0.8893
0.8894
0.8884
0.8885
0.8880
0.8810
0.8880
0.8881
0.8890
0.8890
0.8886
0.8880
0.8890
0.8890
0.8870
0.8899
0.8896
0.8897
0.8886
0.8899
0.8900
0.8895
0.8897
0.8885
0.8901
0.0592
0.0366
0.0643
0.0350
0.0591
0.0581
0.0582
0.0496
0.0495
0.0485
0.0484
0.0364
0.0350
0.0670
0.0657
0.0624
0.0613
0.0613
0.0613
0.0587
0.0573
0.0534
0.0522
0.0587
0.0570
0.0522
0.0480
0.0415
0.0400
0.0540
0.0465
0.0416
0.0400
0.0658
0.0464
0.0613
0.9513
1.3680
0.7580
1.4000
0.9514
0.9653
0.9720
1.1200
1.1200
1.1420
1.1420
1.3670
1.4000
0.7580
0.7670
0.8840
0.8970
0.8970
0.8970
0.8100
0.8200
0.9580
0.9740
0.8100
0.8200
0.9730
0.8786
1.0900
1.1100
0.9580
0.8790
0.8900
1.0900
1.1100
0.7700
0.8900
235.0
214.8
176.8
230.5
248.0
250.0
237.7
221.2
234.0
234.0
237.0
227.5
217.5
196.8
198.3
200.0
202.2
184.2
189.0
183.0
185.0
186.0
188.5
170.0
171.0
175.6
176.1
179.5
183.0
174.0
163.3
165.0
166.6
169.0
185.6
178.1
Factor
Level 1
A
B
C
D
Level 2
Level 3
138
A. JEANG
CP k
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
tA
tB
tC
tD
F ()
0.049 cm
0.100 cm
0.175 cm
0.100 cm
$149.786
0.040 cm
0.100 cm
0.145 cm
0.100 cm
$161.233
0.040 cm
0.100 cm
0.109 cm
0.100 cm
$194.341
0.04 tA 0.10
0.05 tB 0.10
0.10 tC 0.20
0.04 tD 0.10
The sensitivity analysis is a study of the variation in
the optimum solution as some of the original problem
parameters are changed. This is an important analysis
in the area of optimum design because decisions made
during design activities are dynamic and uncertain
in nature [10]. The present study focuses on the
sensitivity of T C and ti to the variation of the
constraint limit for process capability index, where
i represents factors A, B, C, and D. The optimum
solutions of cost function and design tolerances under
various Cpk are shown in Table 4. Process capability
indices (Cpk ) are mathematical ratios that specify the
ability of a process to produce products within the
specifications. The spread of the individuals can be
calculated for a new process that has not produced a
significant number of parts, or for a process currently
under operation. In either case, a true value, Cpk ,
cannot be determined until the process has achieved
stability. Additionally, knowing process capability
gives insight into whether or not the process will
be able to meet future demands placed on it. For
example, a customer may ask for extra fine product
tolerances that the machines are not capable of
producing. Hence, the impact from the dispersion of
the acceptable Cpk level, as in the example shown in
Table 4, needs to be analyzed. It can then be used to
assist in decisions concerning product specifications
(design tolerances), process specifications (process
tolerances), appropriate production methods, and
equipment to be used. The results indicate that the
motor shaft size is the most sensitive factor in the
presented tolerance design problem, because this
factor has significant impact on the cost function
and solution feasibility. With respect to the methods
of finding solutions, commercial PC-level software,
such as GAMES, can solve the above nonlinear set of
equations easily and accurately.
Copyright 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
4. DISCUSSION
Many products are now routinely designed with the aid
of computer software. With input consisting of designable engineering parameters and parameters representing manufacturing process conditions, computer
simulation can generate output, which is the products
quality characteristics. Then, a standard statistical
analysis is performed based on this output. This type
of experiment through computer software sometimes
replaces physical experiments, reducing the cost of
experimentation and, more importantly, speeding up
product development [13]. The finite element analysis of mechanical components and the design of
electronic circuits are two important application areas
in which computer experiment is widely used. With
the current development of tolerance-related software,
such as VSA-3D/Pro, it becomes possible to put tolerance design via computer experiment into practical
use.
Under these circumstances, the assembly function
can be determined by the computer, and the analysis
is performed using the Monte Carlo Simulation
which defines the assembly process. Then, computer
experimental data is studied with the methods of
statistical regression and optimization technique.
Thus, the optimal component tolerance can be found
easily and economically. All these activities can
be carried out very effectively using the approach
presented in this paper.
In preparing to use this approach, the following
important steps should be followed.
Step 1. Provide assembly drawing, parameter values
of tolerancecost functions and coefficient K of
quality loss function.
Step 2. Choose appropriate experimental designs
(matrix) over the various levels of input
(component tolerances) for performing the
computer simulation. These levels are fractions
of maximum component tolerance range.
Qual. Reliab. Engng. Int. 2001; 17: 131139
139
Step 3. Perform the simulation with the aid of VSA3D/Pro software. Observations are made on a
response for an assembly through computer
simulation. Two experimental data are obtained:
U and , in the eth experiment.
Step 4. Convert above experimental data into the
expressions of Cpk and T C by equations (1) and
(2) respectively.
Step 5. Use statistical regression analysis to approximate T C and Cpk as functions of the component
tolerances.
Step 6. Determine the best component tolerance
allocation for an assembly with an optimization
technique.
Consequently, an economical and quality assembly
can be achieved through computer-aided design.
5. SUMMARY
Use of VSA-3D/Pro software, a simulation can provide an accurate assessment of cumulative effects for
any complex assembly. These effects can be converted
into various expressions which are related to the measurement of cost, quality, and process capability. Then,
an approach which combines statistical methods and
optimization techniques for tolerance determination
is developed. This provides designers with guidelines
to follow, and suggestions for improvement. Consequently, via computer simulation, a robust tolerance
design resulting in high quality and cost-effective
products can be achieved during the early stages of
design.
Authors biography:
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS