1 views

Uploaded by chetan_harsha_1

- Introduction to FEM
- Syllabus Ansys Workbench Training Chandigarh
- Transformator
- Basics Tutorials 1
- Many Physical Phenomena in Engineering and Science Can Be Described in Terms of Partial Differential
- Finite Element An
- h Method and p Method
- Cama Lab Report
- Finite Element Method Magnetics_ FEMM 4
- 978-1-58503-581-6_toc
- Answers to Questionaires Big Foot Bio Dennis Chen Sr System Engineer
- Problem Solving
- Lecture Plan - FEA
- Continuous Modelling in Metrology
- Extended Finite Element Modeling Basic Review and Programming
- ID3_717_2007_e.pdf
- JAN MAY 2014 Course Version
- MED28
- FEM Zabaras Cornell University StrongAndWeakProblems1D
- hw feb 20-24

You are on page 1of 192

OF FLEXIBLE ASSEMBLIES

by

Alan J. Mortensen

Brigham Young University

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Science

Brigham Young University

August 2002

ii

ABSTRACT

A METHODOLOGY FOR STATISTICAL TOLERANCE ANALYSIS

OF FLEXIBLE ASSEMBLIES

Alan J. Mortensen

Department of Mechanical Engineering

Master of Science

Statistical tolerance analysis has become a vital link between product design and

manufacture, aiding in the constant drive to increase quality, while lowering production

costs. Although conventional tolerance analysis methods are limited by the assumption

of part rigidity, recent steps have been taken to broaden this field of study to include

flexible parts. Such steps include the combination of statistical tolerance analysis with

finite element analysis to predict closure forces, deformations and internal stresses

resulting from assembly processes. The achievement of such would greatly aid

aerospace, automotive and other industries that routinely use compliant parts in design.

The objective of this thesis is to present an integrated methodology for the statistical

tolerance analysis of flexible assemblies. To accomplish this objective, four main tasks

were completed:

1. Integration of rigid STA with FEA for variation analysis of assemblies with

compliant parts.

2. Use of commercial FEA software for modeling of compliant assemblies.

3. Statistical FEA, incorporating both material (elastic coupled) and geometric

(continuity coupled) covariance.

4. Inclusion of both compliant and rigid covariance components.

The result of this research is an integrated 4-step process that allows for flexible assembly

statistical tolerance analysis (FASTA). The FASTA process is presented in detail and

summarized graphically using process flow diagrams. Groundwork is also presented for

the treatment of form variation at assembly joints containing flexible parts. It is hoped

that the methods presented will become a valuable tool for analysis in the design of

flexible assemblies.

iii

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Special thanks must be given to my wonderful wife who has supported me and sacrificed

to help me to accomplish this work. I would also like to thank Dr. Chase for his

mentoring and guidance in this undertaking.

vi

Table of Contents:

CHAPTER 1

................................................................................................................. 1

1.1

Introduction......................................................................................................... 1

1.2

1.3

1.4

Procedure ............................................................................................................ 8

1.5

1.5.1

1.5.2

1.5.3

FEA modeling........................................................................................... 10

1.6

Summary ........................................................................................................... 10

CHAPTER 2

2.1

............................................................................................................... 11

Background ....................................................................................................... 11

2.1.1

2.1.2

2.2

Summary ........................................................................................................... 18

CHAPTER 3

............................................................................................................... 19

3.1

Introduction....................................................................................................... 19

3.2

3.3

3.3.1

vii

3.3.1.1

3.3.1.2

3.3.2

3.3.2.1

3.3.2.2

3.3.2.3

System............................................................................................................... 32

Closed Loop ...................................................................................................... 32

Open Loop ........................................................................................................ 32

3.3.3

3.4

Summary ........................................................................................................... 33

CHAPTER 4

............................................................................................................... 35

4.1

Introduction....................................................................................................... 35

4.2

4.2.1

4.2.2

4.2.3

4.2.4

4.3

4.2.4.1

4.2.4.2

4.2.4.3

4.3.1

viii

4.3.2

4.3.3

4.3.4

4.4

Summary ........................................................................................................... 68

CHAPTER 5

............................................................................................................... 71

5.1

Introduction....................................................................................................... 71

5.2

Analysis Assumptions....................................................................................... 72

5.3

Background ....................................................................................................... 73

5.3.1

Matrix reduction........................................................................................ 75

5.3.2

Equivalent stiffness................................................................................... 77

5.4

5.4.1

5.4.2

5.4.3

5.4.3.1

5.4.4

5.4.5

5.5

Summary ........................................................................................................... 88

CHAPTER 6

............................................................................................................... 91

6.1

Introduction....................................................................................................... 91

6.2

6.2.1

6.2.2

ix

6.2.2.1

Sinusoidal model................................................................................... 96

6.2.2.2

6.2.2.3

6.2.3

6.2.4

6.2.5

6.3

6.3.1

6.3.2

6.3.2.1

6.3.2.2

6.3.3

6.3.3.1

6.3.3.2

6.3.4

6.4

CHAPTER 7

............................................................................................................. 127

7.1

Introduction..................................................................................................... 127

7.2

7.3

7.4

7.5

7.6

x

CHAPTER 8

............................................................................................................. 137

8.1

Introduction..................................................................................................... 137

8.2

8.3

8.3.1

8.3.2

8.3.3

8.3.4

8.4

8.4.1

8.4.2

8.5

CHAPTER 9

............................................................................................................. 151

9.1

Introduction..................................................................................................... 151

9.2

9.3

9.4

9.5

APPENDIX..159

APPENDIX A: Vector Loop Modeling Rules and Regulations for 2-D....161

APPENDIX B: FEA Model Issues and Suggestions..163

APPENDIX C: Sub-structuring in ANSYS for Stiffness Matrix Output.....169

REFERENCES173

xi

Table of Figures:

Figure 1-1: Illustration of flexible assembly deformation .................................................. 2

Figure 1-2 Process flow diagram of FASTA process ........Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure 3-1 Kinematic Assembly Variation [Chase 1996]................................................ 20

Figure 3-2 Simple Vector Loop Model............................................................................. 21

Figure 3-3 3D Effects of form variation [Chase 1996].................................................... 28

Figure 3-4 Degrees of freedom for kinematic motions and geometric feature variations

[Chase 1996] ............................................................................................................. 29

Figure 4-1 Step 1 process summary.................................................................................. 36

Figure 4-2 Modeling multiple fastening points using variable vectors (fi, gi).................. 39

Figure 4-3 Form variation at multiple fastening points .................................................... 40

Figure 4-4 Example of modes of variation contribution................................................... 43

Figure 4-5 Dimensioned flexible part used for illustration............................................... 44

Figure 4-6 Illustration of translational variation in flexible part ...................................... 44

Figure 4-7 Illustration of rotational variation in flexible part........................................... 46

Figure 4-8 Form tolerance limits of surface variation ...................................................... 48

Figure 4-9 Example flexible assembly ............................................................................ 52

Figure 4-10 Example part dimensions ............................................................................. 53

Figure 4-11 Vector loop model of example assembly ...................................................... 54

Figure 4-12 Nonparallel surface variation ........................................................................ 62

Figure 4-13 Deformation of cantilever beams [Liu 1995]................................................ 65

xii

Figure 4-15 Equilibrium trampoline assembly ................................................................. 66

Figure 4-16 Process flow diagram for statistically determining misalignment ................ 70

Figure 5-1 Step 2 process summary.................................................................................. 72

Figure 5-2 Example of stiffness of bar in tension............................................................. 73

Figure 5-3 Example of stiffness for 2-D bending ............................................................. 74

Figure 5-4 Boundary and interior nodes of a plate in bending [Tonks 2002]................... 76

Figure 5-5 Spring example of equivalent stiffness [Merkley 1998] ................................. 78

Figure 5-6 Nominal model of flexible parts in example assembly (created in ANSYS) 81

Figure 5-7 Examples of 3-D structural elements in ANSYS .......................................... 82

Figure 5-8 Suggested Shell Elements for flexible part modeling ..................................... 83

Figure 5-9 Flexible parts in example assembly map meshed with a 0.5 inch

edge-length................................................................................................................ 85

Figure 5-10 Master DOF and constraints applied to parts A and B.................................. 86

Figure 5-11 Reduced stiffness matrices for parts A and B (scale in pounds/inch)........... 87

Figure 5-12 Equivalent stiffness matrix (scale in pounds/inch) ....................................... 88

Figure 5-13 Process flow diagram for FEM of compliant parts ....................................... 90

Figure 6-1 Step 3 process summary.................................................................................. 93

Figure 6-2 Example of correlation between variables x and y ......................................... 94

Figure 6-3 Sinusoidal curve fit of independent points [Tonks 2002] ............................... 96

Figure 6-4 Orthogonal polynomial plots [Tonks 2002].................................................... 99

Figure 6-5 Rigid translational variation.......................................................................... 104

Figure 6-6 Rigid rotational variation .............................................................................. 105

Figure 6-7 Geometric covariance solutions for example assembly gap surfaces ........... 108

xiii

Figure 6-8 Rigid gap covariance solutions for example assembly ................................. 108

Figure 6-9 Gap covariance matrix solution and contributing components, for example

assembly.................................................................................................................. 109

Figure 6-10 Process flow diagram for calculating gap covariance................................. 112

Figure 6-11 Step 4 process summary.............................................................................. 113

Figure 6-12 Force covariance matrix for example assembly.......................................... 115

Figure 6-13 Plots of mean deformation and stress for example parts in ANSYS ........ 119

Figure 6-14 Displacement variance surface plot of the horizontal surface of

example part A........................................................................................................ 122

Figure 6-15 Process flow diagram for statistical FEA soltion........................................ 125

Figure 7-1 Example of rigid form variation propagation................................................ 128

Figure 7-2 Comparison of rigid and flexible joints ........................................................ 130

Figure 7-3 Process flow diagram of multiple joint FASTA application......................... 133

Figure 7-4 Variation modes at flexible joints for example assembly ............................. 134

Figure 8-1 Pictures of parts and fixture for leading edge assembly ............................... 138

Figure 8-2 Leading edge assembly gap at fastening nodes............................................. 140

Figure 8-3 Generic vector loop describing the gap distance at node i............................ 140

Figure 8-4 Preliminary models of leading edge flexible parts, made in ANSYS ......... 145

Figure 8-5 Assembly fixture positioned on CMM.......................................................... 148

Figure A-1 Vector loop joint requirements..161

Figure B-1 Example of DOF for a simple plate...164

Figure B-2 Six degrees of freedom at one node..164

xiv

Table of Tables:

Table 1-1 Flexible assembly tolerance analysis steps......................................................... 4

Table 1-2 Input/output summary of process steps ............................................................. 6

Table 2-1 Mean & standard deviations equations for 1-D assembly stackup................... 13

Table 3-1 Numerical derivatives [Gao 1998]. .................................................................. 24

Table 3-2 Rotational and translational variations associated with geometric feature

tolerance for 3D Planar and Cylindrical Slider joints [Chase 1996] ........................ 29

Table 3-3 Tolerance sensitivity matrices for determined and over-determined systems.. 32

Table 4-1Tooling/fixture dimensions for example assembly ........................................... 55

Table 4-2 Part dimensions for example assembly ............................................................ 56

Table 4-3 Summary of steps to determine misalignment ................................................. 69

Table 5-1 Summary of FEA modeling steps..................................................................... 80

Table 5-2 Material properties of parts A & B................................................................... 81

Table 5-3 Summary of steps to FEM compliant parts ...................................................... 89

Table 6-1 Ranges of surface variation and their effects ................................................. 101

Table 6-2 Surface continuity model use range .............................................................. 102

Table 6-3 Surface continuity models for example assembly .......................................... 107

Table 6-4 Summary of steps to calculate gap covariance............................................... 111

Table 6-5 Summary of steps for statistical FEA solution ............................................... 124

Table 7-1 Geometric tolerance variable for groove and cylinder example .................... 129

Table 7-2 Outline of FASTA inclusion of form variation at flexible joints ................... 132

Table 9-1 Strengths and limitations of FASTA .............................................................. 153

Table A-1 Vector loop modeling rules [Trego 1993]..161

xv

xvi

CHAPTER 1

Introduction

1.1 Introduction

In the fiercely competitive global economy of today, product success is awarded

to the company that can guarantee quality at a low cost. With such demands, the use of

tolerance analysis has become a vital link between product design and manufacture. By

nature, manufacturing is not an exact science. Tool wear, fixture imperfections, chatter,

and countless other causes produce deviations from a parts ideal design. When

designers call out nominal dimensions, they must also make an allowance for variations

in the actual parts made. Such deviations are permitted, within limits, through the use of

tolerances. The challenge is to permit as much variation as possible, to minimize

production costs, while still meeting critical functionality when components are

assembled. Tolerance analysis takes the guesswork out of tolerance assignment by

determining how sensitive the critical assembly dimensions are to part variation (see

Chase & Parkinson 1991).

Although much work has been done in this field, conventional tolerance analysis

methods are limited by the assumption of part rigidity. In the case of flexible parts,

standard tolerance analysis methods are unable to predict the effects of part compliancy

in an assembly. Such assemblies are often force-closed and then fastened, while the

flexible parts are held in a deformed state. This results in residual stresses and spring1

back deformations which can shorten product life and cause poor fit and poor

performance. An example of this type of assembly is illustrated in Figure 1-1, where

non-ideal parts A and B are forced together and fastened in a deformed ideal position.

Part c of the figure shows how part spring-back affects the final state of the assembly.

Part A

Gap

Part B

a) Compliant parts A & B to be assembled.

FA

FB

b) Forces used to place parts for fastening.

Figure 1-1: Illustration of flexible assembly deformation

A system for statistical tolerance analysis of flexible assemblies would allow for

statistical prediction of the closure forces, deformations and residual stresses based upon

part tolerances. The need for this analysis method can be seen in the aerospace and

automotive industries, which routinely use flexible parts in production. Despite the

demand, there have not been, until recently, efficient means of characterizing compliant

assemblies.

New methods of performing tolerance analysis on flexible part assemblies have

been proposed at Brigham Young University, using Finite Element Modeling (FEM) and

statistical tolerance analysis. While these new methods have been verified by simple

simulation, they have not yet been used on a real multiple part assembly problem. To

2

predict the effects of the assembly gaps at the point of compliance, rigid body tolerance

analysis must be combined with flexible tolerance analysis to characterize the final state

of the assembly. The aim of this thesis is to present a comprehensive, integrated

methodology for this combined analysis, and to illustrate the process using a real

assembly.

The challenge of statistically modeling an assembly with flexible parts is to

accurately take into account the effects of part compliancy. New methods have been

developed at Brigham Young University using a combination of Statistical Tolerance

Analysis (STA) and Finite Element Analysis (FEA) to achieve compliant assembly

tolerance analysis. Covariance, the interdependence of each element variation upon the

other elements, has been a key factor in effectively modeling compliant part behavior.

Internal material interactions, surface continuity constraints, and surface variation

wavelength all play a part in modeling flexible part covariance.

Statistical tolerance analysis of assemblies with compliant parts can be broken

down into four tasks as presented in Table 1-1. The process containing these four steps

will be referred to in this thesis as Flexible Assembly Statistical Tolerance Analysis, or

FASTA for short.

1.

2.

(FEM)

3.

4.

of Assembly Forces, Deformations and Stresses

rigid body STA to solve for gaps between parts that result from variation stack-up in

assembly. Compliant parts are assumed to be rigid at this point, allowing for

conventional tolerance analysis. Inputs to this step are part geometry and part variation,

while outputs include the mean { i } and variance of every fastening point i along the

compliant parts at each gap. The variance is separated into translational, rotational, and

2

surface components ( { Ti2 }, { Ri2 }, { SPi

}) for use in step 3. Though suggested before, the

general adaptation of conventional STA for use on compliant assemblies has not

previously been done and thus is a major contribution of this thesis.

Step 2: Finite Element Modeling of Compliant Parts (FEM). This step accounts

for part flexibility in the overall analysis. The internal elastic material interactions

(Material covariance) of a compliant part are accounted for by using FEM to

approximate a parts material stiffness [K eq ] . Using sub-structuring techniques the

resulting stiffness matrix can be reduced to include only the degrees of freedom at

4

boundaries while still accounting for internal forces. This reduction in stiffness matrix

order allows for increased analysis efficiency. Inputs to the analysis include part

geometry and material properties. A significant contribution of this thesis is a general

method for performing this step using ANSYS, a widely available FEA software

package.

Step 3: Covariance Calculation (COV). The effects of surface continuity on the

mating surfaces of flexible parts are modeled statistically by the Geometric covariance.

To calculate the geometric covariance, sinusoids and polynomial series are used to model

continuous surfaces and solve for the covariant sensitivity, which constrains the mating

surfaces to be continuous. Spectral analysis methods can also be used to include surface

waviness effects in the covariance. A hybrid method allows for joining multiple surface

modeling techniques to calculate geometric covariance when no single model adequately

represents a particular surface variation.

The variance components of the assembly gap are used in conjunction with a

surface continuity model to solve for the geometric covariance of mating gap surfaces

and create a gap covariance matrix solution [ ] .

Step 4: Statistical FEA. Finally, the statistical FEA solution is calculated using

the outputs of the other steps. Using the equivalent stiffness [K eq ] , the mean of the

assembly gap { i } , and the gap covariance [ ] , the mean and the variance of the force

F( , ) is calculated. Once the statistical variation of the assembly surfaces has been

determined, the mean and variance of the displacement and stresses seen throughout the

compliant parts can also be determined by applying the resultant mean and variance of

the assembly gap as displacement loads in a FEA solution.

5

The product of these four steps is a means of predicting the closure force, deformation,

and stress throughout a flexible assembly over a statistical range. All of this is done with

minimal computation, making it much more efficient than simulation methods, such as

Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS). A summary of the inputs and outputs of each of the

process steps is presented in Table 1-2.

Table 1-2 Input/output summary of process steps

Process Steps

1. STA

2. FEM

3. COV

4. Stat. FEA

Inputs

Part Geometry

Part Variation

Part Geometry

Material Properties

2

{ Ti2 }, { Ri2 }, { SPi

}

Surf. Cont. Model

[K eq ]

{ i }

[ ]

Outputs

2

{ i } ; { Ti2 }, { Ri2 }, { SPi

}

[K eq ]

[ ]

F( , )

( , )

Stress( , )

While previous work has been done in each of the steps presented, a general

method for linking them together into a single process was never achieved. The product

of this thesis is a completely integrated FASTA process for general use on flexible

assemblies. A process flow diagram for this integrated process is shown in Figure 1-2.

Each step is shown as a part or module of the overall method, and is denoted by a boxed

section of the process. As each step is presented in more detail in the course of this

thesis, Figure 1-2 should be used as a reference frame or map to understand how it fits

into the complete FASTA process.

The objectives of this thesis are: to include rigid part variation in the statistical

tolerance analysis of flexible assemblies, to present a general step-by-step methodology

for the FASTA process, and to illustrate how to apply the process using a real assembly

from industry. Significant contributions are made in the modeling of assembly

misalignment, and part compliance using FEA (steps 1 and 2 in Table 1-1).

1.4 Procedure

In order to achieve the objectives of this thesis the chapters are presented as

follows:

Chapter 2:

Chapter 3:

Chapters 4-6: These chapters focus in detail on the 4 steps listed in Table 1-1.

The first step is treated in chapter 4, the second in chapter 5, and the third and

fourth in chapter 6. An example assembly is used to illustrate the modeling

procedures and analysis results at each step. Other considerations and information

are presented as relevant to each chapter.

Chapter 7:

propagation through multiple joints in assembly are discussed.

8

Chapter 8:

obtained from industry. Inputs needed for analysis are highlighted, and

measurement techniques for analysis and verification of the process are discussed.

Chapter 9:

Appendices containing relevant data, more detailed examples, and modeling tutorials are

located at the end of the chapters.

The analysis presented in this thesis will be limited by the assumptions and

conditions presented in the following sub sections.

Linear assumptions limit the use of the methods contained in this thesis to parts

containing small variations. However, in tolerance analysis only small variations are

generally seen, making this limitation acceptable. Small elastic deformations are also

required so that compliant parts may be modeled at nominal dimensions, and yet still

accurately describe a statistically varying set of similar parts.

Variation stack-up in assembly is assumed to be normally distributed. As the

combined effect of independent but non-normal variables tends to be normal, this usually

is a valid assumption. Tolerance values are assumed to represent three standard

9

deviations from the nominal part dimensions. This agrees with common industry

practice.

Access to finite element models of compliant parts or FEA software to create such

models is assumed. It is also assumed that part stiffness matrices can be exported from

FEA models. ANSYS version 5.7 will be used for all examples and applications in this

thesis.

1.6 Summary

The product of this thesis is a step-by-step method to perform Flexible Assembly

Statistical Tolerance Analysis (FASTA), including variation from both rigid and

flexible parts. This combined analysis method will provide a new flexible assembly

analysis tool for industry, allowing designers to:

and additional labor and rework.

control efforts.

It is hoped that such a tool may prove invaluable in the efforts of industry to provide

quality products at low prices, through the aid of statistical tolerance analysis.

10

CHAPTER 2

Background Research

2.1 Background

Pertinent to the scope of this research is a background in both rigid and flexible

statistical tolerance analysis. Brief introductions to these will be made in this chapter,

while a more detailed presentation of work foundational to this thesis is presented in

relevant chapters.

Much work has been done in the realm of tolerance analysis for rigid parts. As

discussed earlier, the premise of this analysis is that assembly variations result from a

stackup or accumulation of component variations. Thus, the assembly variations are

dependant upon size and form variations in the parts.

Three analytical models commonly used to predict the accumulation of

component tolerances in an assembly are: Worst Case, Statistical, and Monte Carlo

Simulation. Their definitions and characteristics are as follows:

1. Worst Case (WC) assumes that all part dimensions are simultaneously at

their worst tolerance limit. Although sizing tolerances by worst case assures

that all assemblies will be within the required limits, it does so by demanding

11

tight tolerances at increased cost. Since the chance of all part dimensions

being at their extreme limits is very small, this cost may be excessive.

2. Statistical or Root Sum Squares (RSS) methods use statistical distributions to

represent the probable magnitude of variation in manufactured parts.

Tolerances are generally assumed to correlate to six standard deviations (6

or 3). This method allows for relaxed tolerances compared to WC, at the

expense of some rejects.

3. Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS) uses random perturbations of part

dimensions within tolerances to simulate a population of complete assemblies.

In this way, assembly tolerances can be checked by a simulated production

run. This method is limited by the computational cost required to simulate

large populations (typically 1000 or more), particularly when each simulation

requires a FEA solution.

For each of these, the mean and standard deviation equations are shown in Table 2-1.

Statistical methods are preferred for flexible assembly applications because they

realistically model part variation and are computationally efficient.

12

Table 2-1 Mean & standard deviations equations for 1-D assembly stackup

Model

Mean

Standard Deviation

WC

x ASM = xi

T ASM = Ti

i =1

dimension

x ASM : Measured assembly

dimension

xi : Mean dimension

i =1

RSS

Where:

x ASM = xi

ASM

i =1

T

= i

i =1 3

m

xi : Measured dimension

ASM : Standard deviation

Ti : Tolerance value

x ASM j = xi

i =1

MCS

x ASM =

x

j =1

ASM

(x

n

ASM =

j =1

ASM

x ASM

n 1

m:

Number of parts in

assembly

Number of

n : simulated

assemblies

statistical model has been developed for 2-D and 3-D tolerance analysis called the Direct

Linearization Method (DLM) [Chase 1997]. Vector loops are used in this method to

represent the 2-D and 3-D dimensional chains in an assembly that cause tolerance

stackup. Resulting nonlinear equations are linearized by using the first-order Taylor

series. This simplification assumes small variations from nominal dimensions, a very

reasonable assumption, since tolerances are generally orders of magnitude smaller than

associated dimensions. Tolerance sensitivities are calculated using partial derivatives of

the vector loop along coordinate axes. The linearized loop equations are put into matrix

form to calculate predicted assembly variation. Dimensional, form, and kinematic

variations can all be included in the analysis, making it quite versatile.

In complex 3-D assemblies, obtaining tolerance sensitivities through partial

derivatives can be tedious and confusing. [Gao 1998a] presented a simpler way of

13

calculating these sensitivities called the Global Coordinate Method (GCM). Using vector

loops and the relative lengths and rotational adjustments between vectors, closed-form

sensitivities are derived by approximating the effects of small perturbations on the loop

closure equations. The sensitivity of the outputs can be inserted directly into the DLM

for use in the matrix algebra that completes the calculation of tolerance sensitivities.

Only a brief introduction to rigid body tolerance analysis has been presented.

More detailed information will be presented in Chapter 3 for methods foundational to this

thesis. For a more complete survey of tolerance analysis pertaining to rigid assemblies

see: Chase & Parkinson (1991), and Narahari (1999).

The effects of part compliancy on assembly tolerances are a relatively new area of

study, with significant analytical work beginning in the mid 1990s. Since there are as of

yet no standard methods to this analysis, background on this topic will be presented as a

review of contributing literature.

Dr. Jack Hu and his students at the University of Michigan have made significant

contributions to the analysis of sheet metal assembly variation. [Liu 1995] presented a

one-dimensional offset beam element model used to evaluate the affects of part variation,

tooling variation, and assembly sequences by Monte Carlo Simulation. Assuming linear

mechanics, [Liu 1996] reviewed the effects of sheet metal assembly sequence and the

effects of multiple joints using simple examples. [Liu 1997] derived influence

coefficients for sheet metal assemblies using linear assumptions. This minimized the

14

number of calls to the assembly Finite Element Model (FEM) during MCS, markedly

improving analysis efficiency.

Also from the University of Michigan, [Shiu 1997] offered a procedure of

modeling the sheet metal in automotive body structures as flexible beams. The simplified

beam model was then used for dimensional control in the assembly. While a beam

structure model is less complex than a full FEA model, it appears that the full FEA model

is still required for beam structure derivation. This modeling redundancy makes the

method less valuable.

[Chang 1997] modeled the assembly process of non-ideal compliant parts, in a

single assembly, using fastening and measurement cycles. Contact chains were used to

represent the interactions between parts and tooling in these cycles. This model was used

to simulate the propagation of variation in the assembly process and to predict variations

in the resulting assembly. Statistical results were not discussed.

From France, [Sellem 1998] looked into the feasibility of integrating FEM/CAE

analysis on deformable assemblies. Thin shell theory was used to assume linear

elasticity, and three influence coefficient matrices were implemented for variation in part

positioning, tooling conformity, and shape. [Sellem 1999] compared analysis predictions

using shape variation with measured assemblies for validation. The simulated results had

the same global behavior for the mean and range of the measured inspection point

deviations. Statistical predictions were not incorporated into this model.

[Hockmuth 1998] suggested that elastic deformation of mating parts be accounted

for by using a FE-mesh to calculate stiffness matrices. It was also suggested that a parts

15

material covariance at contact be taken into account using a partitioned stiffness matrix,

though no application of this idea was presented.

[Hu 2001] presented a numerical simulation method to analyze the assembly

process of compliant parts. ANSYS FEM code was used to combine elastic and contact

analysis to model part compliance and assembly. Part variation, assembly tooling

variation, and welding distortion were modeled in this simulation non-statistically.

At Brigham Young University (BYU) a group of students advised by Dr. Ken

Chase have developed a methodology whereby a finite element model is used in

conjunction with statistical analysis methods to statistically describe flexible part

assembly processes. The FASTA method (presented in Chapter 1) permits the prediction

of the range of assembly forces and the resulting stresses and deformations in the

assembly due to dimensional and form variation. Only two solutions are required to

characterize the variation in an entire production run. This methodology has evolved

through a compilation of work to include the affects of material interactions, surface

continuity, and surface waviness. The inclusion of these affects allow for a more

accurate analytical model of compliant part assembly processes.

Random statistical methods alone are unable to describe elastic material

coupling or surface continuity effects on the deformation of mating surfaces during

assembly. [Merkley 1996,1998] solved this problem using statistical covariance, the

interrelation of variation at one point to another. Internal material interactions (Material

Covariance) were derived from the material stiffness matrix (Keq) obtained from FEM.

Surface continuity constraints (Geometric Covariance) were included by generating

random input surfaces rather than random points to simulate mating surface errors. Such

16

random surfaces can then be used to derive a sensitivity matrix used in the analysis to

include geometric covariance. A method involving Bezier curves was suggested as a

means for creating the random input surfaces. Merkley also applied higher order

elements (Super-Elements) to condense each parts stiffness matrix and improve analysis

efficiency.

[Stout 2000] focused on simplifying the calculation of geometric covariance,

suggesting a method that uses nth order polynomials to approximate random continuous

input surfaces. It was also discovered, through simulation, that surface waviness on

mating surfaces has a significant effect on the resultant internal stresses of assembled

flexible parts. Both the Bezier curve and polynomial methods do not account for this

additional stress.

[Bihlmaier 1999] used spectral analysis of surface profiles and Fast Fourier

Transform (FFT) techniques to obtain the geometric covariance directly from the

frequency spectra of mating surfaces. This was done in order to include the affects of the

wavelength of surface waviness in flexible tolerance analysis. [Soman 1999] developed a

method for characterizing surface errors statistically so that real part data could be used

as input to a statistical FEA of assemblies. He statistically combined surface scans of

sheet metal parts and performed Fast Fourier Transforms (FFT) on the measured data to

obtain input frequency spectra. It was determined that spectral analysis using Discrete

Fourier Transforms (DFT) is limited to surface wavelengths less than or equal to the

mating surface length.

[Tonks 2002] continued the work of Stout and Bihlmaier by developing a hybrid

method to combine surface continuity models in the calculation of geometric covariance.

17

He also derived a means of modeling continuous surfaces using sums of sinusoids. This

allows for the analysis of non-integer surface wavelengths, as measured or predicted from

part surfaces (overcoming a limitation of DFT spectral analysis). Using complete

orthogonal polynomial series he was also able to accurately model geometric covariance

for surface wavelengths greater than the part length, another limitation of spectral

analysis.

A primary contribution of Dr. Chase and his students to the proper modeling of

variation in flexible assemblies is the inclusion of geometric covariance. In summary, the

six methods of accounting for covariance of continuous surfaces are:

1. Monte Carlo generates sets of random surfaces.

2. Polynomial creates a covariance matrix using a sensitivity matrix

obtained from a polynomial curve fit.

3. Bezier creates a covariance matrix using a sensitivity matrix obtained

from a Bezier curve fit

4. Spectral Analysis creates a covariance matrix using the average

frequency spectrum obtained from a FFT of the mating surfaces.

5. Sinusoidal creates a covariance matrix using a sensitivity matrix

obtained from a sinusoidal curve fit.

6. Hybrid Analysis creates a covariance matrix using a combination of

other methods based on weighting factors.

2.2 Summary

Only an overview of the literature reviewed has been presented in this section.

This thesis will primarily focus on and add to research performed at Brigham Young

University. More detail will be given for research relevant to specific topics in

subsequent chapters.

18

CHAPTER 3

Tolerance Analysis

3.1 Introduction

Before presenting a methodology for the statistical tolerance analysis of flexible

assemblies, it is useful to first understand the fundamentals of rigid body tolerance

analysis. In this way it is possible to start with a solid foundation in modeling assembly

variation propagation between rigid parts, allowing for later adaptation to include flexible

parts. With this in mind, the purpose of this chapter is to provide a general introduction

to rigid body tolerance analysis principles and procedures. Sources of assembly variation

are first discussed, and then vector loop modeling techniques (specifically the Direct

Linearization Method) are presented to account for such variation.

In order to understand assembly variation, one must look at the individual

components in an assembly. Deviation of individual parts from ideal or perfect

dimensions is a result of imperfections in manufacturing processes. As a result,

dimensional and form variations of manufactured parts accumulate statistically and

contribute to variation in critical assembly dimensions. This stack-up of dimensional and

form variation is facilitated by kinematic adjustments between parts during assembly

19

[Chase 1997]. Tolerances are used as a means of limiting deviations from desired

geometry. Dimensional tolerances control part sizes by prescribing acceptable variations

in lengths and angles. Form tolerances are used to control feature variations such as

flatness, roundness, angularity, etc. as defined by ANSI Y14.5-1994 standards [ASME

1994].

The dependency of kinematic variation on dimensional and form variation is

illustrated in Figure 3-1. In part a, the assembly dimension U is dependant upon the

component dimensions A, R, and . Nominal part dimensions place the cylinder in the

groove with a center distance of U1, while variations from nominal change the placement

to U2. The difference between U1 and U2 is the kinematic adjustment of the assembly to

variation in the components. In part b of the figure, it can be seen that U is also

dependant upon form variation of the grooves surface.

A + A

R + R

U1

U

U2

variation

form variation

20

While the sources of variation are nearly limitless, their results can be represented

as either dimensional, form, or kinematic variations. The tools required to model each of

these variations will be given in the following section.

As explained in chapter 2, vector loops can be used to represent the dimensional

chains in an assembly that contribute to tolerance stack-up. A simple vector loop model

of the assembly presented in the last section is

U1

R

U2

1

variations. Through linearizing assumptions and

even complex assemblies. In this section the DLM is first introduced for 3D assemblies

with dimensional and kinematic variation. The inclusion of geometric form variation in

this method is then explained and recommended vector loop modeling practices are

presented.

The Direct Linearization Method for 3D tolerance analysis was presented by

[Chase 1996, 1997], and [Gao 1998b]. In this method, assembly constraint equations are

formed, using closed and open vector loops, to calculate the affects of variation in

21

component dimensions on the final assembly. Closed vector loops begin and end at the

same point, and are used to solve for kinematic variations. Open loops begin and end on

opposite sides of a clearance or other feature, allowing for the calculation of variation in

critical assembly features.

When dealing with variation in three dimensions, the most general case, resulting

vector loop constraint equations become increasingly complex. The transformation in a

vector loop from joint i-1 to i (between mating parts) includes a combination of four

matrices, one for translation and three for rotation. These 3D transformation matrices are

shown in equations 3-1 to 3-4, where x , y and z represent rotations about relative axes

and Tx, Ty, and Tz are translation vector components between consecutive nodes in a loop.

0

1

0 cos

x

[R x ] =

0 sin x

0

0

[R ]

y

cos y

0

=

sin y

cos z

sin

[R z ] = z

0

0

sin x

cos x

0

0

0

0

(3-1)

0 sin y

1

0

0 cos y

0

0

0

0

0

(3-2)

0

0

0

(3-3)

sin z

cos z

0

0

0

0

1

0

22

1

0

[T] =

0

0

1

0

0

0 Tx

0 T y

1 Tz

0 1

(3-4)

The constraint equations for a 3D vector loop can be written as a string of transformation

matrices multiplied together, as shown in equation 3-5. Here [Ri] is the product of

rotation matrices at joint i, [Ti] is the transformation matrix at i, and [Rf] is the final

rotation in the loop to bring it to closure.

(3-5)

For closed loops the resulting matrix [H] is equal to the identity matrix, while for open

loops it represents a clearance or gap in the assembly.

As can be expected, the constraint equations for a 3D vector loop are nonlinear,

making them difficult to solve. In the DLM, however, small variations in component

dimensions allow for a good approximation of the solution using a Taylor expansion of

equation 3-5. In this way, only the derivatives are needed for the analysis. To obtain

these derivatives, small perturbations L and are introduced one at a time into

equation 3-5, at the point where variation occurs. The perturbations imposed on the loop

prevent it from closing and result in a closure error vector {X Y Z 1} in place of

T

[H]. By varying each length and angle separately in the matrix constraint equation, the

derivatives may be approximated numerically as shown in

equations Hx, Hy, and Hz are the translation constraints in the global x, y, and z axis; H x ,

23

H y and H z are the rotational constraints about the respective global axis; and finally

, and are the global direction cosines of the local axis of rotation i [Chase 1996].

Table 3-1 Numerical derivatives [Gao 1998].

Translational Variable

H x X

Li

Li

H y

Li

Rotational Variable

H x X

i

i

H y

Y

Li

Y

i

H z

Z

Li

Li

H z

Z

i

i

H x

=0

Li

H x

= cos

i

H y

H y

Li

=0

H z

=0

Li

= cos

H z

= cos

i

From the first-order Taylor expansion, the constraint equation for a closed loop

can be written in matrix form as:

(3-6)

{X } :

{U } :

[A] :

[B] :

matrix of partial derivatives with respect to assembly variations.

24

The matrices in equation 3-6 are populated using the partial derivatives shown in

Table 3-1, with each column of [A ] containing the following format:

{Ai } = H x

xi

H y

xi

H z

xi

H x

xi

H y

xi

H z

xi

(3-7)

In equation 3-8, xi refers to the ith-manufactured dimension, meaning that there will be a

column for every manufactured dimension in the vector loop. Matrix [B ] has the same

column notation, but uses the assembly dimension variable ui instead of xi. When setting

up these matrices it is important to know which dimensions in the vector loop are

independent and which are dependent. Independent manufactured variations are

described in [A ] , and dependent assembly variations are described in [B ] .

With {H } = {0} in a closed vector loop, equation 3-7 can be solved in terms of

assembly variation {U } . For an assembly where matrix B is square, and nonsingular, a

determined system, this results in the following equation:

{U } = [B]1 [A]{X }

(3-8)

If matrix B is not square, meaning that the assembly vector describes an over-determined

system, then the least square fit solution is:

1

(3-9)

From equations 3-8 and 3-9 we can see that the assembly variations U can be obtained

from the component variations X by simple matrix algebra, once the sensitivity

matrices are known. The correlation or sensitivities between the two types of variation

will be discussed later.

25

In an open vector loop the constraint equation is not equal to zero, instead

representing a clearance in the assembly. This often means that a closed loop solution

must first be solved to determine {U } , which can then be used in the open loop

constraint equation to solve for {V }:

{V } = [C]{X } + [D]{U }

(3-10)

[C] :

variables,

[D] :

If [B ] is a square matrix, then equation 3-9 can be inserted into equation 3-10 and

written as:

(3-11)

otherwise,

1

(3-12)

Once again, in equations 3-11 and 3-12, it can be seen that assembly variation (in this

case representing a gap) can be determined using manufacturing variation and matrix

algebra, once the sensitivity matrices are known.

26

Having presented the DLM equations for determining assembly variation using

dimensional and kinematic variations, it is not difficult to expand the method to include

form variation (also known as geometric feature variation). Form variation propagates in

assembly only through the surface contacts or joints between parts. This is modeled in a

vector loop at the point of contact using a zero-length vector, allowing for an independent

variation source whose mode of variation reflects the joint type between mating surfaces.

While there are many different types of mating contacts possible between parts,

discussion will be limited to variations resulting from planar and cylindrical-slider joints.

For a complete presentation of geometric feature variation in tolerance analysis, including

all joint types, see [Chase 1996].

The effect of form variation on assembly is dependant upon the type of joint

between mating parts, and the joint axis under consideration. Based on these

considerations, feature variation can either result in rotational or translational variations

transmitted through mating parts. This is illustrated in Figure 3-3 using a 3D cylindrical

slider joint. In part A of this figure, it is apparent that surface variation within the flatness

tolerance zones of either part can result in rotation variation normal to the cylinder axis at

assembly. Looking down the cylinder axis (part B), it can be seen that variation within

the form tolerance zones results in translational variation normal to the contact surface.

This type of 3D variation is typical of parts that have a line contact on a surface.

27

y

Rotational Variation

Planar

Tolerance

Zone

Nominal

Circle

Translational

Variation

Cylindrical

Tolerance

Zone

Tolerance

Zone

variations in 3D depends

upon the joint type and which

joint axis you are looking

down.

Figure 3-3 3D Effects of form variation [Chase 1996]

Another common assembly interface is a planar joint. Just as the name suggests,

planar joints have a planar contact between mating parts. A simple example of this type

of joint would be two blocks stacked together, where surface variation of either part

would result in rotational variation along either planar axis (as in part A of Figure 3-3).

In order to calculate the range of angular variation caused by variation along a

planar axis, the tolerance zone and the characteristic length (the length of contact between

the two surfaces) must be known. This variation can then be calculated using equation 313.

Tolerance Zone

= tan 1

Characteristic Length

( 3-13)

Translational variation normal to the contact surface, as seen between a line or point

contact between parts, is equal to 0.5 , where is the width of the tolerance band.

28

The degrees of freedom of kinematic motion (K) and geometric feature variation

(F) for cylindrical slider and planar joints are shown in Figure 3-4. It can be seen in this

figure that when K is removed by constraints, F has the possibility of propagating in an

assembly.

K Kinematic Motion

F Geometric Feature Variation

F

K

y

Planar Joint

Figure 3-4 Degrees of freedom for kinematic motions and geometric feature variations

[Chase 1996]

The variations resulting from specific geometric feature tolerances for these two joints

are shown in Table 3-2. In this table, R denotes rotational variation and T represents

translational variation with respect to a referenced joint axis.

Table 3-2 Rotational and translational variations associated with geometric feature tolerance for 3D

Planar and Cylindrical Slider joints [Chase 1996]

Joint

Planar

Rx Rz

Rx

Rz

--

--

Rx Rz

Rx Rz

Rx Rz

Rx Rz

Rx Rz

Ty

--

--

Ty

Rx

Ty Rx

Ty Rx

Ty Rx

Ty Rx

Ty Rx

Ty Rx

--

Ty

--

--

Ty Rx

Ty Rx

Ty Rx

Ty Rx

Ty Rx

--

--

Cyl. Slider

Cylinder

Plane

-Ty Rx

Ty

Rx

Ty

Rx

29

Once the form variation components have been determined, as presented in the

previous section, they can now be included in the DLM. With the geometric feature

variation of the assembled components, the linearized constraint equations become for

closed loops:

(3-14)

{V } = [C]{X } + [D]{U } + [G ]{ }

(3-15)

[F] , [G ] : matrices of partial derivatives with respect to closed and open loop

form variables.

Once again, {U } can be solved for in the closed loop equation (3-14) resulting in:

(3-16)

(3-17)

These two final equations describe the variations of the assembly variables for closed and

open loops with respect to dimensional and form variation of individual parts. With these

equations, it is now possible to estimate the kinematic variations.

30

In equations 3-16 and 3-17, the relation of dependent variables to independent

variables is a product of matrix algebra that forms tolerance sensitivity matrices where:

[S d ] represents the tolerance sensitivity matrix for dimensional variables, and[S ] for

form variables. For open and closed loops the tolerance sensitivity matrices for

determined and over-determined systems are summarized in Table 3-3.

Using these sensitivity matrices, the kinematic assembly variations can be

estimated using a tolerance accumulation model. Worst Case and Statistical (R.S.S)

accumulation models are shown below.

Worst Case Model:

n

j =1

j =1

(3-18)

Statistical Model:

U i =

(S

n

j =1

d

ij

tol ijd

) + (S

2

j =1

ij

tol ij

Tasmi

tolij : vector of tolerances for form variables,

U i : vector of kinematic variation estimates (assembly variations),

n: number of dimensional variables,

m:

31

(3-19)

Table 3-3 Tolerance sensitivity matrices for determined and over-determined systems

System

Determined:

[S d ] =

[S ] =

Over-Determined:

[S d ] =

[S ] =

Closed Loop

Open Loop

[B ] [A ]

[G ] [D][B]1 [F]

[B] [F ]

1

(

)

([B ] [B])

[B] [B]

T

[B]T [A]

1

[B]T [F]

1

[G ] [D][( B]T [B]) [B]T [F]

1

Presented thus far are the tools needed to determine rigid assembly variation

based on dimensional and form variations, whether measured or predicted, using

tolerance values. Equations 3-18 and 3-19 provide the final step in modeling the stack-up

or sensitivity of assembly variations (for closed or open loops) to part variation. The

statistical accumulation model (equation 3-19) is a more realistic prediction of how part

variations actually accumulate in assembly and will be the only model used hereafter.

Worst case accumulation (equation 3-18) is an overestimate of the assembly variation,

and has application when stringent requirements are demanded of critical assembly

features. Such requirements are often called for when designing for military application.

When modeling any physical system, it is important to remember that the analysis

results are only as good as the model used. In the case of vector loop modeling for

tolerance analysis, knowing how to set up the model can be the most challenging part. In

order to create valid vector loop models, rules and requirements have been set up to

check models for error. A list of general modeling rules for 2-D assemblies is presented

32

in Appendix A. These can be applied to 3-D vector loops by viewing each dimension as

a 2-D plane. If at all possible, vector loop models should be checked with measured data

for validation.

It should be noted that dimensioning schemes play a significant role in tolerance

analysis. Vector loops follow dimensional variables to model variation stack-up, and are

thus also dependent on dimensioning schemes. Datum positions and references do have

an impact on tolerance stack-up in assembly, and should thus be chosen carefully.

Tolerance analysis provides a means of comparing the assembly results of various

dimensioning schemes, allowing for an educated choice between options. It should also

be stated that some dimensioning schemes do not easily lend themselves to vector loop

modeling. As practice in this art is obtained, a designer will be able to plan ahead for

tolerance considerations and avoid later problems in production.

3.4 Summary

In this chapter dimensional and kinematic variations have been discussed and

modeled for rigid assemblies using the Direct Linearization Method. Form variation

propagation at planar and cylindrical slider joints was presented and also included in the

DLM. Sensitivity matrices were used in conjunction with accumulation models (worst

case and statistical) to predict variation of critical assembly features. Vector loop

modeling practices were also discussed. With this introduction to rigid body statistical

tolerance analysis, a foundation has been laid for determining misalignment in flexible

assemblies, the first step of FASTA and the topic of chapter 4.

33

34

CHAPTER 4

Determine Misalignment:

DLM for Flexible Assemblies

4.1 Introduction

When modeling the assembly of flexible parts, it is necessary to determine the

mean and the variance of the gap between mating surfaces at each assembly node. This

means that a vector loop model must be extended to include each point where fastening is

to occur (by weld, rivet, etc.). Once the gap variation is characterized statistically, the

range of variation can be used to determine the range of assembly force, residual stresses

and deformations for the whole production run. This chapter discusses how to apply the

DLM to flexible assemblies, introducing vector loop techniques and matrix notation. A

system for resolving gap variation into separate components is also described in order to

overcome modeling limitations encountered when calculating covariance (see Chapter 6).

The final process is illustrated with an example.

As discussed briefly in Chapter 1, conventional rigid body STA provides the

means to estimate variation in the gaps between parts that result from variation stack-up

in an assembly. By treating compliant parts as if they were rigid during this step

(modeled without an applied force), the mean and variance of the assembly gap can be

calculated strictly due to dimensional variation. Figure 4-1 shows a graphical overview

35

both required inputs and solution outputs.

Part Variation

Part Geometry

Inputs

1. STA

Gap Variation

{ } { }

2

Ti

2

Ri

{ }

2

SPi

Mean

{i }

Outputs

As shown in this figure, the gap variation output is broken into three components

(translation, rotation, and surface variation) for use in subsequent steps of FASTA. The

mean gap vector is also determined in this step.

In this presentation a flexible or compliant part is defined as a thin-walled

component that can be bent or flexed elastically during the assembly process. This can

include sheet metal parts as well as composites or any other material with known

mechanical properties. Since the goal of the overall analysis is to determine the forces

required to join flexible parts in an assembly, it is useful to think of this step in the

overall process in terms of a linear force-deflection equation:

{F} = [K ]{}

(4-1)

36

Where in matrix form {F} represents the closure force at each fastening point, {} is the

closure distance or gap at each fastening point, and [K] is the stiffness of the compliant

part. In this context, the purpose of this chapter is to present a way to statistically predict

the variation in {}.

The direct linearization method, presented in Chapter 3, allows for the inclusion

of multiple variation modes in the statistical analysis of variation stack-up in assembly.

With some minor adaptations, this versatile method can be used to successfully analyze

assemblies that contain both rigid and flexible parts.

An important task of the statistical solution, determining the mean of the gap

value at each fastening point along a flexible joint { i }, is a required output of the first

step of the FASTA process. Generally, the mean separation between assembled flexible

parts is designed to be zero. However, imperfections in manufacturing processes can

introduce mean shifts that result in non-zero mean values. In some cases, it may even be

desirable to deliberately design for a mean separation in order to preload a joint using

forced flexure of compliant parts.

The easiest method for obtaining the nominal gap values at each fastening point is

to query CAD models of the assembly being analyzed. Most CAD packages include

tools for measuring assembly distances between parts. Since the parts are modeled

ideally with nominal dimensions, the output assembly distances represent nominal values.

37

In a parametric CAD system, the nominal dimensions can be replaced with actual mean

shifts to automate the solution of the mean assembly gap.

If CAD models are not available, kinematic assembly equations created in the

DLM method provide another option. For flexible assemblies that can be modeled using

only open vector loops, the mean gap is simply the solution to the kinematic equations

evaluated at nominal dimensions. If closed vector loops are required to model an

assembly, then iterative solutions are necessary to solve for unknown assembly

dimensions.

The first step in modeling a flexible assembly is to create a vector loop that

accounts for the chain of dimensions that contribute to each assembly variable. In this

case, the variation of a gap at each fastening node is the desired output of the analysis.

While a separate vector loop could be drawn for each fastening location, an assembly

containing a row of 500 rivets demands a more efficient model. Such a model can be

created using variable vectors along the fastening line, as shown in Figure 4-2.

38

U sing V ariable V ectors ( fi, gi)

Loop 2

f2

b

g2

G2

c

b

G1

Loop n

c

fn

Gn

Loop 1

gn

c

Figure 4-2 Modeling multiple fastening points using variable vectors (fi, gi)

In this figure, vector loop 1 is 2-dimensional and completely contained in the x-y plane.

This initial loop serves as a base-loop for the modeling of all of the fastening points; with

subsequent vector loops extending into the third dimension using variable vectors fi and

gi. By varying the length of these vectors, it is easy to quickly represent the open vector

loop for n fastening location in the assembly with just one vector loop model. It should

be noted that each vector chain is still treated as independent of the other loops since

vectors fi and gi are independent from point to point (for i = 1, 2, 3, . . .n). The

interdependence between each fastening point (due to surface continuity) is accounted for

in Chapter 6 using covariance models.

Form variation along fastening surfaces can also be modeled using zero-length

vectors (fi, gi) at each fastening node as presented in Figure 4-3. As shown in this

figure, the vectors are oriented to model the resultant tolerance zone (contained by dotted

lines). At this point only form variation of flexible parts along the gap under

39

consideration will be included in the analysis. Form variation at rigid joints can be

included, but surface variations at flexible joints other than the gap are neglected.

Chapter 7 discusses in detail the topic of form variation of flexible parts in assembly, but

the inclusion of such in FASTA analysis is beyond the scope of this work.

Form Variation at Gap

fi

fn

gn

f1

gi

g1

Adjusting the DLM matrix notation and equations for use with a flexible

assembly containing multiple fastening nodes (using variable vectors) is not difficult.

From Chapter 3, the general DLM equation for an open loop is:

(4-2)

Where {Gmi }will be used to denote gap variation in the m direction at fastening node i.

In the most general solution, the subscript m includes the set of global coordinate

directions and rotations (x, y, z, x, y, z). If all six degrees of freedom are considered at

each fastening node, vector and matrix sizes can get very large (#rows = 6i). In many

cases, however, variation analysis can be limited to only one or two degrees of freedom

of interest. In this thesis, analysis will generally be limited to a single coordinate axis

which describes the direction of the force used to close a gap.

40

Including only the variation in the y-direction, the assembly shown in Figure 4-2

and Figure 4-3 can be treated as an open vector loop by solving for the unknown gap

vector in terms of the known part dimensions and variations. The general DLM vectors

and matrices can then be written as:

a

b

f 1

g 1

{X } = M

f

n

g n

d

e

G y1

a

G y 2

[C] = a

M

G yn

a

G y1

f 1

G y 2

[F] = f 1

M

G yn

f1

f 1

f1

1

{ } = M

2

fn

gn

G y1

G y1

G y1

b

G y 2

f 1

G y 2

g 1

G y 2

b

M

G yn

f 1

M

G yn

g 1

M

G yn

f 1

g 1

G y1

g1

G y 2

g1

M

G yn

g1

L

L

G y1

fn

G y 2

fn

O

M

G yn

L

fn

G y1

G y1

G y1

f n

G y 2

g n

G y 2

d

G y 2

f n

O

M

G yn

L

f n

g n

M

G yn

d

M

G yn

g n

L

L

G y1

e

G y 2

e

M

G yn

e

(4-3)

G y1

gn

G y 2

gn

M

G yn

gn

In matrices [C] and [F ] it is clear that each column describes the sensitivity of every

fastening point to a single dimensional or form variation. Thus, there are as many

columns in these matrices as there are respective variation components included in the

41

vector loop model. Missing from equations 4-3 are the closed loop components: [D]

and {U } . For the given assembly these have no values because there are no closed loops

required to model the assembly variation. When closed loops are required, [D] is similar

to [C] , but partial derivatives are taken with respect to assembly variables rather than

manufacturing variation. The assembly variation vector, {U } , also has the same form as

{X } .

Simplifications to the general matrices presented are possible in many cases. For

example: due to the independence of each variable length vector fi, G yi f j = 0 if i j .

The same is true for the partial derivatives of each gap with respect to vectors gi, fi and

gi. Also, since variable vectors fi and gi are opposite in direction they cancel each other

out nominally whenever they are parallel and equal in length. If the location of the

fastening points is located by a single process, such as drilling rivet holes on mating parts

in a fixture, then the variation of these vectors also cancels out. When these vectors are

orthogonal to the gap direction in question, then the partial derivative with respect to the

variable vector is zero, and they can be omitted from the analysis. Matrix [F ] is

simplified for a uniform tolerance band (meaning fi and gi are constant along the

surface), reducing the number of columns significantly.

Gap variation in flexible assembly can be broken down into three types or modes:

translational, rotational, and surface variation. This separation of variation contributions

is illustrated for a single flexible part surface in Figure 4-4.

42

Translation

Single Part Variation

from Ideal

Rotation

actual

Surface

Ideal (mean)

Spectral analysis methods used to model covariance in step 3 of FASTA (see Chapter 6)

are unable to handle theses rigid body modes with wavelengths longer than the part

length. In order to overcome these limitations, the gap variation must be broken down

into the variation components shown in Figure 4-4 for individual treatment.

Additionally, resolving variation into separate components aids in the identification of

variation sources and the determining of dimensional percent contribution to assembly

variation. This information is useful for identifying chief variation contributions and

focusing process improvement efforts. In this section translational, rotational and surface

variation components are first discussed individually and then combined to describe the

total gap variation.

Translational variation at an assembly gap is characterized by a uniform shift of

the mating part surfaces due to dimensional variation. In order to illustrate this variation

component, a simple flexible part is introduced in Figure 4-5.

43

r r

Mating

Gap Edge

h h

y

z

w w

Figure 4-5 Dimensioned flexible part used for illustration

By looking at how variation within the part tolerances affects the mating gap edge of this

example part, the variation components that contribute to translation can be identified.

These are shown for translation in the y-direction in Figure 4-6, and include dimensional

variation in the part height h and the bend angle .

r

Nominal

Nominal

+

h + h

y

z

y

x

In this figure, maximum variation is shown at extremes by the shaded part and the

small dashed lines. The nominal part geometry is shown with larger dashed lines. From

Figure 4-6a, it is apparent that variation at the gap edge ( h ) relates directly to

variation in the part height. The variation in the bend angle, in Figure 4-6b, is amplified

44

at the mating edge by the horizontal length r, resulting in a variation of r (for small

angles). The total translational variance of the example part mating edge, in the ydirection, can be written as:

2

2

Ty , part

y

y

= h2 + 2

h

(4-4)

Where the variances of the part height h2 and bend angle 2 can be described in terms

of the part tolerances (assuming the tolerances represent 3 ):

2

h

= ; 2 =

3

3

2

h

(4-5)

available, such as in the design phase of product development. If measurement data is

available, the variances in equation 4-5 can be calculated directly from the data. The

sensitivities of variation in the y-direction y to variation in the height h and bend

angle can be written using the mating edge variations shown in Figure 4-6 as:

y

=1

h

y

y = r

=r

y = h

(4-6)

Using the vector-loop methods describe in section 4.2.2, the translational variation

components in equation 4-4 can easily be accounted for using the DLM.

45

Twist or rotational variation along a gap is the result of dimensional variation

along a plane that is parallel to the gap. This is illustrated in Figure 4-7, using the

example part from Figure 4-5, with variation in the dimensioned height h along the width

w of the part (z-direction).

w

Nominal

h + h

h h

z

h

y

x

y

z

In section a of this figure the maximum rotation cases, shown by the shaded part and the

small dashed lines, bracket the rotational variation at the gap. This type of variation

would occur if the bend was not made parallel to the bottom edge or if the bottom edge

was not cut straight. A frontal view of the part, in Figure 4-7b, shows how variation of

the height h along the part width results in rotation limits about the x-axis of . By

treating rotation along the z-axis separately from variation in x and y, the 3D analysis is

uncoupled allowing for simplified 2D analysis in the x-y plane. From the part dimensions

in Figure 4-7, the rotational (angular) variation can be calculated by:

2h

= tan 1

(4-7)

46

The rotational variance of the example part mating edge, in the y-direction, can be written

for each fastening point i as:

2

2

Ryi , part

y

= i 2

(4-8)

Again, when measurement data is not available, the angular variance 2 can be

expressed in terms of the variation limit:

=

3

(4-9)

For small angles the sensitivity of variation in the y-direction y i to angular variation

can be expressed using the following equation:

y i = z i

y i

= zi

(4-10)

In equation 4-10, z i represents the distance from point i to the center of the gap line. As

expected, variation in the y-direction due to angular rotation is different at each

fastening node and is dependant upon the nodal position along the mating edge.

For flexible parts, surface variation represents the surface waviness of compliant

surfaces. Such part variation results from imperfections in tooling surfaces and from

residual stress introduced by forming processes used in part manufacturing. In design,

surface variation is bounded by geometric feature tolerance bands, as illustrated in Figure

4-8.

47

Design

Tolerance:

Resulting

Tolerance Band:

If surface measurement data is available, the standard deviation at each node can be

calculated directly and used to create a surface variance vector. Otherwise, the tolerance

band can be treated as 3 standard deviations. The variance of the mating surface for any

part P is then simply:

2

SP

= P

6

(4-11)

Where P is the tolerance band along the mating surface of part P. The denominator in

equation 4-11 is 6 instead of 3 because P describes the entire tolerance zone, and not

just half of it.

If measurement data is unavailable, the standard deviation may be estimated using

equation 4-11 for each flexible parts mating gap surface. Surface variation occurring at

other joints in the assembly is treated as form variation that propagates through assembly

joints, and is not included in this step of the analysis. For a uniform tolerance band, the

surface variance is the same at each fastening node i. With n fastening points, the surface

variance vector for each mating part surface P is:

{ } = {1 1 L 1 }

2

SPi

2

SP

(4-12)

48

Determining the surface variance at each fastening point in vector form (for each flexible

gap surface) gives the required surface variation output for step 1 of FASTA. For a nonuniform tolerance band along a flexible surface, equation 4-6 would simply be adjusted to

include the differing variance at each fastening location.

Considering the example part in Figure 4-5, the total variance of its mating edge,

in the y-direction, can be obtained by summing the part variation components in

equations 4-4, 4-8 and 4-11:

2

2

y2, part = Ty2 , part + Ry

+ SP

i , part

(4-13)

This combined variance illustrates translational, rotational, and surface variances add

statistically at the mating edge in a single part.

In assembly, variation seen at the gap is a result of statistical accumulation of

variation in multiple parts. Each component of gap variation can be treated for multiple

parts and then combined statistically to represent the total gap variation. For mating parts

A and B, the gap translational variance T2 is obtained by summing the translational part

2

2

variances TA

and TB

, as shown in the following equation:

2

2

T2 = TA

+ TB

(4-14)

The variance of the gap rotational variation R2 can be determined similarly as:

2

=

2

R

2

RA

2

RB

= A + B

3 3

49

(4-15)

In this equation, the part rotational variances are also shown in terms of the angular

variations for parts A and B (see equation 4-9). Rotational variation of parts other than

the mating gap parts propagate through assembly joints, and should be treated separately

as form variation. The total rigid gap variation for mating parts A and B can be written

using equations 4-11, 4-14 and 4-15 as:

2

2

2

Gap

= T2 + R2 + SA

+ SB

(4-16)

It should be noted in this equation that the surface variances for the mating parts are not

combined into a single gap term, because their individual values are needed for

covariance modeling in step 3 of FASTA.

Due to the covariance modeling limitations described earlier, separate variance

vectors for each rigid variation mode are needed as an output from step 1 of FASTA.

Although each variation mode in equation 4-16 can be treated using the DLM, for

conceptual and analysis simplicity only translational variation will be determined using

this method. By treating rotational and surface variations separately, the solution to the

{ }

DLM analysis can be used to create the gap translational variance vector Ti2 . This

process is illustrated using an example assembly in the next section.

The gap rotational variance vector can be determined in radians using equation 415. The angular rotational variation at each mating point i (for n fastening nodes) is

simply:

{ } = {1 1 L 1 } (rad )

2

Ri

2

R

50

(4-17)

In this equation, the subscript n denotes that the vector has n columns. To resolve

angular variation into linear variation, equation 4-10 can be used to express the rotational

variance vector in units of length:

{ } = {z

2

Ri

2

R

z 2 L z n } (length )

T

(4-18)

where z i , again, represents the distance from fastening point i to the center of the gap

{ }

2

line. The surface variation vector SPi

for each flexible mating part P is shown in

equation 4-12.

With the methods presented in this section, each of the required gap variance

vectors for step 1 of FASTA can be determined. The variation modal breakdown also

provides a tool for looking at how assembly variation is truly linked to dimensional

variation.

In order to illustrate the application of the steps of the FASTA method presented

in this and following chapters, the example assembly shown in Figure 4-9 is analyzed. In

this figure the ideal assembly of parts A, B, and C is shown, creating a four sided box

using two formed sheet metal parts and a rigid base. An exaggerated assembly gap is

also shown, resulting from part variation from ideal. The joining of flexible parts A and

B (the closure of the assembly gap) is done using five fastening points along their mating

surfaces.

51

Gap

The dimensions of each of the parts in the example assembly are shown in Figure

4-10. Each dimension is shown referenced to the corresponding parts Datum Reference

Frame (DRF), shown as a small box with crossed diagonal lines. As noted in Chapter 3,

dimensioning schemes and datum references do play an important role in variation stackup. A vector loop that models assembly interactions between parts must pass through

each parts DRF before continuing on to the next part (see Appendix A).

52

A

B

b

tA

tB

e

j

y

x

z

k

i

Figure 4-10 Example part dimensions

In creating a vector loop model of the example assembly, it is assumed that only

forces in the y-direction are used to close the gap. For this reason, only variation in that

direction is considered in the analysis. Also, only variation that contributes to translation

in the y-direction is included in the vector loop since the rotational and gap surface

variations are treated separately. With these assumptions the vector loop model of the

example assembly is shown in Figure 4-11.

53

fi

u1

u2

Gap yi

gi

u4

u3

In this figure vectors u1-u4 are not part dimensions seen in Figure 4-10, but instead

represent tooling dimensions and variations that characterize the placement of the

fastening points. These vectors are an important link to assembly tooling and fixtures,

and are required inputs to the FASTA analysis. The kinematic vector loop equation for

the gap at node i in the y-direction is:

G yi = u 2 sin( 180 + + ) + d sin(0 ) + u 3 sin(180) + u 4 sin(180) + k sin(90)

+ a sin(90) + u1 sin( 90 + ) + f i sin(0) + g i sin(0)

(4-19)

Once kinematic vector loop equations are created, it is possible to take partial

derivatives of these equations with respect to the independent variables. This is generally

easy to do, since there are only sine and cosine terms to differentiate. These partial

derivatives can then be used to populate the DLM matrices for analysis. For the example

assembly, the partial derivatives of equation 4-4 are:

54

G yi

u 2

G yi

d

G yi

u 3

G yi

u 4

G yi

k

G yi

a

= sin(180 + 2 )

G yi

u1

G yi

= sin(0 )

= sin(180) = 0

= sin(180) = 0

= sin(90) = 1

G yi

G yi

f i

G yi

g i

= sin(90 + )

= u1 cos(90 + )

= 2u 2 cos(180 + 2 ) d cos(0 )

(4-20)

= sin(0) = 0

= sin(0) = 0

= sin(90) = 1

Generally these values can be obtained from CAD models or drawings of the parts and

tooling being analyzed. For the example assembly, the nominal dimensions and

variations about the nominal are listed for the tooling/fixtures in Table 4-1 and for parts

A, B and C in Table 4-2.

Table 4-1Tooling/fixture dimensions for example assembly

*Variable Vector Lengths (in)

Dimension

Nominal

Variation

units

u1

9.00

0.15

in

Vector

Nominal

Vector

Nominal

u2

1.00

0.15

in

f1

g1

u3

1.00

0.15

in

f2

g2

u4

9.00

0.15

in

f3

g3

fi

0.15

in

f4

10

g4

10

gi

0.15

in

f5

13

g5

13

55

Part

Dimension

a

b

c

Nominal

10

10

14

Variation

0.1

0.1

0.3

units

in

in

in

tA

d

e

h

0.025

90

0

9

1.5

14

0.003

5

0.25**

0.1

0.1

0.3

in

deg

in

in

in

in

0.003

5

0.15**

0.2

0.3

0.08

in

deg

in

in

in

in

tB

0.04

90

i

10

C

j

14

k

1

** Variation = (tolerance zone)/2

Using the values contained in these tables, and the partial derivatives in equation

4-20, it is now possible to create the DLM vectors and matrices needed in this analysis.

Again, there will be no [D] matrix because there are no closed loops required to model

the variation in the example assembly, and no [F ] matrix because the form variation at the

gap surface is being treated separately. The vector of manufacturing variations, {X } , can

be evaluated by simply inserting the known variation values. For the example assembly

this is:

56

u 2 0.15

d 0.1

u 3 0.15

u 4 0.15

k 0.08

{X } = a = 0.1

u 0.15

1

f i 0.15

g i 0.15

0.0873

0.0873

(4-21)

Of special note in equation 4-21 are the angular variations and , which must be in

radians in order to maintain the correct dimensions during matrix algebra. Matrix [C] for

the example assembly is mathematically represented as:

G y1

u 2

G y 2

u

2

G

[C] = y 3

u

G 2

y4

u 2

G

y5

u 2

G y1

G y1

G y1

G y1

G y1

G y1

G y1

G y1

G y1

d

G y 2

u 3

G y 2

u 4

G y 2

k

G y 2

a

G y 2

u1

G y 2

f i

G y 2

g i

G y 2

G y 2

d

G y 3

u 3

G y 3

u 4

G y 3

k

G y 3

a

G y 3

u1

G y 3

f i

G y 3

g i

G y 3

G y 3

d

G y 4

u 3

G y 4

u 4

G y 4

k

G y 4

a

G y 4

u1

G y 4

f i

G y 4

g i

G y 4

G y 4

d

G y 5

u 3

G y 5

u 4

G y 5

k

G y 5

a

G y 5

u1

G y 5

f i

G y 5

g i

G y 5

G y 5

u 3

u 4

u1

f i

g i

G y1

G y 2

G y 3

G y 4

G y 5

(4-22)

Solving for the partial derivatives at the nominal dimensions this becomes:

0

0

[C] = 0

0

0

1

1

1

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

57

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

9

9

9

9

9

2

2

2

2

2

(4-23)

In comparing equations 4-22 and 4-23, there are many things that can be

observed. First, it is apparent that all of the rows are identical. This makes sense since

the only things that could be different from row to row are the partial derivatives with

respect to the variable vector terms (fi, gi). These, however, are zero since they are

perpendicular to the gap coordinate direction of interest, leaving each row to be the same.

Values of 1 in the matrix suggest that the corresponding dimensional variation lies

along the y-direction and thus contributes directly to the gap clearance. Values of zero

suggest that the related variation does not contribute to variation in the y-direction at all.

The last two columns in the matrix are large, corresponding to angular variations and the

length upon which they act.

Without any close loops and with no rigid form variation components, equation 42 simplifies to:

{G yi } = [C]{X}

(4-24)

The tolerance sensitivity matrix for the system is then simply[S d ] = [C] . Using this

sensitivity with the dimensional and form tolerances in equation 4-21, the gap variation in

the y-direction can be calculated. This is done by applying a statistical variation stack-up

model as shown in equation 3-19. Leaving the tolerances as variables, this equation is:

1

(0 u 2 )2 + ( 1 d )2 + (0 u 3 )2 + (0 u 4 )2 2

2

2

2

2

G yi = + ( 1 k ) + (1 a ) + (0 u1 ) + (0 f i ) Tasm yi

2

2

2

+ (0 g i ) + (9.25 ) + (1.5 )

(4-25)

Assuming that the assembly tolerance represents six standard deviations (3), then the

variance is calculated by:

58

yi

Tasm yi

=

3

(4-26)

Substituting in the variation values, the solutions to equation 4-25 and 4-26 are:

Tasm yi = 0.6737

(4-27)

yi = 0.0504

As shown in Figure 4-1 at the beginning of the chapter, the desired outputs of this

step of FASTA are the mean and variation of the gap. With gap rotational and surface

components excluded from the vector loop model, the variance solution in equation 4-27

is simply the translational variation seen at the gap. The vector of translational variance

at each fastening point along the gap is then:

{ } = { } = {0.0504

2

Ti

2

yi

(4-28)

The mean gap solution for this example is much easier to obtain than the variance

solution. Since the assembly is described by an open vector loop, evaluating the vector

loop equation at nominal dimensions provides the mean solution. Using the nominal

values in Table 4-1 and Table 4-2 in equation 4-19, the mean separation in the y-direction

at each node is:

{ i } = {0

0 0 0 0}

(4-29)

A zero mean solution suggests that the parts are designed to fit together nominally,

though manufacturing variation cause deviations from this ideal described by the nonzero results of equation 4-28.

59

Rotational Variation:

Rotational variation at the gap in the example assembly is a result of variation of

parts A and B parallel to the gap line. Since only variation in the y-direction is being

analyzed, only rotation about the x-axis needs to be looked at. From Figure 4-10 it is

apparent that variation in dimensions a and d contribute to rotational variation at the gap

for parts A and B respectively. Using equation 4-7 and the part dimensions, the

rotational variations of parts A and B are:

2a

A = tan 1

= 0.0143 rad

c

(4-30)

2d

B = tan 1

= 0.0143 rad

h

(4-31)

and,

The variance of gap rotational variation can then be solved using equation 4-15:

2

2

= A + B = 4.535 10 5 (rad )

3 3

2

R

(4-32)

It should be noted that equations 4-30 to 3-22 have angular units of radians, and should

not be evaluated in degrees. Applying the result of equation 4-32 in equation 4-17, the

vector of rotational variation (with 5 fastening points) is:

{ } = 4.535 10 {1 1 1 1 1} (rad)

2

Ri

60

(4-33)

Surface Variation:

As discussed earlier, surface variation is bounded by the form tolerance zone

applied to each mating part surface. Since both of the mating gap surfaces are on flexible

parts (A and B), a surface variation vector must be created for each. In Figure 4-10,

geometric feature tolerances A and B are applied to respective part surfaces. The

variance for the mating surfaces of parts A and B can be calculated using equation 4-11

as:

2

2

SA

= A = 0.00694

6

2

SB

= B = 0.0025

6

(4-34)

and,

2

(4-35)

From equations 4-25, 4-24 and 4-8, the surface variance vectors for parts A and B are:

{ } = 0.00694{1 1 1 1 1}

{ } = 0.0025{1 1 1 1 1}

2

SAi

2

SBi

(4-36)

described by equations 4-28, 4-33, and 4-36. Though the variation has been split into

separate components for use in later steps of FASTA, the total gap variance is simply the

sum of the translational, rotational and surface variances. If such a summation was

desired, the rotational variation would first need to be converted from angular to

translational units using equation 4-18.

61

In analyzing flexible assemblies, there are several special cases and

considerations that warrant discussion. Topics included in this section are: positional

variation of nonparallel surfaces, tooling contribution, multiple gap variation propagation,

and obtaining geometry and variation data. It is hoped that by treating these topics a

better understanding of the intricacies of modeling flexible assembly variation will be

gained and that the path for future work will be paved.

In treating the modeling of gap variation along flexible surfaces, there exist

limited cases when positional variation of the fastening points could contribute to

variation along multiple coordinate axes. Such an instance occurs when mating surfaces

are not nominally parallel to each other. Take for example the simple case of mating

surfaces A and B shown in Figure 4-12.

dfi

dxi

fi

dyi

A

B

y

x

gi

Here, a positional variation dfi of fastening location i causes variation components dxi and

dyi. This means that G yi f i 0 and variation of vector fi contributes the gap variation

at node i.

62

The example of nonparallel surfaces presented in Figure 4-12 is easily taken into

account using variable vectors fi and gi in the DLM (see section 4.2.2) provided that the

orientation of these vectors is known. If either the slope or angle of a vector at node i is

known, then the variation component can be calculated. For example, to solve for

G yi f i given the slope at i (mi), angle can be solved for using trigonometric

equations:

dy

= mi

dx

= tan 1 (mi )

tan( ) =

(4-37)

sin( ) =

dy

df i

(4-38)

dy = df i sin( ) = dG yi

From this equation it is apparent that the variation contribution of dfi in the y-direction is

accounted for in the matrix algebra of [C]{dX } where the variation component in matrix

[C] becomes:

G yi

f i

= sin( )

(4-39)

This technique can be extended to nonparallel curved surfaces by evaluating the

derivative of the curve equation at each fastening point to approximate the slope for small

variations. If a curve equation is not available, polynomial or other curve fitting methods

could be used to approximate the slope if deemed significant for the analysis.

63

Due to the compliant nature of the parts upon which variation analysis is being

applied, it is important to consider the influence of fixtures and tooling on assembly. In

the example assembly vector loop presented in Figure 4-11, recall that the dimensional

values for vectors u1-u4 were determined by the fixtures and tooling used to locate the

fastening points between mating parts. Since these are independent of the part

dimensions, meaning that they cannot be calculated simply by knowing the dimensions of

the parts, they are required inputs to the analysis and must be known. Since fixtures are

usually designed specifically to position parts accurately for fastening and joining, the

fastening locations (and variation limits) can often be pulled directly from the design

drawings. In the case where production tooling is in use, it is also possible to use

accurate measuring devices, such as a Coordinate Measuring Machine (CMM) to obtain

the fastening positions directly from the fixtures. The methods used to obtain these

dimensional values will depend upon the availability of information and the desired

accuracy of the analysis.

In addition to the positioning effects of tooling on the assembly process, there are

also possible secondary effects from tooling that may need to be considered. For

example, Figure 4-13 shows two cantilever beams deflecting under an applied tooling

force F. In addition to bending deformation, note that there is also a separation of the

two beam ends labeled as a distance m.

64

Upper Beam

Resultant forces if

fastened & released:

F

T

N

Lower Beam

Fastening the two beams together and then removing force F (equivalent to removing

parts from the fixture), would result in the spring-back force components at the fastening

point as shown in the right side of the figure. These forces at the fastening point would

include not only a force normal to the surface (N), but also a tangential shearing force (T)

and a moment (M). The FASTA method presented in this thesis can only model either

the normal force or the tangential force by itself, making the assumption that all other

forces are negligible. If needed, each force could be calculated separately and then

combined using superposition. A detailed derivation of this process is left to future work.

When modeling compliant parts in an assembly, it quickly becomes apparent that

most assemblies contain more than one flexible joint. For example, the assembly

presented in Figure 4-9 has flexible surfaces involved at all three joints between parts.

The question then arises: How does the closing and fastening of one flexible joint affect

another? Or stated in another way: Does gap variation propagate rigidly or elastically

through multiple flexible joints? These questions regarding flexible joints are put

forward again and discussed in detail in Chapter 7. However, it is worthwhile to discuss

some issues relating to multiple gaps at this point.

65

trampoline. If springs are placed on one side of a square trampoline, then the first spring

put on the opposite side will experience the greatest load and consequently the greatest

probability of yielding. This is graphically shown in Figure 4-14a.

If instead, the springs are placed evenly on opposite sides during assembly (Figure

4-14b), then much less force is required to connect each springs to the trampoline and

yielding is not likely. Provided that no yielding occurs in the springs, both examples in

Figure 4-14 will result in an equilibrium assembly as shown in Figure 4-15.

66

From this illustration it is apparent that the path to final assembly may be more

critical than the final equilibrium solution. If plastic deformation or yielding of

compliant parts is an issue during assembly, the order of assembly should be reviewed.

A method for analyzing the effects of assembly order is left to future work.

As required inputs to this and other steps of FASTA, geometry and variation data

are keys to the success of the analysis. However, obtaining this information is not always

an easy task. A brief discussion on possible challenges to obtaining geometry and

variation values is presented here to prepare the reader in advance for potential obstacles.

Although some form of assembly design data is often available, it is not always in

the desired format. Design drawings may be difficult to interpret or may contain

unconventional dimensioning schemes that are challenging to model using vector loops.

This is particularly true when the only available drawings predate modern design

practices and techniques. CAD models of parts to be analyzed can be very useful,

especially in creating finite element models (see Chapter 5). However, data exchange

between graphics programs is prone to difficulties even with standard formats like IGES.

CAD data locked in outdated program revisions is also a point of concern even when

dealing with parts modeled just a few years ago.

Even if part geometry and variation data do exist, whether in the form of design

drawings or measurement statistics, simply getting access to them can be difficult.

Boundaries between design and manufacturing disciplines may present obstacles in data

acquisition. Also, it is possible that people that dont understand the need or implication

67

of dimension and variation data for analysis may prevent or delay data flow within a

company or organization. Whatever challenges there may be, obtaining useful data for

analysis is a necessary step in improving product quality and should be treated as such.

4.4 Summary

In this chapter tools have been introduced to statistically determine gap mean and

variation at each fastening point of a flexible joint. This was done by adapting the DLM

method using variable length vectors along mating flexible surfaces. The gap variation

was also separated into translational, rotational and surface variation components. An

example assembly has been introduced and analyzed to illustrate the process of the

analysis. Other considerations in modeling the assembly of compliant parts have also

been addressed. Table 4-3 summarizes the inputs, outputs and analysis steps required to

determine misalignment. A process flow diagram of these steps is also presented in

Figure 4-16. This is equivalent to Figure 4-1, but now includes much more detail.

68

2

Outputs: gap variation components: Ti2 , Ri2 , SPi

; and gap mean: { i }

Analysis Steps:

{ }{ }{ }

Translational Variation

1. Create vector loop model

2. Write kinematic vector loop equations

3. Take partial derivatives of vector loop equations

4. Populate DLM matrices and vectors

5. Apply Statistical stack-up model to open loop equations

6. Calculate variance at each fastening point

7. Create translational variance vector

Rotational Variation

1. Calculate rotational variation of mating gap parts

2. Statistically combine part rotational variations

3. Create rotational variance vector

Surface Variation

1. Identify tolerance bands at each flexible gap surface

2. Calculate surface variance for each flexible part P

3. Create a surface variance vector for each flexible part

B. Mean Gap Solution

1. Solve for mean gap value at each fastening point using:

a. Vector loop equation and nominal dimensions

b. CAD assembly model

2. Output mean gap vector

69

Part Variation

Part Geometry

Inputs

Outputs

VL Model

Mean

VL Equations

Solve for:

i

Partial

Derivatives

CAD

DLM Matrices

& Vectors

STA

{i }

Translational Variation

Statistical

Stack-up Model

Calculate:

Ti2

{ }

2

Ti

Rotational Variation

Determine

for gap parts

Solve for:

R of gap

{ }

2

Ri

Surface Variation

Determine P

for each flexible

gap surface

Calculate:

2

SPi

{ }

2

SPi

70

CHAPTER 5

Of Compliant Parts

5.1 Introduction

The second step of the FASTA process is to model flexible part compliance using

finite element techniques. Referring back to the general force-deflection equation shown

at the beginning of Chapter 4 (equation 4-1), this analysis step requires the calculation of

each compliant parts stiffness matrix [K]. For simple geometry it is possible to calculate

a components stiffness matrix by hand. However, parts containing multiple bends, cuts

and curvature require more complicated techniques. Finite element analysis provides the

tools needed to model and analyze even complex parts with relative ease. Using

commercially available FEA software, it is possible to obtain a representative stiffness

matrix for any elastic part with known geometry.

In this thesis ANSYS, a widely available FEA software package, is used to

illustrate the application of the analysis steps presented. While the general discussion and

processes shown in this chapter can be implemented using other FEA packages, detailed

instruction for analysis will only be given for ANSYS.

71

In order to adequately model a parts compliance, both part geometry and material

properties must be known. An overview of step 2 is shown in Figure 5-1, including both

the needed inputs and desired output.

Part Geometry

Material

Properties

Inputs

2. FEM

[Keq]

Output

This chapter begins with a discussion of assumptions used in the analysis. Background

is presented and the steps needed to model flexible parts using FEA are illustrated using

the example assembly from Chapter 4.

As is always the case, this analysis uses some simplifying assumptions in the

modeling of part compliance. Since nonlinear and plastic deformations result in a

variable stiffness matrix, all deformations will be assumed to be both linear and elastic.

These are good assumptions given that tolerance analysis usually involves small relative

displacements and resulting deformations. Based upon these assumptions, the stiffness

72

matrix [K] is constant over the analysis range and can thus be evaluated using nominal

geometry and then applied to calculate deformation forces.

It is also assumed in this chapter that the reader has a general understanding of the

terms and basic use of finite element analysis. In order to apply the processes presented,

access to FEA software, such as ANSYS, is required.

5.3 Background

A stiffness matrix, sometimes called an elasticity matrix, mathematically

represents the elastic material properties and interactions within its representative part.

Quite literally it describes how stiff a part is by relating force to displacement. The

simplest example of stiffness can be seen by looking at a simple bar in tension. If a

tensile force F is applied to a bar with an initial length L and cross-sectional area A, the

resulting elongation is given by as shown in Figure 5-2.

L

A

F

Using the definitions of and relations between stress and strain, stress can be written as:

= E = E

(5-1)

73

In this equation E represents the modulus of elasticity of the beam. Since stress is equal

to force over area (for tensile loading), the results of equation 5-1 can be applied to get:

F = A =

E

A

L

(5-2)

By simply rearranging equation 5-2 it can be easily seen that the equation relates force to

displacement with stiffness as given in equation 5-3.

K=

EA

L

(5-3)

From this simple example it is apparent that the stiffness K is dependant upon both

material properties (E) and part geometry (L and A).

In the context of the FASTA analysis, compliant parts are often bent into contact

with other parts. One of the simplest examples of stiffness in bending is that of a beam

with both applied bending forces and moments at each end as illustrated in Figure 5-3.

F1 , u1

F2 , u2

M1 , 1

M2 , 2

Figure 5-3 Example of stiffness for 2-D bending

In this case the relationship between force and displacement is given as:

6

L2

F1

3

M

1 2 EI L

=

L 6

F2

L2

M 1

3

3

L

2

3

L

1

6

L2

3

L

6

L2

3

L

74

3

L u

1

1

1

3 u2

L

2

2

(5-4)

The variable I in equation 5-4 represents the moment of inertia for the beam. With 4

possible ways of displacing the beam (u1, 1, u2, and 2) a 4x4 matrix is needed to

describe its stiffness. This correlation between the degrees of freedom (DOF) and the

matrix size holds true for any case. This can become a problem when modeling a

complex part with thousands of DOF, a challenge addressed by the next section. It

should also be noted that the stiffness matrix is always square and symmetric.

As shown in the examples of the last section, as the number of degrees of freedom

increases, so does the size of the stiffness matrix. This is particularly challenging when

using finite element models of parts, since each node can have up to 6 degrees of freedom

(translation in and rotation about the x, y, and z coordinate axis). As the number of

elements and nodes in a model is increased to improve FEA accuracy, the corresponding

stiffness matrix is also enlarged. The result is increased computational time when

applying the stiffness matrix to calculate the solution.

Matrix reduction, a matrix partitioning technique, provides a tool for significantly

reducing a matrix size without loss of accuracy. This is done by reducing the matrix to

include only the nodes of interest, while still accounting for the influence of the other

nodes in the part. Such a reduced matrix is often called a super-element matrix. The

derivation for matrix reduction can be found in [Crisfield 1986], and is summarized in

this section.

In order to reduce the matrix, one must first determine which nodes are important

for the analysis. These are selected as boundary nodes and generally include fastening

75

points, locations of applied forces and nodes with applied constraints. All other nodes are

referred to as interior nodes and are important only because of their influence on the

boundary nodes. Figure 5-4 shows a simple example of the boundary and interior nodes

for a plate in bending.

Nodal Constraints

boundary nodes

interior nodes

Figure 5-4 Boundary and interior nodes of a plate in bending [Tonks 2002]

With boundary nodes selected, the matrix form of the spring equation can be partitioned

such that the boundary forces (Fb) and displacements (b) are separated from the interior

forces (Fi) and displacements (i). The force-deflection equation can then be written as:

Fb K bb

=

Fi K ib

K bi b

K ii i

(5-5)

where the stiffness matrix has been divided into boundary node stiffness (Kbb), interior

node stiffness (Kii), and stiffness interactions between the boundary and interior nodes

(Kbi and Kib). Equation 5-5 can be written as two linear equations:

{Fb } = [K bb ]{ b } + [K bi ]{ i }

(5-6)

{Fi } = [K ib ]{ b } + [K ii ]{ i } = 0

(5-7)

76

Note that since there are no external forces on the interior nodes, equation 5-7 is equal to

zero. Solving this equation for the vector of internal displacements gives the following

equation:

{ i } = [K ii ]1 [K ib ]{ b }

(5-8)

Substituting equation 5-8 into equation 5-6, the force vector at the boundary nodes is:

{Fb } = [K bb ]{ b } [K bi ][K ii ]1 [K ib ]{ b }

1

= ([K bb ] [K bi ][K ii ] [K ib ]){ b }

(5-9)

From equation 5-9 it is apparent that the reduced stiffness matrix can be written as:

[K red ] = [K bb ] [K bi ][K ii ]1 [K ib ]

(5-10)

This reduced stiffness matrix (or super-element matrix) contains the influence of the

interior nodes, but is reduced to the size of the boundary node stiffness.

For FASTA, a super-element matrix needs to be created for each compliant part.

With multiple parts, matrix partitioning and reduction can be time consuming, especially

if done by hand. ANSYS automates this task using sub-structuring analysis to output a

parts super-element matrix. This automated process is introduced later in the chapter,

and described in detail in Appendix C.

When modeling the joining of two compliant parts, it is possible to create an

equivalent stiffness matrix that represents the stiffness of the combined parts at

equilibrium. Creating such a matrix allows for the calculation of the forces seen by each

part at equilibrium position, as well as the corresponding part displacements. It can also

77

be useful when dealing with complex systems of multiple flexible parts to simplify the

model.

The joining of two springs (A and B) is shown in Figure 5-5 to illustrate how

equivalent stiffness can be calculated.

KA

FA

KB

FB

Equilibrium: FA = FB

Gap: 0 = A B

Spring Equations: FA = K A A

FB = K B B

Figure 5-5 Spring example of equivalent stiffness [Merkley 1998]

Combining the equilibrium, gap and stiffness equations shown in this figure, the

equilibrium displacements (A and B) can be written in terms of the stiffness values (KA,

KB) and the overall gap (0). In matrix form, these equations are:

(5-11)

(5-12)

Solving for the equilibrium force using either equation 5-5 or 5-6 and the corresponding

stiffness equation, the matrix form of the solution is:

78

(5-13)

From this equation it is apparent that the equivalent stiffness matrix is calculated in terms

of [K A ] and [K B ] using a series of matrix operations. Separating it from equation 5-13,

[K eq ] can be written as:

[K ] = [K ]([K ] + [K ]) [K ]

1

eq

(5-14)

If one of the parts is rigid (essentially infinitely stiff), then equation 5-14 can be reduced

to show that the equivalent stiffness is equal to the stiffness of the flexible part.

With the equations presented in this section, gap distances between compliant

parts can be used along with part stiffness matrices to calculate equilibrium

displacements and forces. As discussed at the beginning of this chapter, the desired

output of this step in the FASTA process is[K eq ] . In order to solve for this matrix, the

part stiffness matrices must first be calculated.

Finite element analysis greatly simplifies the calculation of part stiffness matrices

by using linearizing assumptions across finite portions of the surface. This section is a

general overview of the process of modeling flexible parts using FEA. The intent of the

FEA model at this point in the analysis is to obtain the reduced stiffness matrix for each

compliant part. A summary of the steps required to do so is presented in Table 5-1.

Each of these steps is discussed and applied to the example assembly from Chapter 4

using ANSYS. Modeling issues and suggestions for FEA are included in Appendix B

for the interested reader.

79

1. Define nominal geometry

2.

3.

4.

5.

The first task in modeling flexible parts is to define the nominal geometry. In

order to do this, the dimensions and thickness for each component must be known.

Models can be made directly using part drawings and data, or CAD models can be

imported into the FEA software using IGES or other accepted formats. Care must be

taken that imported files maintain their original geometry and are free of errors resulting

from improper cross-package translation. When familiar with the FEA softwares user

interface, this step should not require much time.

Using the nominal dimensions defined in Table 4-2, parts A and B of the example

assembly can be modeled easily in ANSYS. This was done by creating keypoints and

connecting them with straight lines to define the profile. The lines were then extruded in

the negative z-direction to create part areas. Thickness is added later in the process. The

resulting images for both parts are shown in Figure 5-6.

80

Figure 5-6 Nominal model of flexible parts in example assembly (created in ANSYS)

Since FEA software packages model material interactions, material properties are

required inputs. The number and type of inputs vary based upon the complexity of the

material used, ranging from simple isotropic metals to complex laminates with

orthotropic characteristics. These values can usually be found in material property tables,

on property sheets obtained from material producers, or if need be from testing.

Commonly used (or assumed), linear isotropic materials require only the modulus of

elasticity (E) and Poissons ratio () to describe the properties of the material. The

material properties for parts A and B of the example assembly are shown in Table 5-2.

Table 5-2 Material properties of parts A & B

Part A

Part B

Material: Carbon steel Carbon steel

30.0 Mpsi

30.0 Mpsi

E:

0.28

0.28

:

81

FEA software uses element models to approximate the behavior of finite sections

of each part being modeled. In order to proceed, it is necessary to pick from a list of onehundred or more different elements the one that best fits the characteristics of the parts

being modeled and the analysis being done. For the purpose of determining the stiffness

and reaction to loading of compliant parts, the possible elements to be used are limited to

those specifically designed for structural analysis. 3D structural element types available

in ANSYS include points, lines, beams, pipes, shells and solids. A single example of

each of these is shown in Figure 5-7. From the selection of structural elements, shell

elements are a good choice for modeling thin flat partsexactly the type of parts

analyzed using FASTA.

Structural Point

Structural Mass

Spar

Elastic Beam

MASS21

LINK8

BEAM4

DOF: UX, UY, UZ

ROTX, ROTY, ROTZ

Structural Pipe

DOF: UX, UY, UZ

DOF: UX, UY, UZ

ROTX, ROTY, ROTZ

Shear/Twist Panel

Structural Solid

PIPE16

SHELL28

SOLID45

DOF: UX, UY, UZ

ROTX, ROTY, ROTZ

DOF: UX, UY, UZ

ROTX, ROTY, ROTZ

DOF: UX, UY, UZ

82

Shell elements are specifically designed to model the characteristics of thin sheets

of material that may be manufactured (pressed, bent, rolled, etc.) in any form. Specific

selection of a shell element is determined based upon the geometry and material

characteristics being modeled. Figure 5-8 shows three suggested shell elements available

in ANSYS for use in modeling flexible parts, each with distinctive attributes.

Elastic Shell

Structural Shell

Linear Layered

Structural Shell

SHELL63

SHELL93

SHELL99

DOF: UX, UY, UZ

ROTX, ROTY, ROTZ

DOF: UX, UY, UZ

ROTX, ROTY, ROTZ

DOF: UX, UY, UZ

ROTX, ROTY, ROTZ

As shown in Figure 5-8, SHELL63 has only 4 nodes allowing for minimal

computation time at the expense of some accuracy. It is a planar element, but can

approximate curved surfaces well provided that each flat element does not cover more

than 15 of an arc. For more aggressively curved parts, SHELL93 provides an accurate

alternative with no limitations on angle. It also has 8 nodes, allowing for more accurate

modeling at the cost of computational time. Finally, SHELL 99 allows for the modeling

of layered materials, such as those seen in metal and composite laminates. More detail

on the assumptions and inputs for these element and others can be found in ANSYS

documentation. Since example parts A and B both consist of planar sections (Figure 5-6)

and are not laminates, SHELL63 appears to be a good choice for to modeling each part.

83

Once a shell element has been selected in ANSYS, the thickness of the element

(or part thickness) is then input as a Real Constant. While it is possible to assign a

different thickness at each node, generally the material thickness is constant throughout

the element. From Table 4-2 the thicknesses of the example parts can be obtained and

input into the model.

With the element type selected and the material properties and constants set, the

next step is to mesh the parts. Meshing involves segmenting the nominal geometry with

an arrangement of nodes and elements. In the context of the analysis to be done, it is

important that nodes are place at each of the fastening points. This can be done by

careful sizing and placement of elements in the mesh, or by using hardpoints to constrain

the node placement.

Automated meshing is a common feature of many FEA software packages,

allowing for simplified analysis setup. ANSYS provides two automated meshing

options: mapped meshing and free meshing. Mapped meshing is useful for simple

geometry, like rectangles, where identical rows of elements can be laid out across the

surface of the part. Free meshing is not as ordered, allowing each element to adjust in

shape to match complex geometry, such as seen with holes and chamfers. Both methods

can be combined to mesh a complex part on different segments provided that the nodes at

each segment boundary coincide. Element size for automated meshing is controlled by

either specifying desired element sizes or by specifying the number of elements to be

used along each edge of a part.

84

possible in order to best match the linearizing assumptions used. Mesh size also plays a

significant role in analysis accuracy, with smaller elements providing more step

approximations to model real part behavior. Smaller elements, however, result in more

nodes and more computational time. Meshing a part model for both accurate and

streamlined analysis is an art in and of itself, learned with practice and experience.

Since parts A and B consist of rectangular segments, they can be easily map

meshed in ANSYS. With an element edge-length of 0.5 inches, the meshed parts are

shown in Figure 5-9.

Figure 5-9 Flexible parts in example assembly map meshed with a 0.5 inch edge-length

With nodes placed at the fastening points of each flexible part, the next step is to

obtain the stiffness matrix for each part and reduce it. For FEA software that outputs a

85

full stiffness matrix it is necessary to partition and reduce each matrix as described in

section 5.3.1. ANSYS greatly simplifies this step by automating matrix reduction using

sub-structuring analysis. The super-element matrices for mating compliant parts are then

combined to create an equivalent stiffness matrix [Keq]. In this section sub-structuring in

ANSYS is briefly introduced and applied to example parts A and B. An equivalent

stiffness matrix for these parts is also calculated.

In ANSYS sub-structuring, constraints are first applied and boundary nodes

(called master degrees of freedom) are selected on each meshed part. With the selection

of boundary nodes, ANSYS also requests the degrees of freedom to be considered at

each node, allowing for further matrix reduction. For compliant parts A and B,

constraints (for all DOF) were placed where they mated to the rigid base (part C) and

boundary nodes were placed where they ideally join together with DOF only in the ydirection. These are shown labeled in Figure 5-10.

a) Part A

b) Part B

Figure 5-10 Master DOF and constraints applied to parts A and B

86

ANSYS outputs the reduced stiffness matrix for each part, along with other information,

in a text file. The output file is not ideally formatted for use, but can be parsed by hand

or using a simple C-program to obtain just the matrix values for later use. It should be

noted that a certain amount of bookkeeping is required to keep track of node numbers and

locations within the output file.

Having only 5 degrees of freedom each, one at each master DOF, the reduced

stiffness matrices for parts A and B can be obtained from ANSYS and are both simply

5x5. These matrices are shown graphically in Figure 5-11. While they appear to be

similar in this figure, it is apparent from the vertical scale that the stiffness of part B is

about ten times that of part A. This is due to the difference in thickness between the

parts, the stiffer one being the thicker of the two.

a) Part A

b) Part B

Figure 5-11 Reduced stiffness matrices for parts A and B (scale in pounds/inch)

Using equation 5-14, the reduced stiffness matrices for parts A and B can be

combined to form an equivalent stiffness matrix. The result is shown graphically in

87

Figure 5-12. Comparing the equivalent stiffness matrix [Keq] with the reduced stiffness

matrices [K red A ] & [K red B ] , it is apparent that its magnitude is slightly lower than that of

part A. This makes sense since [Keq] represents the relation between force and

displacement for the combined parts.

been given. A more detailed guide on this subject is presented in Appendix C.

5.5 Summary

In this chapter background on stiffness matrix reduction and equivalent stiffness

has been presented. The process of using FEA to obtain reduced stiffness matrices was

enumerated and illustrated using flexible parts from the example assembly in ANSYS.

With this process, nominal geometry and material properties are used to model part

compliance. The output to this step of FASTA is an equivalent stiffness matrix for

mating flexible parts, or the reduced stiffness matrix for a flexible part to be joined to a

88

rigid component. The process is summarized in Table 5-3, and illustrated as a flow

diagram in Figure 5-13.

Table 5-3 Summary of steps to FEM compliant parts

Output: [Keq]

Analysis Steps:

A. Model each compliant part with FEM

1. Define nominal geometry

2. Input material properties

3. Select element type and properties

4. Mesh model with nodes at fastening points

5. Solve for stiffness matrix

B. Reduce stiffness matrices

6. Select boundary nodes and degrees of freedom to include

7. Calculate reduced stiffness matrix

C. Solve for equivalent stiffness at assembly gaps [Keq]

89

Part Geometry

Material Properties

Inputs

Nominal Model

Mesh

FEM

Solve for:

Stiffness

[K]

Select Boundary

Nodes, DOF

compliant part

Reduce

Matrix

[Kred]

Solve for:

Equivalent

Stiffness

[Keq]

Output

90

CHAPTER 6

Statistical FEA Solution

6.1 Introduction

As stated in Chapter 1, the objective of the FASTA process is to statistically

predict the force, deformation, and stress produced within compliant parts by assembly

processes. Statistical representations of a system include both a mean and a variance.

However, only the mean solution for the stiffness equation has been treated thus far

(equation 4-1). The statistical solution requires the determination of the covariance of the

system. The covariance of a linear system may be obtained directly by the following

matrix operation. Given a linear matrix equation:

{Y} = [M ]{X}

(6-1)

following equation [Johnson 1988]:

[ Y ] = [M ][ X ][M ]T

(6-2)

This statistical property allows for the statistical representation of the relation between

force and displacement. If {F} = [K ]{ } describes the relationship between force and

deflection of a structure, then the statistical description is expressed by:

91

Mean : { F } = [K ]{ }

Covariance : [ F ] = [K ][ ][K ]

(6-3)

where { F } and { } are the mean force and deflection vectors, respectively, and [ F ]

and [ ] are the corresponding statistical covariances.

In equation 6-3, [ ] denotes the gap covariance matrix. The steps required to

calculate this covariant matrix are presented in this chapter. Using equation 6-3, the

statistical solution for the closure force along the gap can then be determined, and used to

find internal stresses and deformations in a compliant assembly. These calculations

describe Steps 3 and 4 of the FASTA process: the covariance calculation and the

statistical FEA solution. In this chapter these steps are discussed in detail and illustrated

using the example assembly introduced in Chapter 4.

In Step 3 of FASTA, the gap variation components calculated in Step 1 (Chapter

4) are used to solve for the gap covariance matrix [ ] . An overview of Step 3 is shown

{ }

{ }

in Figure 6-1. Inputs Ti2 and Ri2 are the variance vectors of the rigid body

translation and rotation, which occur in the gap due to the accumulation of process

{ }

2

variations in assembly. Vector SPi

is the gap variation due to local distortion of the

mating surfaces. The variance vectors are obtained by tolerance stackup analysis or from

measurement of production parts. A surface continuity model is also needed in this step

to predict the interdependence between points on the mating surfaces.

92

{ } { }

2

Ti

2

Ri

Surface

Continuity

Model

{ } Inputs

2

SPi

3. COV

[ ] Output

Figure 6-1 Step 3 process summary

In this section covariance is introduced, surface continuity models are presented, and a

hybrid method for obtaining the surface covariance by combining different surface

models is discussed. Procedures for introducing rigid contributions to the gap covariance

matrix are also presented. As a demonstration, the gap covariance for the example

assembly is determined and the process is summarized.

Covariance can be defined simply as the interdependence or correlation between

variables. Figure 6-2 illustrates this idea using points located by variables x and y. As

shown in this figure, uncorrelated variables are independent, partially correlated variables

show some dependence, and fully correlated variables are completely dependant.

93

Uncorrelated

Partially correlated

Fully correlated

With varying degrees of interdependence, covariance provides a tool for predicting the

behavior of one variable given a change in another.

When modeling flexible parts, there are two types of covariance that must be

included: material covariance and geometric covariance [Merkley 1998]. Material

covariance results from the internal elastic material interactions within a compliant part,

and is accounted for by applying the stiffness matrix [K] appropriately. Geometric

covariance [ GP ] accounts for surface continuity at the mating contact points of a part P.

This is where the interdependence between fastening points is modeled (assumed

independent in Step 1 of FASTA). Geometric covariance can either be calculated

directly from a set of measured part data, or predicted using surface continuity models

(discussed in the next section). For mating surfaces A and B the gap covariance

matrix, [ ] , is calculated using the following equation:

[ ] = [ GA ] + [ GB ] + [ Trans ] + [ Rot ]

(6-4)

In this equation matrices [ GA ] and [ GB ] are the geometric covariances for the mating

surfaces of parts A and B, and matrices [Trans ] and [ Rot ] represent the rigid covariance

94

contributions (translation and rotation) to the gap covariance. Each of these matrices are

square with n rows and n columns, where n is equal to the number of degrees of freedom

at the fastening points along the gap.

While each of the matrices in equation 6-4 may have off-diagonal terms,

indicating interdependence, summing them linearly assumes that the individual

covariance matrices are independent of each other. The calculation of geometric

covariance matrices and rigid covariance matrices are treated in detail in the next two

sections.

In the product development cycle, analysis and design improvements are much

more cost effective early in the design, rather than during production. Since statistical

part data is not available in the design phase, predictive methods are required for

modeling surface characteristics of flexible parts in order to estimate the geometric

covariance. Even in predictive stages, some surface variation information must be known

or inferred in order to create the necessary models. Production processes have unique

characteristics and the resulting surface variation will depend on the process, tooling and

material. This information could be contained in a database of surface models for

specific manufacturing processes. In this thesis, such information is assumed to be

available.

Using sinusoids and polynomial series, [Tonks 2002] presented a robust method

for modeling surface continuity for use in FASTA. The sinusoidal and polynomial series

models for calculating geometric covariance are presented in this section, as well as a

95

hybrid model that allows for the combination of multiple models to meet certain

conditions. The example assembly is used to illustrate the analysis. For derivations and

detailed treatments of these methods, refer to [Tonks 2002].

The objective of these methods is to describe surface variation in terms of random

surfaces, rather than sets of random points. The covariance matrix for a set of

independent random points is diagonal (zero covariance). The sinusoidal and polynomial

methods, described in the following sections, are the means of deriving the necessary

continuity conditions for obtaining the off-diagonal covariance terms.

Given a vector {Y } containing a set of N independent points with a standard

{}

deviation of y , it is possible to create a vector Y whose points have the same standard

deviation, but are constrained to lie along a specified sinusoid. An example of this curve

fit is shown in Figure 6-3.

96

{}

with the following equation:

{Y} = [S

]{Y }

(6-5)

The subscript S in the matrix denotes that the result follows a prescribed sinusoid. This

transformation matrix provides a link between independent points and points along a

continuous curve. Using this relation, the geometric covariance for a part surface that can

be modeled using sinusoids is:

[ GP ] = [S S ][ SP ][S S ]T

(6-6)

Where [ SP ] is the surface variation constraint for the independent points along the

mating surface of part P. This diagonal matrix is created by simply multiplying the

surface variance vector for part P (obtained in Step 1 of FASTA) by the identity matrix,

as shown in the following equation:

2

}[I ]

[ SP ] = { SPi

(6-7)

and amplitude. For a series of sinusoids, described by a set of M frequencies { f } with

corresponding amplitudes, or weighting coefficients {a}, the transformation matrix can be

solved for the ith row and the jth column as:

S S ,ij =

M 1

k =0

2f k

2

( j i)

a k ,norm cos

N

N

97

(6-8)

where the normalized weighting coefficients ak ,norm are calculated from the given set of

weighting coefficients by the following equation:

a k ,norm =

k

M 1

a

k =0

(6-9)

k

It should be noted that the order of the transformation matrix is always the same as the

order of the matrix that it is multiplying. In this analysis, this will always be n rows and

n columns, corresponding to the degrees of freedom of the gap assembly points. With

this solution for the transformation matrix, the geometric covariance for surfaces modeled

as sinusoids can be calculated using equation 6-6.

Another versatile way to model surface continuity is with polynomial series.

Using polynomial series that are complete orthogonal polynomials, such as Chebychev

and Legendre polynomials, allow for Fourier series simplifications and are ideal for

surface modeling. Equation 6-5 can be modified to use a polynomial series

transformation matrix, resulting in a set of points that maintain the random standard

deviation, but are constrained to follow a specified polynomial series. The geometric

covariance transformations for Chebychev and Legendre polynomials are denoted as

[ S ch ] and [ S lg ] respectively. Plots of these two orthogonal series are shown in Figure

6-4 for the 0-4th orders.

98

Chebychev Polynomials

Legendre Polynomials

Chebychev and Legendre polynomials are presented and applied to geometric covariance

in this section.

Chebychev Polynomials:

Chebychev polynomials are a set of polynomials of increasing order, which have

been normalized to have a range of 1 xi 1 , and are bounded in the y-direction by 1

and -1. Chebychev polynomial orders zero through three are written as:

T0 ( xi ) = 1

T1 ( xi ) = xi

(6-10)

T2 ( xi ) = 2 xi2 1

T3 ( xi ) = 4 xi3 3xi

Any set of x-values, {u}, with N terms can be normalized to fit within the limited range of

Chebychev polynomials using the following equation:

xi =

ui

1

(N + 1)

2

(6-11)

1

(N 1)

2

99

Given a series of polynomials with coefficients {a} for each polynomial order up to M,

the Chebychev geometric covariance transformation matrix can be solved for the ith row

and the jth column as:

S ch,ij =

1

a 0,normT0 (x j ) +

N

2

N

M 1

a

k =1

T (x j )Tk ( xi )

k , norm k

(6-12)

Again the weighting coefficients are normalized using equation 6-9. With the sensitivity

matrix solution in equation 6-12, the geometric covariance for surfaces modeled using

Chebychev polynomials can be calculated as:

[ GP ] = [S ch ][ SP ][S ch ]T

(6-13)

Legendre Polynomials:

Legendre polynomials are also defined over the range of 1 xi 1 and bounded

at the ends in the y-direction by 1 and -1. Unlike Chebychev, Legendre polynomials only

reach values of 0.5 at their inflection points instead of 1 (see Figure 6-4). Orders

zero through four of Legendre polynomials are written as follows:

P0 ( xi ) = 1

P1 ( xi ) = xi

1

3 xi2 1

2

1

P3 ( xi ) = 5 xi3 3xi

2

1

P4 ( xi ) = 35 xi4 30 xi2 + 3

8

P2 ( xi ) =

(6-14)

Again equation 6-11 is needed to normalize any set of points that fall outside of the

defined range for this polynomial set. A given a set of weighting coefficient {a} for

100

each polynomial order up to M, must be normalized using equation 6-9. The Legendre

geometric covariance transformation matrix can be calculated at the ith row and jth

column by:

S lg,ij =

M 1

l =0

2l + 1

a k ,norm Pl (x j )Pl ( xi )

N

(6-15)

After solving for the sensitivity matrix in equation 6-15, the geometric covariance for

surfaces modeled using Legendre polynomials can be calculated as:

[ GP ] = [S lg ][ SP ][S lg ]T

(6-16)

The objective of the covariance methods is to include the effects of surface

waviness wavelength in the predicted assembly force, stress and displacement variations.

[Soman 1999] observed three ranges of variation, each with distinctly different effects,

which he described in terms of the wavelength-to-part length ration /L. Table 1-1

describes the three ranges.

Table 6-1 Ranges of surface variation and their effects

Wavelength Description

Effect

Large scale warping Dominant, when present

/L 1

Moderate

1/6 /L < 1 Surface waviness

Surface roughness

Negligible

/L < 1/6

This diminishing effect as wavelength gets shorter and shorter is partly due to the fact

that the amplitude generally diminishes for short wavelengths

[Soman 1999] determined that for geometric covariance modeling, the spectral

analysis method presented by [Bihlmaier 1999] were limited to wavelength-to-part length

101

ratios of 1 or less (/L 1). Based on a similar concept, the sinusoidal method presented

by [Tonks 2002] is also subject to this limitation. The polynomial series methods,

however, best model covariance for wavelength-to-part length ratios of 1 or more (/L

1). Table 6-2 summarizes the useful range for the surface continuity models presented in

the last section based upon /L.

Table 6-2 Surface continuity model use range

Sinusoidal

/L < 1

Polynomial Series

/L 1

closer

to 1

Chebychev

/L >>1

Legendre

In order to take advantage of the overlapping surface continuity ranges shown in

this table, [Tonks 2002] created a hybrid method to combine multiple continuity models

into a single geometric covariance. In this way, a surface that contains both short and

long wavelengths (relative to surface length) can be modeled using a combination of

sinusoidal and polynomial series models. Given weighting coefficients a and b, the

hybrid geometric covariance for a part P,[ GPH ] , can be written as:

[ ]

GPH

b2

a2

GPS

GPPoly + 2

= 2

2

2

a +b

a +b

(6-17)

In this equation, [ GPPoly ] is the polynomial geometric covariance for frequencies where

/L 1 (using Chebychev or Legendre series) and [ GPS ] is the sinusoidal covariance

for the frequencies with /L < 1. Equation 6-17 can be adapted for any number and type

of covariance models, allowing for modeling versatility. To combine more than two

102

geometric covariance models, the normalized weighting coefficients are calculated using

the following equation.

c norm =

ci2

k

c

i =0

(6-18)

2

i

As shown in equation 6-4, the gap geometric covariance includes not only the

mating surface geometric covariances, but also the rigid covariance contributions from

assembly. These rigid contributions can be separated into translational and rotational

components, which describe the covariant rigid body modes of the overall gap

covariance. In this section, the translational and rotational covariance matrices are

defined and calculated using rigid variance outputs from Step 1 of FASTA and the

transformation matrices derived in the previous sections.

Translational Covariance:

Rigid translational variation seen at the gap is a result of the statistical

accumulation of part variation in the assembly. Using the DLM method in Step 1 of

FASTA, the magnitude of the translational variation at the gap is calculated by including

only variations that contribute to translation. It should be noted that this rigid form of

variation is completely covariant, meaning that the movement of one point along the

surface results in an equal displacement of the entire surface. This is illustrated in Figure

6-5 as the vertical movement of a horizontal line.

103

Upper limit

Mean

Variation

Lower limit

{ }

Given the translational variance at each node i along the gap, Ti2 from step 1 of

FASTA, the covariance of the gap translation can be found as:

[ Trans ] = [S ][ T ][S ]T

(6-19)

{ }

In this equation, [ T ] is a diagonal matrix created using Ti2 along the diagonal, and

By looking

at the polynomial series models in figure 6-4, it is apparent that a zero-order Chebychev

or Legendre polynomial can be scaled to model any horizontal line. Using the Legendre

series, the transformation matrix for translational variation can be created using equation

6-15, where the weighting coefficient vector is simply:

{a} = {1 , 0}

(6-20)

This means that only a zero-order term is present and it is scaled by 1. Equation 6-19

then becomes:

(6-21)

the translational variance is the same at each node, the resulting translational covariance

( )

matrix is completely covariant with the same value Ti2 throughout the matrix. This

104

matches the model in Figure 6-5, where the movement of one point along the surface

results in an equal displacement of the entire surface.

Rotational Covariance:

Rigid rotational variation seen at the gap is also a result of the statistical

accumulation of part variation in assembly. Again from the DLM method in step 1 of

FASTA, the rotational variation at the gap is calculated by including only part and

assembly variations that contribute to rotation along the gap. The resulting gap variation

is limited to max by the characteristic length of the gap and the maximum vertical

difference at the surface ends. This variation is illustrated in Figure 6-6 by a linear line

that rotates about the center. Recall from equations 4-17 and 4-18, that the rotational

variation can either be represented by a constant angular value, or converted to

translational variation that increases linearly from the center of the surface.

Variation

max

Mean

{ }

With the rotational variance at each node i along the gap, Ri2 from step 1 of

FASTA, the covariance of the gap rotation is determined by:

[ Rot ] = [S ][ R ][S ]T

(6-22)

{ }

Where: [ R ] is a diagonal matrix created using Ri2 along the diagonal, and [S ] is the

transformation matrix that defines the covariance of the rotation. Again looking at the

polynomial series models in Figure 6-4, it is apparent that a first-order Chebychev or

Legendre polynomial can be scaled to model any linear line. With the Legendre series,

105

the transformation matrix for rotational variation can be calculated using equation 6-15

where the weighting coefficient vector is now:

{a} = {0 , 1}

(6-23)

This means that only a first-order term is present, which is scaled by 1. With this scaling,

the slope of the first-order polynomial is also 1, and the evaluation of equation 6-22

results in a final scaling of the linear covariance model by the rotational variance

contained along the diagonal of matrix [ R ] . This is allowable since the angular

magnitude of the rotation is sufficiently small that the slope of the line representing

rotational variance is simply the rotational variance (small angle theorem).

Using a first order polynomial to create the transfer function, equation 6-22 can

now be written as:

(6-24)

covariance matrix is saddle-shaped, with maximum values in the upper-left and lowerright corners. Corresponding negative values are found in the upper-right and lower left

corners. An example of this is given in the next section.

With solution methods presented for calculating the geometric and rigid

covariance components, the gap covariance matrix can be solved using equation 6-4. In

this section the solution process is illustrated using the example assembly from Chapter 4.

In addition to the gap variance vectors calculated in Step 1 of FASTA, a surface

106

continuity model for each gap surface is also required as an input. For the example

assembly, the surface continuity models used in the analysis are presented in Table 6-3.

Table 6-3 Surface continuity models for example assembly

Part A

Frequency Components (/L):

Weighting Coefficients:

Part B

Frequency Components (/L):

Weighting Coefficients:

[0.1, 1, 7]

[8, 2, 1]

[0.2, 2, 8]

[5, 2, 2]

In the covariance calculation, the first task is to solve for the geometric covariance

for both of the mating surfaces of the gap, then combine them with rigid covariance

contributions to form the gap covariance matrix. Comparing the frequency components

of parts A and B in Table 6-3 with Table 6-2, it is apparent that the hybrid method is

needed to model both the low and high wavelength-to-part length ratios. In this way the

Legendre model can be used for components with /L greater than 1, and the sinusoidal

model can be used for all other components. The weighting coefficients given in Table

6-3 dictate how these are combined. Using the surface variances in equation 4-36 and the

hybrid method, the geometric covariance matrix solutions for parts A and B are shown

graphically in Figure 6-7. While the shapes of these matrices are similar, geometric

covariance of the gap surface on part B is nearly an order of magnitude smaller than that

of part A.

107

Figure 6-7 Geometric covariance solutions for example assembly gap surfaces

The next task is to solve for the gaps rigid covariance components. The

translational covariance for the example assembly is calculated using equation 6-21 and

the translational variance vector solution in equation 4-18. The gap rotational covariance

is determined using the rotational variance vector solution in equation 4-23 with equation

6-24. The rigid covariance solutions for the example assembly are shown in Figure 6-8.

108

From this figure it is apparent that translation is a much larger contributor to the overall

gap covariance than the rotation. As discussed earlier, the shape of the rigid covariance

matrices in Figure 6-8 match their respective modeling assumptions with the completely

and equally covariant translation being much different in appearance than the saddleshaped covariance from rotation.

The final task in the calculation of the gap covariance matrix is to sum the

different covariance components as shown below (from equation 6-4):

[ ] = [ GA ] + [ GB ] + [ Trans ] + [ Rot ]

(6-25)

For the example assembly the final gap covariance solution is displayed graphically in

Figure 6-9a. A plot of the individual covariance diagonals (for each component in

equation 6-25) is shown in Figure 6-9b for comparison. Looking at this plot, it is

apparent that the translational covariance has the largest contribution to the final shape,

while the rotational has the smallest.

Figure 6-9 Gap covariance matrix solution and contributing components, for example assembly

109

In this section, Step 3 of the FASTA process, the covariance calculation, has been

treated in depth. Geometric covariance was introduced and accounted for using surface

continuity models based upon sinusoids, polynomial series, or a hybrid combination of

multiple models. Rigid covariance components, translation and rotation, were also

determined using variance inputs and polynomial models. The output of this step, the

gap covariance, was solved for by combining the various covariance contributions.

Finally the process was illustrated using the example assembly from Chapter 4. A

summary of Step 3 of the FASTA process is listed in Table 6-4 and shown illustrated

with a process flow diagram in Figure 6-10.

110

{ }{ }{ }

2

Inputs: Ti2 , Ri2 , SPi

Outputs: [ ]

Analysis Steps:

A. Geometric covariance of flexible surfaces

1. Create transformation matrix using surface continuity model

2. Create diagonal matrix using surface variation variance vector

3. Calculate geometric covariance for surface of part P

4. Repeat for additional flexible part surfaces at gap

B. Translational Covariance (Rigid)

1. Create transformation matrix using zero-order Legendre polynomial

2. Create diagonal matrix using translational variance vector

3. Calculate translational covariance of gap

C. Rotational Covariance (Rigid)

1. Create transformation matrix using first-order Legendre polynomial

2. Create diagonal matrix using rotational variance vector

3. Calculate rotational covariance of gap

II. Gap Covariance Calculation

1. Sum geometric, translational, and rotational covariance components

2. Output solution

111

Surface Cont. Model

Sinusoidal

Polynomial Series

Legendre

Chebychev

Hybrid (mixed-model)

Inputs

{ }

2

SPi

Transformation

Matrix: [S ]

Geometric

Covariance

[ SP ]

Calculate

Geom. cov.

[ GP ]

Translational

Covariance

{ }

2

Ti

[ T ]

Transformation

Matrix: [ S (0 )lg ]

Calculate

Transl. cov.

[ Trans ]

[ ]

Output

Rotational

Covariance

{ }

2

Ri

[ R ]

Transformation

Matrix: [ S (1)lg ]

Calculate

Rotatl. cov.

[ Rot ]

112

The final step of the FASTA method, step 4, uses the gap covariance matrix [ ] ,

the mean gap vector { }, the equivalent stiffness matrix[K eq ] , and FEA to statistically

solve for: assembly force, internal deformations and stress. An overview of this process

is shown in Figure 6-11.

[ ]

{ }

[K eq ]

Inputs

4. Statistical

FEA

FEA

F( , )

( , )

Outputs

Stress( , )

In this section the assembly force is statistically solved, the mean of the deformation and

stress is calculated, the covariant equations for deformation and stress are presented, and

the process is summarized. Each step is illustrated using the example assembly.

113

A statistical prediction of assembly force for compliant parts is useful both when

designing assembly tooling and examining the load conditions on the parts themselves.

Replacing the stiffness in equation 6-3 with the equivalent stiffness between mating parts,

the mean and covariance of the assembly force are:

Mean : { F } = [K eq ]{ }

[ ] [ ]

Covariance : [ F ] = K eq [ ] K eq

(6-26)

Steps 1-3 of FASTA provide the inputs to these equations, requiring only simple matrix

algebra to evaluate.

With the example assembly calculations presented in previous sections and

chapters, the predicted mean and variation of the assembly force at the gap can be

calculated due to both rigid and compliant variation sources. Since the mean gap at each

mating point was zero (no mean separation), the mean closure force is also zero at each

point. For illustrative purposes, suppose that the mean gap at every fastening location

was actually 0.25 inches, perhaps the result of a defect in the tooling. The mean gap

vector would then be:

{ } = {0.25

(6-27)

Using equation 6-27 and the equivalent stiffness for the example assembly, the mean

solution for the assembly force from equation 6-26 would be:

{ F } = {0.032

T

114

(6-28)

solving the second part of equation 6-26. Using the equivalent stiffness and gap

covariance determined for the example assembly, the resulting force covariance solution

is shown graphically in Figure 6-12.

Taking the square root of the force variance at each node (found along the diagonal of the

covariance matrix) a vector of standard deviations of the force at each fastening point can

be determined:

{ F } = {0.981

T

(6-29)

Multiplying equation 6-29 by three gives an estimate of the 3 range of closure force

seen at each node by 99.7% of assembled parts at the gap. In other words, 99.7% of the

assemblies will require 8.76 pounds of force or less to close the misaligned gap.

Comparing equations 6-28 and 6-29, it is apparent that the variance of the closure force is

significantly higher than the mean closure force. Much of the difference is due to the

115

surface waviness of the mating parts accounted for in the gap covariance, which

[Bihlmaier 1999] proved to significantly increase closure forces and stress.

In order to determine the mean solutions for deformation and stress in each

flexible part, the displacement seen at each fastening node must first be calculated. It

should be noted that each compliant part is to be treated separately for this step. From

equations 5-11 and 5-12 the mating edge boundary displacements for part A {A } (mated

to part B) can be calculated from the mean gap vector using the following equation:

{ A } = [K RA ]{ }

(6-30)

(6-31)

In this equation [K red A ] and [K red A ] are simply the reduced stiffness matrices for parts A

and B. The boundary displacements for part B { B } are calculated the same way, but

switching the Bs and As in equations 6-30 and 6-31. For example parts A and B, the

boundary displacement solutions at equilibrium (assuming the mean gap displacement in

equation 6-27) are:

{ A } = {0.2478

{ B } = {0.0022

(6-32)

In this displacement solution, the effects of the relative stiffness between parts A and B

can be seen, with most of the equilibrium displacement taking place in more flexible part

116

closure for the gap being analyzed.

With the mean displacements along the mating boundary known, the next step is

to solve for the mean displacements seen throughout each parts interior nodes. The

complete mean displacement solution for each part can be obtained from the mean

stiffness equation containing every degree of freedom:

{ F }c = [K ]c { }c

(6-33)

containing all degrees of freedom in the part under consideration. The mean

displacement vector cannot be solved directly using equation 6-33 since the complete part

stiffness matrix [K ]c is singular and cannot be inverted. Instead, equation 6-33 must be

partitioned (as shown in equation 5-5) and solved in parts using the boundary conditions.

This process is shown in Chapter 5, section 5.3.1. From equation 5-8, the equation for

the mean interior displacements can be written in terms of the mean boundary

displacements as:

{ i } = [K ii ]1 [K ib ]{ b }

(6-34)

Again [K ii ] is the interior node stiffness and [K ib ] is the stiffness interaction between the

interior and boundary nodes. The complete mean displacement vector can be

reconstructed from the mean interior and boundary displacements:

117

{ }c

= b

i

(6-35)

The challenge with the solution presented above is one of keeping track of node

locations in partitioning and reconstruction. Since a fully developed FEA model has

already been created for each part in step 2 of FASTA, it is much simpler to apply the

known mean boundary displacements in commercial FEA software and solve for the

mean part deformation. An example of this is shown in the next section.

With mean nodal displacements calculated, the mean stresses can be evaluated

one element at a time using the finite element relation [Bihlmaier 1999]:

{ e } = [D e ][B e ]{ e }

(6-36)

In this equation {e } is the element mean stress vector and {e } is the nodal mean

displacement vector. The material elastic properties are contained in [De ] , called the

element constitutive matrix, and the partial derivatives of the element shape functions are

contained in [B e ], called the element kinematic matrix.

The solution to equation 6-36 is contained within any commercial FEA software

package and can be solved along with the interior nodal displacements, given the

boundary conditions. With the mean boundary displacements in equation 6-32 applied in

ANSYS, combined plots of mean deformation and stress are shown in Figure 6-13 for

example parts A and B.

118

Figure 6-13 Plots of mean deformation and stress for example parts in ANSYS

119

Covariance calculations for deformation and stress involve significantly more

computation than the mean calculations presented in the last section. This is not

surprising, however, since the resulting covariance solutions describe the

interdependence between every node in a part. As such, these solutions provide a

statistical view of how tolerance stack-up affects the deformation and stresses seen by

flexible parts in assembly. It is for this reason that the fourth step of FASTA is referred

to as statistical FEA. In this section the processes for determining the covariant

deformation and stress are introduced. For a more detailed treatment of the topic see

[Bihlmaier 1999].

In order to solve for the standard deviation of assembly deformation in a

compliant part using FEA, a covariant solution is required to account for the

interdependence between each node. Returning to the relationship between force and

displacement in equation 6-3, the covariance equation can be inverted to solve for the full

displacement covariance matrix:

[ ]c = [K ]c1 [ F ]c [K ]c1

(6-37)

Again the subscript c denotes completely populated or global matrices relating to all

degrees of freedom in a part. With applied forces only present at mating boundary nodes,

the complete force covariance matrix [ F ]c is zero for all terms other than those

120

corresponding to the gap force covariance matrix solved for using equation 6-25. These

can be easily mapped into corresponding node locations within the matrix.

As stated before, the complete part stiffness matrix [K ]c is singular and cannot be

inverted without first applying known displacement constraints. Since no displacement is

possible at completely constrained nodes, the covariance with relation to these nodes is

simply zero. This means that the part displacement covariance matrix [ ]c contains

rows and columns of zeros corresponding to constrained nodes. By removing these

constrained degrees of freedom from each of the matrices in equation 6-36, the stiffness

matrix is made nonsingular and equation 6-36 can be solved.

Once the part displacement covariance matrix [ ]c is calculated, the variances

corresponding to each node in the FEA model can be pulled from its diagonal. By

mapping the nodal displacement variances back to corresponding part coordinates, a

displacement variance surface plot can be made. This plot provides a clear picture of

how assembly variation affects the statistical displacement of a flexible surface.

To illustrate the covariant deformation solution using a displacement variance

surface plot, equation 6-36 was applied to example part A and solved. Nodal variances in

the y-direction were then mapped to corresponding x-z locations of the FEA model

(Figure 6-14a) for the cantilevered (horizontal) surface of part A. The resulting

displacement variance surface plot is shown in Figure 6-14b. Due to rigidity in the ydirection, the vertical surface of part A deflects very little and is omitted from the plot.

121

Figure 6-14 Displacement variance surface plot of the horizontal surface of example part A

As anticipated, the plot in Figure 6-14b suggests that the variance of the displacement

along the flexible surface increases toward the mating end of the part. The quantification

of the surface variance allows for a statistical prediction of the behavior of a population

of assemblies, and is a major analysis contribution of the FASTA process.

Unlike the mean stress solution, the covariant stress solution cannot be solved one

element at a time. Since covariance exists between all nodal displacements in a part, it

also exists between all nodal stresses. Treating one element at a time does not account

for this interdependence of nodal stress variation, requiring a more complex solution. In

order to obtain the variance of stresses seen in a part, a stress covariance equation

including all degrees of freedom has to be solved. This equation was presented by

[Bihlmaier 1999] as:

122

(6-38)

covariance matrix, [D] is the global constitutive matrix, and [B ] is the global kinematic

matrix. Detail into the solution of equation 6-37 was given by [Bihlmaier 1999], and will

not be treated in this work.

While the method for the calculating the stress covariance matrix [ ] exists, its

implementation on complex geometry requires extensive programming that is beyond the

scope of this thesis. It is suggested that such an automated implementation could be

created as a third-party interface to an FEA program like ANSYS, allowing for the full

application of statistical FEA. This is a step where future work must be done to use

FASTA to its full potential.

The fourth and final step of the FASTA process, the statistical FEA solution, was

presented in this section and illustrated using the example assembly from Chapter 4.

Assembly forces at the gap fastening points were solved statistically, and the mean

deformation and stress were calculated. Covariant solutions for deformation and stress

were also presented. The displacement variance plot was introduced as a means of

representing displacement variation in assembled compliant parts. Step 4 of the FASTA

process is summarized in Table 6-5 and illustrated with a process flow diagram in Figure

6-15.

123

Inputs: [ ] , { }, [ K eq ]

Outputs: F( , ), ( , ), Stress( , )

Analysis Steps:

A. Statistical Solution of Assembly Force

1. Calculate mean closure force

2. Calculate force covariance matrix

B. Mean Solution for Part Deformation and Stress (individual part)

1. Determine equilibrium displacement of part for mean gap

2. Apply mean part displacement as load condition in FEA

3. Solve FEA for load condition and output mean displacement and stress

4. Repeat for each compliant part at gap

C. Covariant Solutions for Part Deformation & Stress (individual part)

1. Obtain full part stiffness matrix from FEA

2. Create global force covariance matrix using boundary force covariance

3. Remove fixed degrees of freedom from global matrices

4. Solve for part displacement covariance matrix

5. Determine global constitutive and kinematic matrices from FEA

6. Solve for part stress covariance matrix

7. Repeat for each compliant part at gap

124

Inputs

{ }

Outputs

Calculate

mean force

F( )

Assembly

Force Solution

[K eq ]

[ ]

{ F }

Calculate

force cov.

[K R ]

[ F ]

F()

Mean

Solutions

Determine

mean part

displacement

()

FEA

Stress( )

FEA

[K ]c

Covariance

Solutions

Create

global force

cov. matrix

[ F ]c

Remove

constraint

dof

[ ]c

[D]

FEA

[B]

Solve for

stress cov.

()

[ ]

Figure 6-15 Process flow diagram for statistical FEA soltion

125

Stress()

In this chapter, statistical covariance was used to present the lat two steps of the

FASTA process: the covariance calculation, and the statistical FEA solution. Each of

these steps was discussed in detail and summarized in tabular and process flow format.

This concludes the defining of the individual steps of the FASTA process.

126

CHAPTER 7

Form Variation in

Flexible Assemblies

7.1 Introduction

Up to this point in the thesis, form variations at flexible joints other than the gap

have been ignored. The purpose of this chapter is to look at how form variations at these

joints can propagate through an assembly and affect gap variation. Form variation

modeling at rigid joints is first reviewed and then compared with flexible joint variation

propagation. A method for using FASTA at each flexible joint to account for form

variation is proposed, and modes of variation propagation are discussed.

In considering the propagation of form variation through mating joints in flexible

assemblies, it is useful to first look at rigid joints as a modeling foundation. As discussed

in Chapter 3, form variation propagates in an assembly only at the surface contacts or

joints between parts. For rigid assemblies, form variation is modeled in the DLM using

zero-length vectors applied at the point of mating contact. Although zero in length, each

vector still has direction and variation. Based upon geometric feature tolerance and the

joint type along the axis under consideration, form variation can propagate either as

127

translation or rotation (see Figure 3-3). Such rigid variance propagation accumulates

statistically through assembly.

An example of how form variation propagates rigidly can be seen in Figure 7-1,

where geometric feature tolerances are applied to rigid groove and cylinder surfaces.

Translation

A

B

y

Kinematic

adjustiment

x

Translation

Each of the two joints in this assembly is the result of the cylinder contacting a planar

surface inside of the groove. As discussed in chapter three, this is called a cylindrical

slider joint. Referring to Table 3-2, it can be seen that both the flatness tolerances and the

circularity tolerance result in translational variation normal to the surface contacts. This

is illustrated by two variation vectors at each of the joints in Figure 7-1b, representative

of translational variation components from both parts. These translational variations

result in a kinematic adjustment of the assembly dimensions, changing the distance

between the center of the cylinder and the bottom of the groove.

Looking only at the 2-D case for the assembly in Figure 7-1, the form variation

components of the kinematic constraint equation can be written as:

128

H y (form) = 1 sin (90 + ) + 2 sin (90 + ) + 3 sin (90 ) + 4 sin (90 )

(7-1)

where the s are summarized in Table 7-1. The form variation contribution is then

combined with the dimensional variation to determine the kinematic or assembly

variations as described in chapter 3. From this example it is apparent that form variation

in rigid assemblies is inserted at the joints and propagates rigidly, based upon joint type.

Table 7-1 Geometric tolerance variable for groove and cylinder example

Variable

Description

Nominal

Variation

the angled surface

Variation from the circularity

at the angled joint

Variation from the circularity

at the lower joint

Variation from the flatness on

the horizontal surface

A/2

B/2

B/2

C/2

2

3

4

Just as for rigid assemblies, form variation in flexible assemblies also acts at

assembly joints. There is, however, a fundamental difference between rigid joints (with

both mating parts rigid) and flexible joints (with at least one flexible part). Due to their

compliant nature, flexible parts can deform and thus accommodate for mating surface

variation. This is illustrated by a comparison of rigid and flexible joints in Figure 7-2.

129

Flexible

Sheet

1

Rigid Block

Fasteners

In this figure, the flexible sheet behaves similarly to the rigid block before fastening.

Once fastened, however, the initial rotation of the sheet is absorbed partially by distortion

as the part conforms to the rigid mating surface.

With deformation of compliant parts at flexible assembly joints come several

results. From Figure 7-2 b, it is apparent that the rigid component of rotation at the joint

has been altered as a result of part deformation. Thus, rigid form variation propagation is

modified by part compliance. Distortion, however, not only stores energy, but transfers it

in the form of residual stresses and elastic deformation. These, too propagate through

flexible parts and can affect the assembly. With this discussion, two challenges in

modeling form variation propagation in flexible assembly have been brought to light.

These are:

1. Quantifying the variation due to part distortion,

2. Predicting the effects of elastic deformation on the assembly.

The purpose of the remainder of this chapter is to lay the foundation for future work in

solving these challenges.

130

In order to confront the modeling challenges discussed in the previous section, a

proposed multiple joint FASTA process is outlined in this section. While the application

of this process is beyond the scope of this thesis, it is hoped that the presentation and

discussion of multilevel FASTA analysis will aid future work into this area.

To be able to model the complex case of form variation across multiple flexible

joints in an assembly, it is necessary to look at how each joint behaves separately. This

could be done by applying FASTA at each flexible joint separately (excluding the gap).

Since there is no rigid body misalignment at a flexible joint (mating surfaces are simply

placed together and then fastened), step 1 would be skipped. The second step should

proceed as usual, and includes the FEA modeling of flexible parts involved at each joint.

Step 3 of FASTA would also proceed as previously set forth, now requiring either surface

measurement data or surface continuity models for all flexible part mating edges. The

output from step 4 would be the mean and variance of the deformation and stresses seen

in each flexible part due to form variation at each joint.

With a set of statistical solutions from the application of FASTA at each flexible

joint, a slightly modified analysis of the gap would now be done to include the effects of

form variation. In addition to rigid contributions to misalignment, Step 1 of FASTA

would require the statistical inclusion of gap variation resulting from accumulated form

variation at flexible assembly joints. The FEA models would have already been created

during the analysis of flexible joints, leaving only the calculation of the equivalent

stiffness at the gap in Step 2. The third step of FASTA would proceed as usual, as would

131

the statistical FEA calculation (Step 4), though now including the adjusted gap

misalignment.

The steps for this multilevel FASTA process are outlined in Table 7-2, and

illustrated in Figure 7-3. It should be noted that this proposed method only accounts for

form variation along the line of fastening between mating surfaces. Perpendicular and

angular modes of variation propagation were not taken into account, but are discussed in

the next section.

Table 7-2 Outline of FASTA inclusion of form variation at flexible joints

1. Apply FASTA at Each Flexible Joint (excluding the gap)

Step 1 - Not needed since there is no initial gap

Step 2 - FEA of flexible parts at joint

Step 3 - Geometric covariance of flexible surfaces (requires data

or surface continuity model for each)

Step 4 - Statistical FEA solution

2. Modified FASTA Applied at Gap

Step 1 - Add statistically (RSS) the mean and variance of the rigid

gap variation and the mean and variance of the form

variation contribution from flexible joints.

Step 2 - FEA already done in analysis of flexible joints

Step 3 - Geometric covariance of gap flexible surfaces

Step 4 - Statistical FEA solution of modified gap variance

132

Part Geometry

Material Prop.

Surface

Continuity

Model

1. FEM

Part Variation

2. COV

[ ]

[K eq ]

flexible joint

3. Statistical

FEA

( , )

FEA

FASTA Applied

at Flexible Joints

FASTA Applied at Gap

1. STA

{ i }

{ }, { }, { }

2

Ti

2

Ri

2. COV

2

SPi

[ ]

Surface

Continuity

Model

( , )

Stress( , )

4. Statistical

FEA

FEA

F( , )

While the analysis discussed in the previous section may predict the effects of

form variation in flexible assemblies, it does so with perhaps excessive complexity. Even

133

with multiple levels of FASTA analysis, there are still degrees or modes of variation

propagation that may not be taken into account at the joints. Since some geometry in

flexible parts tends to act more rigidly than others, it may be possible to simplify the

modeling of flexible joints by categorizing some degrees of variation as essentially rigid.

This section looks at different modes of propagation with this perspective, using the

example assembly from Chapter 4 for illustration.

To begin, a rigid mode of variation propagation for flexible joints is defined as a

degree of variation propagation that acts essentially rigid due to geometry. A flexible

mode is then a degree of variation propagation in which some of the variation propagates

rigidly and some of the variation is absorbed by distortion of the compliant part(s) at or

near the joint. In order to illustrate this concept, the example assembly from Chapter 4 is

shown in Figure 7-4 with possible modes of variation propagation through flexible joints

labeled. Rigid propagation modes are noted with an R, and flexible modes with an F.

A

Gap

B

Ty

Ry

Rz

F

F

Tz

F

F

Flexible

Joint 2

Flexible

Joint 1

134

Tx

Rx

In this figure, rotation about the x direction due to variation at flexible joint 1 is

labeled as a rigid mode. Looking at the geometry of part A, it is apparent that such

variation acts in the plane of the sheet of material. Since this is the stiffest direction for

the geometry, the assumption that variation propagates rigidly in this direction is

justifiable. Any distortion in the plane of the material will be negligible compared to outof-plane deflection. Variation at flexible joint 2 in Figure 7-4 has two rigid modes of

propagation: rotation about x and rotation about y. Again, both of these directions of

variation lie in the plane of the thin sheet of materialsuggesting that they will behave

rigidly. All other modes of variation propagation at the flexible joints in the example

assembly are considered flexible, with both rigid and elastic deflections possible.

To be able to predict how flexible modes of variation propagate, one must

determine what percent of the variation is absorbed in distortion and what percent is

transferred rigidly. Once quantified, the percent rigidity of a flexible mode could be used

to convert it to a rigid mode using some sort of a rigidity coefficient. Standard rigid joint

variation models could then be adapted to complete the analysis. Both flexible and rigid

will have a mean plus a variance. After closing the gap, the equilibrium profile will be

non-zero, in general. By adding the final profiles statistically, the mean and variance can

be determined.

7.6 Summary

As seen in the examples and discussion presented in this chapter, the treatment of

form variation propagation at flexible joints is complex. Parallels between rigid and

flexible joint variation propagation have been discussed and illustrated. Two proposed

135

methods for treating variation at flexible joints have been presented: a multiple level

FASTA analysis, and modeling using modes of propagation. It is hoped that the ideas

presented in this chapter will prove useful for future work in this area and the

incorporation of variation at flexible joints in the FASTA method.

136

CHAPTER 8

(Industry Example)

8.1 Introduction

In order to illustrate how the FASTA process is to be applied, the analysis setup

of an example assembly from industry is presented in this chapter. Although insufficient

data prevents an actual demonstration at the time of publishing, a detailed discussion of

the analysis steps and required inputs is given. The purpose of this chapter is to give an

example of the setup of FASTA on a real assembly, and to lay the groundwork for future

analysis and verification of the process on a real assembly. An assembly from industry is

first introduced, then each step of the FASTA analysis is setup and discussed.

Measurement of the assembly for analysis and verification is also discussed in detail.

To illustrate the application of the FASTA method in this chapter, a subassembly

of the leading edge flap of a Boeing 737 is used. The assembly contains 3 parts: an outer

aluminum skin, and two interior ribs. A fixture is used to hold the parts in place while

they are riveted together. Both the fixture and the parts come from the Boeing

Corporation, and are pictured in Figure 8-1.

137

b) Interior ribs

Figure 8-1 Pictures of parts and fixture for leading edge assembly

Figure 8-1c shows the interior ribs held in place by a spring-loaded member, with the

outer skin yet to be located by the outer shell of the fixture (seen at the top of the picture).

138

The holes marked by yellow on the fixture shell are used for the drilling and riveting of

the assembly along the curved surface of the outer skin. Additional riveting is done on

the back side of the fixture, along the flat portion of the outer skin.

This assembly is only about 12 inches in length, allowing for ease of

measurement. The design drawings available were originally made before 1990, and

only limited CAD data for these parts is available. The fixture was originally made

before 1980, but has had routine maintenance through the years. This assembly is an

excellent candidate for illustration of the FASTA process because it presents many of the

challenges involved in tolerance analysis.

In this section each step of flexible assembly statistical tolerance analysis is

outlined and discussed using the leading edge assembly shown in Figure 8-1. Required

information that is missing from the available data is highlighted for each step and

suggestions are given to obtain the needed data.

The first task in determining misalignment is to identify the assembly gap and

create a vector loop model that describes the gap at each fastening point. For the leading

edge assembly, the assembly gap occurs along the curved surfaces between the outer skin

and each interior rib part. The gap, at each of the five fastening points, is illustrated in

Figure 8-2 with mating surfaces labeled as A and B.

139

A

G5

G2

G3

G4

G1

A single generic or variable vector loop can be created to describe the gap at fastening

point i between surfaces A and B in terms of the fastening node locations. This vector

loop is illustrated in Figure 8-3, and is located by a datum reference frame defined by the

spar center-line (CL) and the flat base of the outer skin.

Magnified

View

n Ai

Ai

p Ai

Gi

pBi

nBi

Bi

X Ai

CL Spar

YBi

X Ai

YAi

YBi

X Bi

Figure 8-3 Generic vector loop describing the gap distance at node i

Of special note in the open vector loop presented in Figure 8-3, are the basic

dimensions (shown in boxes) used to describe the nominal locations of the fastening

140

referenced to the ideal location. This modeling technique is used because the fastening

locations are not specifically dimensioned. They are determined at assembly by the

drilling fixtures, and must be determined by measurement of the fixtures. By treating all

of the variation as zero-length vectors with normal and tangential variations, n and p at

each mating surface, the point locations can easily be inserted into the model using

Cartesian coordinates (once measurement data is available).

Vectors n Ai and n Bi describe variations normal to surfaces A and B, respectively,

at fastening location i. The orientations of these normal vectors are known from the CAD

model or by measurement, with constant angles Ai and Bi . Such variation could be

estimated from specified surface tolerance bands, or determined by measurement.

Vectors p Ai and p Bi are tangential to their respective surfaces, and describe positional

variation due to process variations in drilling and riveting.

With a generic vector loop that describes the gap at each fastening point, the next

task is to create the vector loop equations. For the x and y directions, the vector loop

equations are:

G xi = X Ai + X Bi + n Ai cos Ai + n Bi cos Bi + p Ai sin Ai + p Bi sin Bi

(8-1)

(8-2)

The length of the mean gap vector Gi can be calculated using the Pythagorean Theorem

in terms of its x and y components. Since the nominal values of the normal and tangential

variation vectors are zero, the equation describing the mean gap length is simply:

141

[(

Gi = X Ai X Bi

) + (Y

2

Ai

YBi

)]

2

1

2

(8-3)

The next task is to write the partial derivatives of the vector loop equations in

terms of the variations. Because the basic dimensions and the normal angles are constant,

the partial derivatives of equations 8-1 and 8-2 include only the variations in the normal

and tangential vectors. These equations can be written symbolically as:

G xi =

G y i =

G xi

n Ai

G yi

n Ai

n Ai +

G xi

n Bi

G yi

n Ai +

n Bi

n Bi +

n Bi +

G xi

p Ai +

p Ai

G yi

p Ai

p Ai +

G xi

p Bi

G yi

p Bi

p Bi

(8-4)

p Bi

(8-5)

G xi = n Ai cos Ai + n Bi cos Bi + p Ai sin Ai + p Bi sin Bi

(8-6)

(8-7)

While a matrix equation could be made to represent equations 8-6 and 8-7 at each of the

five mating points, it is just as easy to continue the analysis using the generic equations in

terms of fastening point i.

A statistical stack-up model can be applied to equations 8-6 and 8-7 to determine

the variation of the gapGi , at location i. The RSS of the variation components in the x

and y directions can be expressed as:

Gi = G x2i + G y2i

1

2

(8-8)

142

Substituting equations 8-6 and 8-7 into equation 8-8, with some algebra and

trigonometric simplifications, the gap variation at fastening point i can be written as:

{

} (

} (

(

Gi = + 2 n Ai p Bi + n Bi p Ai sin Ai + Bi + 2n Ai p Ai sin 2 Ai

+ 2n Bi p Bi sin 2 Bi

1

2

(8-9)

Symbolic equations 8-3 and 8-9 statistically describes the misalignment between the

leading edge parts. Tangential surface variations can be treated separately from the

normal variation vectors, and would be obtained using surface scans along the mating

lines.

With gap mean and variation expressed symbolically, the challenge for the

completion of step 1 of FASTA is determining the location of the fastening points for the

leading edge assembly. While some of the riveting locations are specified in part and

tooling drawings, several key dimensions are missing. Additionally, common

manufacturing practices at the time the fixture was built put in doubt the correlation

between the designed riveting locations and the drilling guides on the actual fixture.

When the difference between ideal design and as-built tooling is significant,

measurement of the tooling for accurate fastening locations may be necessary. This is

especially the case when using analysis results for process verification. Measurement to

determine the fastening locations is discussed later in this chapter.

Reviewing the leading edge assembly, it is apparent that all of the parts can be

treated as compliant since each one is made from a flat sheet of metal. With some

143

available CAD and drawing information, the ideal form of the parts can be used to create

FEA models. Existing CAD data includes solid models of the interior ribs, and a curved

surface that defines the outer shape of the skin. For this assembly CAD data is only

available in an old version of CATIA, requiring the use of IGES conversion for data

transfer. The shape of the outer skin can be reconstructed using the outer surface

definition from CAD and design dimensions from part drawings.

Close examination of the material used to form each part shows that the outer skin

is composed of a 2-layer aluminum laminate, while the interior ribs are formed using

only a single-layered aluminum sheet. In both cases the aluminum alloy used is 2024-T3,

with approximate material properties of: E = 10.501 Mpsi, and = 0.33.

Due to part and material geometry, element selection is an important step in

modeling the compliant parts of the leading edge assembly. In order to model the

laminate outer skin, a layered structural shell element could be used, such as SHELL99 in

ANSYS (see Figure 5-8). In addition to modeling the laminate nature of the outer skin,

SHELL99 also allows for offsetting of the shell element center line. This is a useful

feature when modeling geometry, given only a curve that defines the outer surface (not

the center-surface) of the part. Due to the rounded and curved geometry of the ribs, a

shell element that allows for significant curvature across a single element should be

selected when modeling these parts. SHELL93 in ANSYS matches this requirement.

As discussed in Chapter 5, meshing of the parts should be done such that nodes in

the model are located at each of the fastening points. Again, due to the nature of the asbuilt tooling, the placement of the mating boundary nodes is dependent upon

measurement data. Once obtained, such data points could be applied to the FEA model

144

using hard points, and then meshed. Preliminary FEA models of the leading edge parts

are shown in Figure 8-4.

b) Nominal ribs

Figure 8-4 Preliminary models of leading edge flexible parts, made in ANSYS

The mesh shown on the outer skin part is based upon CAD data and estimates, and must

be adjusted once accurate fastening locations are obtained through measurement. The

nominal geometry of the ribs is shown modeled in ANSYS, also awaiting required node

locations for final meshing.

Once meshed, the respective stiffness matrices of the flexible parts can be output

from ANSYS using sub-structuring analysis. Only relevant boundary degrees of

freedom at the fastening nodes would be included in these super-element matrices. In

order to proceed with step 2 of FASTA, only the fastening locations are lacking.

In order to account for covariance, measurement data is again needed to describe

the surface characteristics of the mating part surfaces. Ideally, surface models for the

forming process would be available in the form of frequency spectra and could simply be

145

Because these do not exist, surface measurement as presented by [Soman 1999] would

need to be done on multiple assemblies to represent the surface characteristics

statistically. Such measurement would need to be performed at each of the mating part

surfaces along the fastening line.

With measurement data available, the geometric covariance can be calculated

directly, without the need for a surface continuity model. Since the purpose of analyzing

this assembly includes verification of the analysis, surface measurement data could be

used to create a surface continuity model that could then be compared to the direct

covariance calculation. In this case, the modeling methods presented in [Tonks 2002]

should be used to create the needed models.

Once solutions from the previous steps are obtained, the statistical force solution

can be easily calculated as discussed in Chapter 6. The mean displacements and stresses

throughout the interior would then be obtained by applying the mean gap displacements

as boundary conditions in the complete FEA model for each part and solving the load

system. A Covariance solution for displacement can be obtained through application of

Chapter 6 principles, though without automated methods it would be a challenge to sort

and keep track of the nodes in matrix manipulation. There is a need for software

assistance at this point of the analysis, to help automate the matrix manipulations and

keep track of node numbering referenced to part coordinate locations.

146

The covariance solution for stress also requires additional programming to incorporate

the statistical FEA outlined by [Bihlmaier 1999] into a manageable process for complex

geometry, such as seen in the leading edge assembly.

As is apparent from the requirements of this step, general software tools are

needed to take the principles and steps of FASTA into the realm of an efficient

application. Preliminary analysis software has been created, but now must be taken to the

next level for general use.

Application of the FASTA method to the leading edge assembly is dependent

upon the data acquisition outlined in the previous section. For this assembly,

measurement of the fixture to obtain accurate fastening locations is a first priority. Other

measurements must also be made for analysis verification purposes. Proposed methods

for achieving these measurements are presented and discussed in this section.

In order to accurately determine the locations of the fastening points along the

curved mating surface of the leading edge assembly, measurement of the assembly

fixture is required. Among the many precise tools available in the field of metrology, a

coordinate measuring machine (CMM) holds the most promise for locating points on the

as-built fixture. This machine incorporates complex software and computer controlled

motion of a force sensitive probe to locate surface points in reference to desired

147

measurement datums. A picture of the assembly fixture on a Brown & Sharp CMM is

shown in Figure 8-5.

By directing the CMM probe to contact multiple points inside of a single drilling

guide on the fixture, a cylindrical representation of that feature can be created in

reference to the assembly datums. The computer representation of the drilling guide can

be merged with CAD models of the parts, and used to find the intersecting centerline of

the drilling process on each part. This point of intersection represents the coordinate

location of a single fastening point. Repeating the process at each drilling guide provides

the location of each fastening point in the leading edge assembly.

148

In order to verify the FASTA process, predicted statistical values must be

compared to measurement data from a population of assemblies. Due to inherent

difficulties in measuring forces and stresses in assembly, it is proposed that part

deformations should be used for analysis verification. By comparing measured part

displacements to predicted values from FASTA, the accuracy of the analysis method

could be quantified. In order to complete this type of verification, multiple

measurements of each part in a statistical set of assemblies are required.

For analysis verification using the leading edge assembly, surface scans of the

parts must be made before and after assembly. While a CMM can be used to obtain the

needed surface scans, care must be taken to assure that probe contact forces do not bias

the data by deflecting the compliant surfaces. Alternative metrology methods for surface

scanning should be researched. Possibilities include measurement using lasers and photo

imaging.

8.5 Summary

In this chapter the process of applying the FASTA method was illustrated using

an assembly from industry, and each step of the FASTA method was set up and

discussed. Required inputs were identified and suggestions were given for obtaining

these. Measurement methods for both analysis and verification of analysis were also

discussed. The groundwork for future analysis and verification using the leading edge

assembly has been set forth.

149

150

CHAPTER 9

Conclusions and

Recommendations

9.1 Introduction

The main objective of this thesis was to present a comprehensive, integrated

methodology for the statistical tolerance analysis of flexible assemblies. In order to do

this, rigid body tolerance analysis needed to be adapted for use with both rigid and

compliant parts, and incorporated into existing flexible part tolerance analysis methods.

For process integration, the methodology also needed to be summarized and presented in

a comprehensive manner for future application.

The objective and supporting aims of this thesis were achieved, and are

summarized in this concluding chapter. Strengths and limitations of the FASTA process

are listed, and suggestions for future work in this field of research are also presented.

In order to present an integrated method for flexible statistical tolerance analysis,

or FASTA, four main tasks were completed. These are listed and summarized below:

1. Integration of rigid STA with FEA for variation analysis of assemblies with

compliant parts. To be able to treat complex assemblies that include both rigid and

flexible parts, the direct linearization method was first presented and adapted for

151

compliant application. Vector loop modeling using variable vectors was presented,

and rigid modes of assembly variation were identified and determined.

needed inputs and specific steps were outlined for the modeling of compliant parts

using commercial FEA software. Sub-structuring analysis was presented as a means

for creating super-elements of entire parts and outputting reduced stiffness matrices

for linear force-deflection analysis. These methods were illustrated using ANSYS,

a well known FEA software package.

statistically describe the behavior of flexible parts in assembly, the covariance of the

assembly system (at the mating gap) must be determined. This included the statistical

summation of both compliant surface continuity (geometric covariance), and rigid

gap covariance contributions. Zero and first order Legendre polynomials were

presented as a means to model the covariance of both rigid translational and rotational

terms.

covariance solutions at the gap, statistical solutions for interior deformations and

stresses needed to be shown. The covariant solution for interior deformations of

flexible parts was presented, and the groundwork for the covariant stress solution was

152

given. Groundwork for the statistical treatment of form variation at flexible joints

was also set forth.

Each of these main tasks was illustrated using an example assembly containing 1 rigid

and 2 flexible parts. The complete methodology was presented as a four step process,

with each step summarized and illustrated with a detailed process flow diagram. Finally,

an assembly from the aerospace industry was used to showcase the setup of the FASTA

process for analysis. A listing of the strengths and limitations of the FASTA method is

given in Table 9-1.

Table 9-1 Strengths and limitations of FASTA

Strengths

Limitations

Statistical solution of deformations, forces, and

FEA calculations, though

deformations with only 2 calls to FEA

efficient, are not trivial.

Inclusion of surface continuity and surface

waviness effects

Inclusion of both rigid and compliant part

variation sources

Requires knowledge of

mating surface characteristics

Provides information on dimensional

contributions to variation, allowing for process

improvement

Adaptation to commercial CAD & FEA packages

Many of the limitations given in this table can be overcome by automation of the analysis

method in commercial software.

153

Significant contributions made by the thesis in the field of statistical tolerance

analysis of flexible assemblies are:

Integration of rigid STA with FEA for variation analysis of assemblies with

compliant parts. A comprehensive system has been outlined in detail in four major

steps with required inputs and desired outputs. The system is suitable for use in the

design phase using specified tolerances, or in the production phase using measured

dimensional and surface variations. Previous research in statistical FEA, based on

material and geometric covariances, has been combined with rigid part dimensional

variation in a complete analysis system suitable for industrial applications.

The adaptation of the direct linearization method for use in determining

misalignment in flexible assemblies.

A separation of rigid body variation modes at flexible assembly gaps, identified as:

translational, rotational, and surface variation.

Including rigid covariance components in the gap covariance calculation, modeled

using Legendre polynomial transformation matrices. This made possible the

combining of rigid body, surface continuity, and elastic coupled variations into a

single covariance matrix for statistical FEA.

The use of commercially available FEA software for modeling complex flexible

assemblies and outputting reduced stiffness matrices using sub-structuring.

Detailed outline and diagram of the analysis process, which sets the groundwork

for software architecture.

154

multi-level FASTA process and the identification of rigid and flexible modes of

form variation propagation.

Demonstration of the complete process applied to a simple flexible assembly.

Example of analysis setup for an existing aerospace assembly, including the use of

vector loops with basic dimension and the resolution of variation to zero-length

vectors at fastening nodes.

Characterizing position variation and surface variation effects in statistical model of

gap

While the FASTA process has been presented in detail, there are still facets of the

analysis that warrant more consideration and future study. A listing of suggested future

work is presented in this section that would help to further the analysis of flexible

assemblies.

1. Metrology and verification With the Steps of the FASTA analysis outlined in

detail and set up on an example assembly from industry, it is time to verify the

analysis. Future work in this area would include researching various metrology tools

for surface scanning, and comparing both predicted and measured part deformations.

This work would not only quantify analysis accuracy, but provide invaluable data for

process and analysis improvements.

155

2. Stress covariance calculation Although the basic theory is known for the

calculation of stress covariance, the inclusion of such in a commercial application

requires an efficient means for software implementation. Work in this area would

include a detailed look at the stress interactions between part elements, and

significant programming. It is suggested that software for the calculation of stress

covariance could be linked to conventional FEA software such as ANSYS.

manufacturing processes on flexible part surfaces is needed in order to use surface

continuity models effectively. Research in this area would build upon the work done

by [Soman 1999], and would ideally produce a database of data for use in covariance

modeling based upon processes and part material. Additional work also needs to be

done to better characterize when to use Legendre versus Chebychev polynomial

series methods.

propagation at flexible joints has been presented in this thesis, but there is much left

to do. Research to determine how much variation is absorbed by flexible part

distortion and how much propagates rigidly and elastically through parts is needed.

Both simulation and measurement of real parts would be needed in this area of study.

process would greatly increase its usefulness. This area of research could include

156

effects of tooling variation in the assembly process could also be included in this area

of research.

closure of the assembly gap is modeled at the fastening nodes. A way to include

surface contact between mating nodes statistically could improve the accuracy of the

gap closure model.

proposed within this and previous works, the FASTA process must be incorporated

into commercial software. With preliminary analysis code and detailed process

architecture, this work has begun, but must now be taken to the next level of

application.

The methods presented in this thesis provide a powerful new tool for the design

and analysis of flexible assemblies. With further advances and software implementation,

it holds great promise for lowering production costs in a multitude of industries.

Fixtureless assembly is being considered by many companies in the aerospace

industry. Before this can be achieved, a model for variation that accounts for all sources

of variation and predicts their accumulation and propagation in an assembly is needed.

157

The FASTA method presents such a model, allowing for: the prediction of variation

percent contribution, identification of variation sources that are most difficult to control,

and allowing for the focusing of process improvement and re-design for robust assembly.

158

APPENDIX

The appendix is divided into three sections as follows:

APPENDIX A: Vector Loop Modeling Rules and Regulations for 2-D

APPENDIX B: FEA Model Issues and Suggestions

APPENDIX C: Sub-structuring in ANSYS for Stiffness Matrix Output

159

160

Vector loop modeling rules presented by [Trego 1993] are presented below:

Table A-1: Vector loop modeling rules [Trego 1993]

1. Loops must pass through every part and every joint in the assembly.

2. No single loop may pass through a part of joint more than once, but it may start

and end at the same point.

3. There must be enough loops to solve for all of the kinematic variables one loop

for every three variables.

II. Rules for Vector Paths

1. A vector loop must pass from one part to the next mating part through a common

joint.

2. The path across a part must pass though the Datum Reference Frame (DRF),

following the datum path from the incoming joint to the DRF and then following

the datum path from the outgoing joint to the DRF, only in reverse.

3. If the path across the part double back on itself with an equal and opposite vector,

the two vectors cancel each other and will be omitted from the loop.

III. Vector Loop / Joint Requirements (see figure below)

1. For a cylindrical slider joint, either the incoming or outgoing vector must be

normal to the sliding plane and end at the center of the cylinder.

2. For joints having a sliding plane (planar, cylindrical slider or edge slider), either

the incoming or outgoing vector must lie in the sliding plane.

3. For cylindrical joints (parallel cylinders in contact), the path through the joint

must start at the center of one cylinder and end at the center of the mating

cylinder, passing through the contact point.

IV. Rules for Open Loop Creation

1. The loop must pass through at least 2 parts and 1 joint

2. A single loop may not start and end at the same point.

3. There must be a minimum of one open loop for every design specification.

161

from

Datum 1

from

Datum 1

Datum 2

Datum 2

Edge Slider

Datum 1

Datum 2

Planar

Datum 1

R1

R1

R2

Datum 2

Parallel Cylinders

Cylindrical Slider

Figure A-1: Vector loop joint requirements

162

Mastering, or even becoming familiar with FEA requires lots of practice. Even

when proficiency is obtained in one type of analysis application, new skills and tools may

be required for other analysis cases. This section in the appendix is dedicated to

modeling issues and suggestions intended to help the reader better understand the

intricacies of modeling in FEA for application in FASTA. Topics discussed include:

limiting degrees of freedom, node locating using hardpoints, mesh accuracy,

bookkeeping, file conversion from CAD, and automation using batch files.

In FEA, stiffness matrix size is a significant factor in the computational time

required to obtain a solution. Without paying attention to this fact it is easy to create a

model that needlessly uses valuable analysis time. An example of how easily stiffness

matrix size can get out of hand may be illustrated using a 10 inch square plate. If square

elements with a 1 inch edge-length are used to mesh the plate, then there are a total of 11

nodes along each edge and a total of 121 nodes on the surface (Figure B-1).

163

10

1

1

10

With displacement in all 6 degrees of freedom under consideration at each node, the total

number of DOF for the plate is 6 121 or 721. This means that the stiffness matrix for

this case has 721 rows and 721 columns to make a total of 527,076 matrix elements. If

the element size is reduced to 0.5 inches then there are a total of 441 nodes, 2646 total

DOF and 7,001,316 matrix elements. Even fast computer processors take a while to

perform operations on such large matrices.

Another way to significantly reduce stiffness matrix size and computation time in

FEA is to limit the number of degrees of freedom considered in the analysis. A typical

3D element allows up to six degrees of freedom at each node (illustrated in Figure B-2).

Ty

Ry

Rz

Tx

Rx

Tz

For the relatively small deflections seen in FASTA, many of these degrees of freedom

have negligible displacement and can be omitted. For the example assembly only the y164

direction was considered, reducing the total number of degrees of freedom per part to 5.

As is always true when making simplifying assumptions, care should be taken to verify

that the omitted DOF are truly negligible in the analysis being done.

As discussed in Chapter 5, it is important that nodes are places at each of the

fastening points under consideration in FASTA. However, as part complexity increases

so does the difficulty of manually controlling node location. The solution to this

challenge is the use of hard points, set locations where automated meshing is required to

place a node. In ANSYS, hard points can be easily placed on a surface using global

coordinates. With the use of hard points, however, automated meshing is limited to a free

mesh.

As suggested by its name, finite element analysis simplifies the analysis of parts

under complex loading conditions by dividing the problem into discrete portions, called

elements, which can be solved more easily. The accuracy of the analysis is then

dependant upon how finely divide or meshed the part is. However, more element

divisions also results in greater computational time, and a point of limiting returns is

often reached. In order to achieve the desired analysis accuracy with the minimum

amount of time, it is important to plan part meshing accordingly. For example, locations

of stress risers, such as holes and fillets in a structure, are more critical for stress concerns

and thus should be more finely meshed than surrounding areas. A simple way to check if

the mesh density is sufficient for the analysis being done is to solve the load case, then

165

double the double the number of elements and repeat the analysis. If the results for both

cases are nearly identical, then the original mesh density was probably sufficient.

ANSYS has many tools for automating mesh refining, whether for a whole part or just a

particular area. For more information on this topic, see the ANSYS users manuals.

Bookkeeping

One of the challenges in using data output from finite element analysis is keeping

track of the node numbers and their corresponding part locations. When using reduced

stiffness matrices output from commercial FEA software, it is important to make sure that

subsequent operations apply loading conditions to the correct nodes within each matrix.

For example, stiffness matrices output from ANSYS using sub-structuring methods (see

appendix C), order the matrix indices by ascending node number rather than by location.

For this reason, bookkeeping becomes extremely important when trying to keep track of

node locations in FASTA analysis. Some suggestions for good bookkeeping strategies

include: using tables, figures, and taking care when sorting data externally from the FEA

model. As careful bookkeeping is practiced, mistakes and analysis errors will be much

more easily avoided.

Though much improved over the years, cross-package data transfer between CAD

systems and analysis software is nowhere near perfect. Problems that can occur in data

transfer from CAD to FEA software include: discontinuities and connectivitybreakdowns between geometry. Many FEA packages, including ANSYS, contain

software routines that search out and fix such errors, though not always perfectly. If

166

geometry simply cannot be transferred from a CAD file into FEA software, a separate

FEA model may need to be constructed.

Many sophisticated FEA software packages have the ability to read in specific

coding languages for analysis automation. In ANSYS such files are called batch files,

and are generally appropriate only for simple geometry. The possibility of automating

the sub-structuring process using batch files is worth looking into when parametric

models are required for repeated analysis. For more information on the use of batch files,

see the ANSYS tutorials and users manuals.

167

168

Introduction

As discussed in Chapter 5, sub-structuring analysis in ANSYS provides an

automated means for obtaining reduced stiffness matrices of flexible parts with complex

geometry. In this section of the appendix, a step-by-step tutorial is given for performing

this analysis in ANSYS version 5.7 on a UNIX machine. Each step is briefly discussed

and includes a graphical menu path sequence if applicable.

Step 1: Create and mesh part geometry

In order to perform sub-structuring analysis, a part model must first be created

and meshed. Care should be taken to place nodes at the boundary locations to be

used for the reduced matrix analysis. For FASTA application, these boundary

nodes should correspond to fastening point locations at the gap being analyzed.

Step 2: Specify the analysis type

Once the model has been created, sub-structuring analysis is selected using the

following menu path:

Solution>New Analysis>Substructuring>OK

Step 3: Select option to print stiffness matrix

In order to output the stiffness matrix, the default must first be changed.

169

Solution>Analysis Options

With the sub-structuring analysis options window open, enter a file name to be

assigned to the super-element matrix file. Make sure that the matrix to be

generated is: Stiffness, and select the items to be printed as: LoadVect+Matrix.

Then hit OK.

Step 4: Choose master nodes and master dofs

In order to create the super-element matrix, the boundary nodes must be chose. In

ANSYS these are called master nodes. Follow the menu path below and choose

the master nodes either graphically or by number.

Solution>Master DOFs>Define>select master nodes>OK

Once the master nodes are chosen, the model can be further reduced by limiting

the degrees of freedom included in the stiffness matrix. Select the desired DOFs

and hit OK.

Step 5: Apply desired boundary conditions

If desired, boundary constraints can be applied to the model at this time. Keep in

mind that any constraints at master nodes will override the selected degree of

freedom, and will not be output in the stiffness matrix.

Step 6: Solve the current load system

With master degrees of freedom defined, the system can be solved.

Solution>solve current LS>OK

Step 7: Retrieve the stiffness matrix output

170

Once the analysis is complete, the matrix output can be retrieved from the superelement matrix file created. This is done using the top pull-down control menu

with the following selections:

List>Other>Superelem>Data

A window entitled List Superelement Data appears. In the box labeled: Name

or no. of superelem, enter the file name chosen in step 3 to represent the matrix.

Under data to be listed, select Full contents, and hit OK. A window now appears

that include information about the super-element, as well as the stiffness matrix.

The stiffness matrix is listed by row, and is read from left to right at each line.

Above first row of the stiffness matrix, a list of the master node numbers and

corresponding degrees of freedom is given in numerical order. This is also the

organizational order of the stiffness matrix, the first node corresponding to the

first row and column, and so on. This is an important bookkeeping tool, and

should be saved. The file can be saved using File>Save As>etc., and then parsed

by hand or using a simple C-program. The reduced part stiffness matrix can now

be used for further steps in the FASTA process.

171

172

REFERENCES

ASME, 1994, Dimensioning and Tolerancing, ANSI Y14.5M-1994, ASME, New

York, NY.

Bihlmaier, B., 1999, Tolerance Analysis of Flexible Assemblies Using Finite Element and

Spectral Analysis, M.S. Thesis, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah.

Chang, M., Gossard, D.C., 1997, Modeling the Assembly of Compliant, Non-ideal

parts, Computer-Aided Design, Vol. 29, No. 10, pp. 701-708.

Chase, K.W., Gao, J., Magleby, S.P., Sorensen, C.D., 1996, Including Geometric

Feature Variations in Tolerance Analysis of Mechanical Assemblies, IIE Transactions

(Institue of Industrial Engineers), Vol. 28, No. 10, Oct. 1996, pp.795-807.

Chase, K.W., Magleby, S. P., Gao, J., 1997, "Tolerance Analysis of 2-D and 3-D

Mechanical Assemblies with Small Kinematic Adjustments," Advanced Tolerancing

Techniques, JohnWiley.

173

Tolerance Analysis to the Design of Mechanical Assemblies, Research in Engineering

Design, 3:23-37.

Crisfield, M.A., 1986, Finite Elements and Solution Procedures of Structural Analysis,

Swansea, UK: Pineridge Press Limited.

Gao, J., Chase, K.W., Magleby, S.P., 1998a, Global Coordinate Method for Determining

Sensitivity in Assembly Tolerance Analysis, Proceedings of the ASME International

mechanical Engineering Conference and Exposition, Anaheim, California.

Gao, J., Chase, K.W., Magleby, S.P., 1998b, Generalized 3-D Tolerance Analysis of

Mechanical Assemblies with Small Kinematic Adjustments, IIE Transactions (Institue

of Industrial Engineers), Vol. 30, No. 4, April 1998, pp.367-377.

Hockmuth, R., Meerkamm, H., Schweiger, W., 1998, An Approach to a General View

on Tolerances in Mechanical Engineering, 2nd International Workshop on Integrated

Product Development IPD 98; Magdeburg, pp. 65 - 76.

Hu, M., Lin, Z., Lai, X., Ni, J., 2001, Simulation and Analysis of Assembly Processes

Considering Compliant, Non-ideal Parts and Tooling Variation, International Journal of

Machine Tools and Manufacture, Vol. 41, No. 15, pp. 2233-2243.

174

Johnson, R.A., Wichern, D.W., 1988, Applied Multivariate Statistical Analysis, Prentice

Hall: New Jersey.

Liu, S.C., Hu, S.J., 1995, An Offset Finite Element Model and its Application in

Predicting Sheet Metal Assembly Variation, Intl. Journal of Machine Tools and

Manufacture, Vol. 35, No.11, pp. 1545-1557.

Liu, S.C., Hu, S.J., Woo, T.C., 1996, Tolerance Analysis for Sheet Metal Assembly,

Journal of Mechanical Design, Transactions of the ASME, Vol. 118, pp. 62-67.

Liu, S.C., Hu, S.J., 1997, Variation Simulation for Deformable Sheet Metal Assemblies

Using Finite Element Methods, Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering,

Transactions of the ASME, Vol. 119, pp. 368-374.

Merkley, K., Chase, K.W., Perry, E., 1996, An Introduction to Tolerance Analysis of

Flexible Systems, MSC World Users Conference.

Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah.

Narahari, Y., Sudarsan, R., Lious, K.W., Duffey, M.R., Sriram, R.D., 1999, Design for

Tolerance of Electro-Mechanical Assemblies: An Integrated Approach, IEEE

Transactions on Robotics and Automation, Vol. 15, No. 6, pp. 10662-1079.

175

Proceedings of DETC98: 1998 ASME Design Engineering Technical Conference,

Atlanta, GA., 7 pages.

Sellem, E., Rivire, A., De Hillerin, C.A., Clement, A., 1999, Validation of the

Tolerance Analysis of Compliant Assemblies, Proceedings of DETC99: 1999 ASME

Design Engineering Technical Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada, 6 pages.

Shiu, B.W., Ceglarek, D., Shi, J., 1997, Flexible Beam-Based Modeling of Sheet metal

Assembly for Dimensional Control, Transactions of NAMRI/SME, Vol. 25, pp. 49-54.

Soman, S., 1999, Functional Surface Characterization for Tolerance Analysis of Flexible

Assemblies, M.S. Thesis, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah.

Stout, J., 2000, Geometric Covariance in Compliant Assembly Tolerance Analysis, M.S.

Thesis, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah.

Assemblies, M.S. Thesis, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah.

Tonks, M., 2002, A Robust Geometric Covariance Method for Flexible Assembly

Tolerance Analysis, M.S. Thesis, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah.

176

- Introduction to FEMUploaded byJBBAR
- Syllabus Ansys Workbench Training ChandigarhUploaded bySivaraman
- TransformatorUploaded byConstantin Dorinel
- Basics Tutorials 1Uploaded bychrajnaag
- Many Physical Phenomena in Engineering and Science Can Be Described in Terms of Partial DifferentialUploaded byAbhishek Arora
- Finite Element AnUploaded byShreeshaBharadwaj
- h Method and p MethodUploaded byGurwinder Singh
- Cama Lab ReportUploaded byManjunatha Babu N.s
- Finite Element Method Magnetics_ FEMM 4Uploaded byAnggit Tetuko
- 978-1-58503-581-6_tocUploaded by121ads.com
- Answers to Questionaires Big Foot Bio Dennis Chen Sr System EngineerUploaded byDennis Chen
- Problem SolvingUploaded byelmer cueto
- Lecture Plan - FEAUploaded byHari Prakash
- Continuous Modelling in MetrologyUploaded byKazuto Kawakita
- Extended Finite Element Modeling Basic Review and ProgrammingUploaded bynargissuhail
- ID3_717_2007_e.pdfUploaded byAlejandro Rozo Onofre
- JAN MAY 2014 Course VersionUploaded bykaushikv88
- MED28Uploaded bymaheshgc2007
- FEM Zabaras Cornell University StrongAndWeakProblems1DUploaded byDr. Ir. R. Didin Kusdian, MT.
- hw feb 20-24Uploaded byapi-325782732
- Super ElementosUploaded byAlberto Ezequiel León Tamayo
- Lamp IranUploaded byEster Yohanna
- Time and Work Problems Part 1Uploaded byDhruv Paul
- Introduction to AcousticsUploaded byncharala
- Error PropagationUploaded byRaghuRam
- Yeongbin Ko DoctorUploaded byYongzhen Mi
- Heat Generated in Polymer InsulatorUploaded byiprao
- Flat Plate AnalysisUploaded byVikram Mangalore
- i-ready multiply whole numbersUploaded byapi-285142201
- rr0509Uploaded byThanigai Vel

- Ansys Max WellUploaded bychetan_harsha_1
- Lorem IpsumUploaded bychetan_harsha_1
- Expedition PCB设计流程 919Uploaded bychetan_harsha_1
- Project 4 Navigator ReportUploaded bychetan_harsha_1
- Ceramic Glazed TilesUploaded bysonepurraj
- Electric Vehicle for Traction MotorsUploaded bychetan_harsha_1
- Ticket - AbibusUploaded bychetan_harsha_1
- Fee AbstractUploaded byChirag Ahuja
- Sae Paper on ElectricmotordriveUploaded bychetan_harsha_1
- tubing design in catiaUploaded bychetan_harsha_1
- REH984b_06aUploaded bychetan_harsha_1
- 02 Basics of VehicleDynamics Race Lr 3Uploaded byrajdrkl
- Application Form Summer Research Internship-1Uploaded bychetan_harsha_1

- Oceans Past News No2 Nov2016Uploaded byRichard Breen
- Samantha Alderton RésuméUploaded bySam Alderton
- Oplan LambatUploaded byferosiac
- Quick Technology Intelligence ProcessesUploaded byBobby Wong
- Targeting the Poor Evidence From a Field Experiment in Indonesia - Alatas Et Al 2012Uploaded bydharendra
- Writing Strategies - Adapted From the Act of WritingUploaded byD_de_L
- An Investigation of English Language Needs of the First Year Pre-Medical Students at the University of Sebha, LibyaUploaded byIJ-ELTS
- Linda M. Scott(Editor), Rajeev Batra(Editor)-Persuasive Imagery_ A Consumer Response Perspective (Advertising and Consumer Psychology Series _ A series sponsored by the Society f)-Routledge (2003).pdfUploaded byCarlos Alberto
- Baeza Et Al 2012 Mithrax AllometryUploaded byErick Tristão
- downsyndromebibUploaded byapi-302192077
- BJMC 4 Project!Uploaded byAmbika Chandra
- Probability and Statistical Inference, 9ed (Odd Ans)Uploaded bycontributer
- GB AgitationUploaded bymichal_lysy
- Penda Hulu AnUploaded bynurrahmi
- Does Consideration of Future Consequences Moderate the RelationshipUploaded byKikyWulanDharie
- ATQ PotentiometryUploaded bynarras11
- Electrofishing GuidelinesUploaded byjlarumbet
- US-Electives-Arsalan-Siddiqui.ppsxUploaded byNosheen Hafeez
- COMM4_VerderberSellnow_Ch06Uploaded bysmk1983
- The S-CurveUploaded byAmit Sinha
- 09-12.pdfUploaded byMuhammad Sualeh Khattak
- 370-385Uploaded byYeelin Goh
- 243720904-Chapter-10-One-Sample-Tests-of-Hypothesis.pptUploaded byMradul Yadav
- INTEGRITY NDT POWER PLANT PRESENTATION.pdfUploaded bygorkembayten
- THEIS 2Uploaded byZeus Chio
- 2017AVIATION2017_FINALv2_lowResUploaded byBogdan Profir
- Course Handbook and Syllabus - Strategy for Sustainability - Unitec BSNS 7340Uploaded byPeter J MELLALIEU
- Psychological Science 2006 Willis 592 8Uploaded bydidier
- Updating of Working Memory in Ecstasy Polydrug Users_Findings From FNIRSUploaded byTymon Blaksell
- Public Participation in EIAUploaded byAnonymous 32cipq5xA