International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 45 (2005) 1124–1131 www.elsevier.


Generation of manufacturing tolerancing with ISO standards
Bernard Anselmetti*, Hassen Louati
´ e, IUT de Cachan ENS Cachan, 61, avenue du Pre ´ sident Wilson, Laboratoire Universitaire de Recherche en Production Automatise 94235 Cachan Cedex, France Received 19 November 2004; accepted 6 January 2005 Available online 22 February 2005

Abstract Current developments in tolerancing with ISO standards for the purpose of defining parts now call for new methods to analyze these threedimensional specifications and to generate manufacturing specifications with ISO standards. In this pursuit, the proposed method has been based on a graphical representation of part features, process plans and functional requirements defined with an ISO standard that includes datum reference frames. A simple iterative procedure determines the ISO specifications of each phase according to the workpiece set-up. This algorithm uses a vectorial representation of the tolerance zone that corresponds to degrees of freedom imposed by each set-up surface. The presentation is limited to the machining process alone. An application on a 3D milling machine will also be displayed. q 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Manufacturing specifications; Process deviations; ISO representation of dimensioning; Process planning; Small displacement torsor

1. Manufacturing tolerancing 1.1. Introduction In current industrial processes, definition drawing is imposed by the designer. The process planner selects the process plan according to the available machine tools and functional requirement values. Machined surfaces, partholders and set-up are all defined for each phase. Manufacturing drawings are generated in order to define both the shape of workpieces after each machining phase and the geometrical characteristics to be respected during production. New ISO tolerancing standards have yielded sizable improvements in the accuracy used to describe functional requirements with a three-dimensional approach. Location and orientation zones, datum reference frame, maximum material requirements are all new concepts. Metrology methods are now well adapted for identifying the compliance of machined workpieces with ISO
* Corresponding author. Address: Laboratoire Universitaire de ´ e, IUT de Cachan ENS Cachan, 61, Recherche en Production Automatise ´ sident Wilson, 94235 Cachan Cedex, France. Tel.: C33 147 avenue du Pre 402 971; fax: C33 147 492 220. E-mail addresses: (B. Anselmetti), (H. Louati). 0890-6955/$ - see front matter q 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ijmachtools.2005.01.001

specifications. Today’s industrial planners are in need of tools for generating manufacturing specifications on the basis of functional requirements backed by ISO standards. This activity generally contains the three following steps: † Machining simulation: prediction of geometrical variations in the finished parts, according to both machining and set-up errors; † Workpiece geometry specifications: workpiece, in both its raw state and after each phase, using ISO language; † Optimization: adjustment of nominal dimensions and optimization of manufacturing tolerances, according to machining capabilities in order to reduce manufacturing costs. This paper’s contribution lies at the second step by virtue of offering a new method for determining manufacturing specifications with ISO standards. 1.2. Objectives The manufacturing tolerancing objective is to control workpiece shapes and dimensions during the machining process. Manufacturing specifications must be derived from functional specifications for each machining phase.

hence it is necessary that the specification lays out the relative position of machined surfaces with respect to set-up surfaces in the particular phase. toleranced surfaces and specifications for every manufacturing specification. Three types of transfers can be differentiated: † The reference frame corresponding to the fixturing surfaces has been based on the initial requirement.) [8. Specification transfer with a datum reference frame.B. Legoff [4] proposed an experimental approach to quantifying machining variations as torsors. Machining tolerance intervals must remain as broad as possible in order to facilitate operator work and reduce machining costs. † The reference has been generated by transferring onto the fixturing surfaces. The small displacement torsor (SDT). other directions (e. H. Presentation of the transfer tables 2. Many other research approaches use the SDT for simulation. transformation. Fig. This transfer operation consists of sharing the tolerance of the studied requirement in order to allocate a manufacturing tolerance to each adjuster. The definition drawing of a part provides a set of This method requires three simulation tables (Fig. the reference frame is duplicated in the manufacturing specification. U. Three-dimensional approaches The unidirectional approach [1] has now become widespread within industry. In the work presented herein. this adjuster must control production. 1. The simulation methods mentioned above are applicable in calculating the resultant manufacturing specifications for each one of the functional requirements. 1. The first table identifies the machined part geometry: – Direction line: this line serves to define the main part directions: X. is able to simulate the three-dimensional influence of fixturing and machining errors on the geometry of the finished part. no reference is to be made in the corresponding specification. V) . This approach guides the planner in choosing manufacturing specifications. etc. with the orientation and location specifications and datum reference frame. Three-dimensional manufacturing transfer methods 2. Y. 1).g. The proposed set of transfer rules defines reference surfaces. regardless of preceding or following machining. the rules impose the localization and orientation of manufactured surfaces in relation to a datum reference frame defined on the set-up surfaces. projection. Anselmetti. defined in accordance with ISO tolerancing standards. Anselmetti [11] introduced the transfer principle that will be detailed in Section 2.3. process plan and the part-holder are known. Every functional and production requirement must be transferred into machining specifications. In case of transfer.1.9] have been proposed to analyze manufacturing tolerances. New constraints can then be added to the equation system to give relations between torsor components and the shape and dimension of the tolerance zone. in order to accurately obtain deviation on the finished part. This approach uses a vectorial representation of the tolerance zone. if necessary. along with 3D modeling of the geometric defects of part surfaces: Tichadou [6] considered each manufacturing set-up as a mechanism and proposed a chart representation using industrial CAD–CAM system functionality. † The manufacturing surfaces lie between two surfaces machined within the phase. Vignat and Villeneuve [5] detected the influential deviations of each phase using equations that yielded the sums of all geometrical deviations. a simple algorithm will directly provide a complete set of manufacturing specifications in compliance with ISO standards. Benea [7] used virtual metrology to verify that the manufacturing process respected the ISO specifications of the definition drawing. A bi-directional approach [2] may be applied in Numerical Control machining yet does not take into account the effects of angular deviations in the workpiece set-up. Thomas Raulin has been working in this direction and proposes a methodology with the support of a graph-based representation [12]. Kinematic models and robotic parameterization are applied to simulate either the possible motion of the tolerance zone or that allowed by MMC and LMC modifiers [10]. Transfer principle The definition drawing. Other mathematical tools (Jacobian matrix.4 (Fig. Louati / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 45 (2005) 1124–1131 1125 The machining adjuster must respect all manufacturing tolerances. 2. a new reference frame is then built upon these surface set-ups. 2). Z and. developed by Pierre Bourdet [3]. functional requirements. in turn.2. Complementary requirements may also be imposed by the production process.

– Tolerance interval (tol): represents the tolerance interval of the requirement (or the mini/maxi for unilateral tolerance). Under the studied requirement. etc. secondary and tertiary ISO representation references of the studied requirement. secondary and tertiary fixturing surfaces. – In the raw part row.). – Datum (Dat): datum reference frame of either the studied requirement or the manufacturing specification. A datum axis is represented by a cross in a circle. On the right side.2 t1 t2 t3 t4 t5 7 ABD FGH 30 A I IG 20 10 3 dx px 3 px rz 2 2 oz 1 1 4 19 15 10 7 px oz oz 1 oz oz 1 rz 1 oz oz rz 10 3 dx dx 2 rz 1 oz IGH Raw rz Fig.3. The numbers 1. 3) to indicate the primary. including cylinder axes and median slot planes – Datum: name or reference surfaces used in the definition drawing – Fixturing surface line: marks ascribed to the fixturing surfaces. – In each machining phase row. as follows: – – – – A toleranced surface is represented by an arrow. adjacent to the preponderance order (1. The third table depicts the transfer for every requirement.1126 B. – A point represents a reference defined on this fixture surface within the phase. Manufacturing transfer tables. respectively. manufacturing specifications are determined step by step using the algorithm presented in Section 2. a cross denotes manufactured surfaces within this phase. 2. Anselmetti. the first row describes the studied requirement. – An arrow represents a toleranced surface. machined and finished surfaces. in order of primary. A datum surface is represented by a triangle. respectively. 2. – Phase (Pha) (not used if the studied requirement is a functional requirement): number of the phase that has imposed the production requirement (first row) or name of the phase for a particular manufacturing specification (subsequent rows). The second table describes the process plan. – Specified surface (Spe): toleranced surface mark of either the studied requirement or the manufacturing specification. parallelism. the target datum created directly on fixturing points or with the restricted zones . 12 30 0. – Symbol (symb): lists the specification symbol (location. The first row describes the requirement and each subsequent row describes a manufacturing specification. H.2. – A triangle represents the fixturing reference feature identical to the reference of the studied requirement. secondary. Louati / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 45 (2005) 1124–1131 Table n˚ 1 Marks Direction Fixturing surfaces Datums Surface mark Raw Phase 10 Phase 20 X H C 1 2 3 D 4 5 6 7 8 9 G B Y A 12 13 14 15 16 Z I F 17 18 19 20 10 11 Table n˚2 Process planning 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 Table n˚ 3 Transfer N˚ symb Dim Phase 30 Tol Spe Dat Pha. – Dimension (Dim): displays the nominal dimension corresponding to the specification. 2 and 3 indicate the preponderance order in the frame for the primary. – Surface marks line: marks identifying all raw. The left side of the table contains the following columns: – Number (Nbr): indicates the mark of the studied requirement.e. a cross identifies a surface of this raw workpiece. i. with one row devoted to the raw part and one to each machining phase. A point denotes a fixturing surface. tertiary.

The proposed indicator defines the available degrees of freedom. while r u Fig. Vectorial representation of tolerance zones.B. H. Louati / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 45 (2005) 1124–1131 1127 limited to those surfaces in contact with the machining fixture.3. secondary and tertiary datum. delete useless tertiary and secondary datum. 2. in complement with datum reference frames and target datum.3. A plane. the function of every reference frame datum is characterized by a vectorial indicator. Ou ~. For curved surfaces. respectively.1. which includes the form. 3. The vector shows the direction of the tolerance zone. – Numbers 1.3. For example. . 2 and 3 indicate the preponderance order of the primary. – A white circle represents a fixture surface of the raw part. a vectorial indicator characterizes the tolerance zone and reference function (Section 3. 3. plane or axis orientation around all directions normal to u ~ only imposes one orientation around u ~. to this plane and normal to u When placed near indicators. Rules of vectorial indicator assignment on the studied requirement The studied requirement consists of either a position or orientation specification in relation to a datum reference frame. Vectorial indicator of tolerance zones 2. has been computerized. Next. A cylinder axis or point could be within this zone.2. The toleranced feature is initially characterized directly by means of a vectorial indicator as in Fig. which belongs to this plane. it is necessary to determine if a datum is able to locate or orientate the tolerance zone. the arrows represent degrees of freedom (translation and rotation). A complex algorithm. 3 displays the corresponding graphic representation of the specification for each vectorial tolerance zone indicator. Definition Manufacturing specifications must be developed using the three-dimensional approach. orientation and position tolerances. To the extent possible. This tolerance zone can be freely displaced in order to adjust it onto the real surface. which leave the tolerance zone invariant. The code cu describes a tolerance zone defined by a cylinder of direction ~ . ~ describes a tolerance zone defined between The code pu ~ direction. Along these lines. – Under both toleranced surfaces and datum surfaces. the orientation of a plane around ~ . Similar tables have also been built for each one of the other studied requirements. a vectorial representation of tolerance zones has been proposed in Fig. provided this datum is of no utility in defining the tolerance zone with respect to the datum reference frame.2). corresponding to the joint of the workpiece in the partholder (two associated surfaces in the common zone for defining a common datum are assigned the same number). a letter indicates both the shape of the zone and the accepted number of degrees of freedom with respect to the corresponding nominal surface. 3. a two parallel planes normal to the u ~ cylinder axis or a point may lie in this zone. based on geometrical tests. ‘s’ u ~ imposes a defines a spherical zone for a given point. Fig. According to this approach. 2. as follows: † Delete useless tertiary datum of the reference frame. the tolerance zone is defined by the envelope of a sphere whose diameter is equal to the tolerance exhibited at the nominal surface. nonetheless. a convenient method is available for the process planner to establish these properties. by indicator r u ~ would vector u require parallelism of this plane to a line D both belonging ~. Anselmetti.

– The vectorial indicator must be determined for every datum surface of this new manufacturing specification by applying the set of rules proposed in Section 2. 2. The vectorial indicator of surface i and Fig. Fig.2.4. it is necessary to determine both the vectorial indicator and number of the phase within which it had been completed. the vectorial indicator is placed near both the toleranced feature and useful datum surfaces of the studied requirement (Table 1). and then by removing the i machined surface and adding useful datum surfaces into the manufacturing specification along with their vectorial indicators. cylinder and point) and the reference function (position or orientation). Cases of direct specification If all surfaces of the requirement are active during the same phase. could be a plane tangent to the actual surface. 3 provide the symbol and shape of the tolerance zone. the complementary system in two directions (ou ~ ). .1128 B. Anselmetti. the fixture surfaces in contact with the partholder are limited to one. The determination of manufacturing specifications requires an iterative procedure. 2. Louati / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 45 (2005) 1124–1131 Table 3 Surfaces after the second transfer Set D(4) 30 p~ x B(10) 10 r~ z A(15) 10 o~ z Surface number Phase number Indicator E2 7 Raw p~ x B(10) 10 r~ z A(15) 10 o~ z H(1) Raw p~ x G(8) Raw r~ z Table 1 Surfaces of the studied requirement Set Surface number Phase number Indicator E0 7 Raw p~ x † Place all usable theoretical dimensions between the toleranced feature and datum surfaces. perpendicularity or parallelism). The datum reference frame must thus be reduced to just those truly useful surfaces for purposes of this specification. In this work. the corresponding reference constitutes a target datum. This vectorial indicator has been defined according to the type of datum surface (plane. An arrow marks the toleranced surface while points indicate the useful datum surfaces.3. the manufacturing specification is then direct and identical to the requirement. – This first machining specification can be represented on a new row placed under the studied requirement.2. angularity. The symbol of the tolerance frame may be made more explicit depending on the relative position of both the toleranced feature and references (e. For each surface of E0.4. In machining. 2. the new set E1 is built starting from set E0. 3.4. H. both cylinders must be associated in order to yield one orientating datum. Such a datum. by use of Fig. machined surfaces and set-up surfaces are both considered active [13]. – To obtain another manufacturing specification. For a position specification. – This specification can be represented on the machining drawing of Phase n.3. 2. Definition of active surfaces Within a given phase. † All other datum surfaces are orientating references. for example. Transfer rules The studied requirement is defined by a set of surfaces called E0 and has been represented on the first row of Table 3. Useless datum must be deleted. as follows: – Let i be the surface machined last during Phase n. The tolerance value is not even known and may possibly be reduced as a result of tolerance optimization. Two complementary rules must also be applied: † Whereas the preponderant datum orientates the reference ~ ).1.4. Surface i must be localized or orientated in relation to the reference frame corresponding to the fixturing surfaces in this same phase. the theoretical dimension must be placed between the toleranced surface and the datum surfaces. 2) by either a cross or a point on the row corresponding to this phase.4.4. This iterative procedure gets repeatedly applied until all surfaces of set Ek are active within the same phase.g. Transfer rules 2. the active surfaces of a given phase are identified in the process plan (Table 2. In the third table of Fig. These selected datum surfaces serve as positioning references in this direction or in many directions. two or three small surfaces. Table 2 Surfaces after the first transfer Set Surface number Phase number Indicator E1 7 Raw p~ x B(10) 10 r~ z A(15) 10 o~ z H(1) Raw p~ x G(8) Raw r~ z F(19) 20 To ~ z 2. reference only orientates around one axis (generally r u † In datum reference systems that include two parallel cylinders. Difference between target datum and a simple datum The functional requirements are defined in ISO tolerancing standards with a simple datum. The requirement is duplicated as a manufacturing specification within this phase. thereby providing a direct specification.

. It then follows that there are two distinct levels of depth for applying transfer rules: – Both simple datum and target datum are considered to be identical.2. According to Fig. defined by two planes 0. 4 for example. 3. H. In this set. 6 depicts the shapes of workpieces after each phase and set-up.B. including reference surfaces. The Plane 7 indicator is p~ x . Determination of machining specifications The studied requirement is the localization of Plane 7 in relation to a datum reference frame composed of the primary datum A(15). Part and process planning definition The proposed procedure is applied to a jaw of a NC-lathe chunk machined on a three-axis milling machine. 5). The toleranced plane (7) must lie in a zone at a distance of 30 mm from D. The example from Section 3 neglects the deviation between datum. Application example 3. in neglecting form and orientation deviations. We therefore assign it the vectorial indicator o~ z . Fig. in taking into account the flatness of the primary plane or the perpendicularity of a secondary plane. in addition to eliminating rotations around ~ x and ~ y . 5. Anselmetti. and then the process plan encompasses both the surface marks and reference names (Fig. Gap between various datum surfaces. Definition drawing of a jaw.2 mm apart. In Fig. which generates more complex transfers. the datum A used for this functional parallelism is very different from the datum C being displayed by the simple datum B and different from the datum E being displayed by the target datum D. Fig. A gap consequently exists between the simple datum of the studied requirement and the target datum used for fixturing. These studied requirements then allow defining the initial table containing the first set of surfaces E0 (Table 1). Louati / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 45 (2005) 1124–1131 1129 Fig. 3. Datum H is used for inserting the theoretical dimension 3. 4. this cylinder must be located in relation to the fixturing system of Phase 30 F G H. the secondary datum B(10) and the tertiary datum D(4). The iterative transfer procedure must therefore be applied. Datum B orients the tolerance zone around ~ z and receives the indicator r~ z . This type of datum may be different from a simple datum. First of all. with indicator p~ x . the ~ x -axis direction.1. 2 defines the geometry of workpieces. The tertiary reference D locates the zone in the axis direction and is assigned indicator p~ x. Datum A orients both the datum reference frame and the tolerance zone. – Datum surfaces are considered to be different. Cylinder 4 is machined last (Phase 30). the top of Fig. All surfaces of this set E0 are not active within the same phase.

kij a coefficient of influence and Ci the limit of the studied requirement. In order to proceed with the synthesis of tolerances. Surface 19 is deleted. as follows Ri Z X kij tij % Ci where tij is the tolerance of a manufacturing specification. G(8) and H(1) have been included. 6). it is necessary to orientate Surfaces 10 and 15. 6 and in manufacturing drawing Fig.1130 B. Manufacturing specification no. Datum surfaces H and G are not used for this specification. Surface 7 must be located relative to this datum frame (manufacturing specification no. For this last step. In this set E1. exists in set E1 with the same vectorial indicator o~ According to Table 3. with indicator ~ z requiring. Vectorial indicators of these datum surfaces are defined using the set of rules described in Section 2. 3. yet it already z. A(15) must be added. This error is calculated using an Excel solver by applying the concept Table 4 Surfaces of the raw workpiece Set Surface number Phase number Indicator E4 7 Raw p~ x I(20) Raw To ~ z H(1) Raw p~ x G(8) Raw r~ z . 5). the part fixture on a machine tool often induces the most significant source of uncertainty [14–16]. To build set E2. Cylinder 4 has been extracted from E0 and the fixturing surfaces of Phase 30 F(19). between H and Plane 7. The manufacturing specifications obtained for the studied requirement can be represented on manufacturing drawings (Fig. 6. This last table contains datum frame I G H of the preceding manufacturing specification in Phase 10. The distribution of tolerances is optimized according to the capability of machine tools and processes. According to our approach. machined in Phase 10. 2 can be represented both in Fig. Phase 20.3. an orientation specification in relation to the fixturing system of Phase 20 A G H. Anselmetti. we estimate the influence of tool-holder deviations and dispersions for each manufacturing specification defined with ISO standards [17]. H. a series of equations that provide the results of each tolerance chart with 3D influences must be written. Phase 30. Plane 19 is machined last (Phase 20). Manufacturing specification no. 2 and in manufacturing drawing Fig. Distribution of tolerances The method presented herein yields manufacturing specifications for each functional or production requirement. According to indicator p~ x . according to Fig. 4. 1 can be represented both in Fig. Louati / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 45 (2005) 1124–1131 Fig. The datum frame cannot be reduced. 6. in relation to the fixturing system of Phase 20 I G H. Manufacturing drawings. In order to construct the set E1 presented in Table 2. Set E4 only contains surfaces of the raw workpiece (Table 4). 6. the datum frame is thus reduced to the primary fixturing reference A with vectorial indicator o~ z .

39–59. Canada. Mannan. Ghie. De ´ sultante en assemblage. Poo. [15] S. A. Geiskopf. Editions Herme `s [11] B. De Meter. IDMME 2000.N. International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture 40 (9) (2000) 1235–1256. 279–290. E. Bourdet. 14–23. ´ trologie.B. process plan representation. Bourdet. Huang. ´ finition et calcul de la pie ` ce virtuelle [10] L.H. juillet. ` re. Automatise [18] B. 196–207. Canada (1997) pages 137 and 148. Proposed rules must be validated and completed for more complex examples and industrial parts. Cloutier. Villeneuve. P. 2003. Application du torseur des petits de ` l’e ´ tude 3D des tole ´ rances de fabrication: application au ments a ` me process de tournage 8e colloque national—AIP primeca (2003) pp. DEA Production 3D en fraisage 3axes. 2004 IDMME. 2003. Dordecht. This algorithm must now be programmed within an Excel environment in VBA language and then coupled with CATIA V5. F. Tichadou. Benea. Vignat. Anselmetti. International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture 40 (13) (2000) 1951–1975. 5. 1995. Louati / International Journal of Machine Tools & Manufacture 45 (2005) 1124–1131 1131 of small displacement torsor on the boundary points of the toleranced feature. J. 2004. Ramesh. An analysis of the effect of datumestablishment methods on the geometric errors of machined features. [16] V. 2002. The tolerance distribution can then be optimized by introducing manufacturing costs into the solver [18] Cost Z X lij tij where lij is the global machining dispersion for this machining specification. Formalisation d’une me ´ ome ´ trique des e ´ tats interme ´ diaires des pie ` ces fabrique ´ es. Louati. and functional and production requirements. Bhat. Three Dimensional Quantification of Machining Defects. 2004 ´ rances en fabrication [7] R. [4] O. Bath. C. [17] H. Liu. Q. F.A. Ecole Normale Supe ´ rieure de Cachan. cotes. Anselmetti. O. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 2003. Hascoe simulation: compared approaches between integrated CAD/CAM system and /Small Displacement Torsor[ model. 3D Synthesis of Manufacturing Tolerances Using a SDT Approach. A Computational Method for the Consequences of Geometrical Errors in Mechanisms. F. ENS Cachan. P. fe [14] R. Analyse de tole ´ de ´ s et des erreurs machines outils. References ˆnes de cotes de fabrication. cotation de fabrication et me Lavoisier. Process planning geometrical [6] S. [9] F. Fortin. . De ´ minaire Tole ´ rancement et chaı ˆnes de une approche graphique. Desrochers. Bourdet. Villeneuve. ´ termination des intervalles de tole ´ rance en fabrication par [13] D. Me ´ canique Mate ´ riaux en tournage en commande nume ´ (1983) 398. Legoff. F. Electricite [3] E. vol. 238–258. Fortin. chaı de l’enseignement technique (1973) 191. Simulation d’usinage bidimensionnelle sur un exemple ´ rique. Rigorous application of tolerance analysis in setup planning. Error compensation in machine tools—a review: part I: geometric. LURPA. Anselmetti. Bennis. Eighth CIRP International Seminar on Computer Aided Tolerancing. Laperrie Necessary Step for Tolerance Analysis Using the Unified JacobianTorsor Model. Ballot. UK. CD et re Rom. Revue tenant compte des proce internationale de CFAO et d’informatique graphique. C. 2002. Villeneuve. (2003) pp. Elaboration et traitement de la cotation de fabrication en ´ moire de recherche. The range of potential uses for this approach appears to be very broad in assembly. Computers in Industry 21 (1993) 23–24. this paper has proposed a graph that associates machine part definition. Toronto. Vignat. Geometric Product Specification and Verification: Integration of Functionality. H. Pino. Conclusion As a contribution to the future CAD/CAM system. Anselmetti. Biblioge ´ e. A. Kluwer Academic Publisher. F. 185–196. Proceeding of CIRP Computer Aided Tolerancing Fifth Seminar. M. A simple transfer procedure determines the 3D manufacturing specification defined with ISO tolerancing standards. Actes se ´ v. pp. Montre ´ al. W. Legoff. Optimization of a workpiece considering production requirements. C. The machined surfaces are either located or orientated with respect to a datum reference frame that must be reduced whenever possible. Projection of Torsors: a [8] L. 17. [2] B. for example. April 5–7. me ´ e. Eighth CIRP International Seminar on Computer Aided Tolerancing (2003) pp. l’inge ´ nieur et le technicien [1] P. ´ thodologie de spe ´ cification [12] T. ¨ t. Raulin. This method utilizes a vectorial representation of the tolerance zone that describes the surface set-up function within a phase. cutting-force induced and fixturedependent errors. ´ place[5] F. pp. in order to import part geometry. Ecole Normale Supe ´ rgraphie de DEA de Production Automatise ieure de Cachan. Duret.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful