10 views

Uploaded by sagarbolisetti

Concurrent Process Tolerancing Based on
Manufacturing Cost And Quality Loss

save

- Toward an Algorithmic Control Theory
- Datasheet-EN-10029.pdf
- 445867
- olhaes de içamento
- Prospekt VarioRip 310 GBR
- A Review of Mathematical Optimization AP
- 2012 - Weight Minimization of Frames With SGA and PGA
- Capítulo 1 Introducción.pdf
- Article.pdf
- Review Hapsir
- STD3162.pdf
- Assignment 2
- Electronic Companion
- Managerial Decision Analysis On Goal Programming
- or ppt
- optmizacionde un sitema bioquimico por progamacion lineal
- B-19.pdf
- ICRA2014_Mavrogiannis__TaskSpecificGraspSelection_OpenBionics.pdf
- Ou 3425912596
- crt9949
- Button SeismicIsolationandSu
- 01 APC Overview CTS
- Engineering Drawings Introdroduction
- Optimization INE- Midterm Exercises
- optimization_of_spinning_reserve_in_stand-alone_wind-diesel_power_systems
- Bus. Optimization
- A 519-06(2012)
- Transportation Models Lect 2
- algorithm for relay coordination
- Deformation Monitoring
- LIC Syllabus
- oracle-bi-apps-erp-analytics-1401327.pdf
- Becoming a Successful Independent Consultant
- How to Find the Right Simulation Consultant
- BIP Report Integration
- Group i i Services
- R12 Cloud B2B Internal Material Transfer(IMT)
- Oracle package
- Order Management Setups
- Create_Descriptive_Flex_Field_DFF_In_Custom_Form.pdf
- CAD-CAM
- Order_to_Cash_Cycle_III.pdf
- P2P cycle in Oracle
- 12order-to-cash.pdf
- Training Manual GL Setup.pdf
- Sql interview
- muhammadmansoorali-140910133314-phpapp02
- Linear programming
- The Probalance Mixed Model Line Balancing
- RBI 2012 paper
- Enterprise resource planning
- 04 Dynamic Programming
- RBI 2012 paper
- 2010 RBI paper
- Improving simulation
- 2010-Gr-B-DR-Gen-PAPER-I-ENGLISH.pdf
- ProBalance Automative Tutorial PDF 274C3CD27A042
- top100sqlinterviewquestionsandanswers-140924015357-phpapp02
- RBI test paper 2014
- Minimum weight triangulation

Concurrent Process Tolerancing Based on Manufacturing Cost And Quality Loss

M. F. Huang and Y. R. Zhong

1. Introduction In manufacturing practice, actual dimensions are impossible as well as unnecessary to determine exact values. Under stable fabrication conditions, the processed dimensions often vary within certain controlled ranges. Tolerances are specified to control the actual dimensions of processed features within allowable variation zones for product functional requirements and manufacturing costs (Zhang, 1996; Ngoi and Teck, 1997; Lee and Tang, 2000; Fang and Wu, 2000; Huang et al., 2001; Huang and Gao, 2003; Chen et al., 2003). The contemporary practice of tolerance design has two sequential phases: Product tolerance design and process tolerance design (Ngoi and Teck, 1997). In product tolerance design, designers use their knowledge and expertise to determine the assembly critical tolerances by computation or design handbooks. These tolerances will then be allocated to component design tolerances (blueprint tolerances) in terms of component structures, assembly restrictions, and given design criteria. If a mathematical model is used, the objective function is usually to minimize manufacturing costs or to maximize weighted component tolerances. The constraints are often tolerance stack-up and economical tolerance ranges of each component part (Swift et al., 1999; Ngoi and Min, 1999; Ngoi and Ong, 1999; Huang and Gao, 2002). Swift et al (1999) presented a tolerance optimization model in assembly stacks based on capacity design. In their research, systematic analysis for estimating process capability levels at the design stage is used in conjunction with statistical methods for optimization of tolerances in assembly stacks. Ngoi and Min (1999) presented a new approach for optimum tolerance allocation in assembly. Their method allows all blueprint (BP) tolerances to be determined while ensuring that all as-

Open Access Database www.i-techonline.com

Source: Manufacturing the Future, Concepts - Technologies - Visions , ISBN 3-86611-198-3, pp. 908, ARS/plV, Germany, July 2006, Edited by: Kordic, V.; Lazinica, A. & Merdan, M.

521

522

Manufacturing the Future: Concepts, Technologies & Visions

sembly requirements are satisfied. Ngoi and Ong (1999) presented a complete tolerance charting in the assembly phase. Their method integrates product tolerance design and process tolerance design. The objective is to maximize the summation of weighted process tolerances. Huang and Gao (2002) presented a discrete hierarchy optimal approach for allocating the optimum component tolerance based on estimated process capability. They minimize the total manufacturing cost by using a cost-tolerance function. In process tolerance design, manufacturing engineers develop component process planning to determine manufacturing methods, machine tools, fixtures, cutting tools, cutting conditions, manufacturing routines, and process tolerances. At this stage, BP tolerances are the most important factors. If they are too tight and cannot guarantee the economic fabrication for components by using selected process planning, more precise machine tools, special fixtures, and expensive measurements should be introduced (Wu et al., 1998). This inevitably increases the manufacturing cost of the product. The manufacturing engineers may ask for revision of BP tolerances or of the process plan. In process tolerance design, the most popular methods are also the optimal design for minimum manufacturing cost or maximum process tolerances. Huang et al. (2002) presented an optimal planar tolerance design approach to allocate dimensional and orientation geometric tolerances. A special relevance graph (SRG) was used to represent the relationships between manufactured elements and their size and tolerance information. In addition, the SRG is also applied for the geometric dimensions and tolerances. A linear programming model was established to solve the problem. Huang and Gao (2003) presented a nonlinear programming model for optimal process tolerance balancing. A linear programming model to determine process dimensions and process tolerances was used in Ji (1993) and Ngoi and Teck (1993). Similar methods to determine optimum process tolerances were proposed by Wei and Lee (1995) and Chang et al., (2000). Though the above methods have been used successfully to distribute both component design tolerances and process tolerances in two different phases, they over-emphasize manufacturing factors and seldom consider quality aspects. Systematically, product satisfaction conflicts with manufacturing cost. In other words, a better product satisfaction requires smaller tolerances and a higher manufacturing cost. Taguchi quality loss is a useful monetary specification to evaluate the quality factors (Taguchi et al., 1989; Taguchi, 1993; Jeang, 1998). Therefore the best policy is to consolidate manufacturing cost and quality loss in the same optimization objective to best balance quality satisfaction

Concurrent Process Tolerancing Based on Manufacturing Cost and Quality Loss

523

and tolerances (Taguchi, 1993; Huang and Gao, 2002). Using this method, the research work has been carried out in product design and component process planning stages, respectively. Lee and Tang (Lee and Tang, 2000) presented an optimization model for controlling dimensional tolerances of components with multiple functional characteristics by minimizing the sum of manufacturing cost and quality loss. Jeang (1998) introduced a mathematical optimization model to integrate manufacturing cost and quality loss for tolerance charting balancing during machining process planning. Jeang (1997) also discussed a set of models to determine the optimal product tolerance and to minimize combined manufacturing and related costs. Although tolerance assignment in the product design and process planning stages is often interdependent and interactive and affects overall production costs and product satisfaction, research into these areas is often conducted separately (Ngoi and Teck, 1997). There are some inherent shortcomings in this method. Firstly, in product tolerance design, designers are unable to allocate the real optimal BP tolerances to components because there is no manufacturing information available at this stage. Secondly, in process tolerance design, manufacturing engineers develop process planning in terms of the component information obtained from mechanical drawings, technical notes, and others such as title bars. They are less concerned with functional roles of components than with their manufacturing capabilities. This sequential tolerance design method would result in some problems in cooperation, continuity, and consistency between two separate design stages. Therefore, rework or redesign cannot be avoided. Until recently, the concurrent tolerancing method has attracted the attention of some engineers (Zhang, 1996; Ngoi and Teck, 1997; Fang et al., 1998; Fang and Wu, 2000; Huang et al., 2001, Huang and Gao, 2003; Chen et al., 2003). Zhang (1996) first systematically presented mathematical methods for concurrent tolerancing and developed a general model of optimal tolerancing that supports concurrent engineering. Ngoi and Teck (1997) proposed a concurrent tolerancing method for product design in which the assembly tolerance can be allocated to the component design tolerance in an early stage of product design. Fang et al. (1998) proposed a concurrent tolerancing method to determine the optimum process tolerances with manufacturing cost and quality loss being considered simultaneously. But only a single assembly critical tolerance is related. Fang and Wu (2000) proposed a mathematical model to minimize the cost of sum machining. The constraints include assembly functional requirements, machining methods, stock remove tolerances, and economically attain-

the purpose of this paper is to introduce a concurrent optimal tolerancing method to realize this goal. we discuss the methods to present concurrent dimensional and geometrical tolerance chains. and data (references). In section 3. Models for interpretation of geometrical tolerances Geometric tolerances are usually expressed as graphical symbols. profile. The method can allocate required assembly tolerances to process tolerances concurrently. Section 4 further describes integrated concurrent dimensioning and dimensioning. we first derive the quality loss function of multiple correlated critical tolerances in terms of manufacturing tolerances.524 Manufacturing the Future: Concepts. Huang et al. A nonlinear optimization model is then given to minimize the summation of total component manufacturing cost and product quality loss. assembly and process tolerance chains can be generated automatically. Section 2 discusses the models for converting the geometrical tolerances with fixed tolerance zones into equivalent bilateral sized dimensions and tolerances. Here. To implement optimal robust tolerance design from product design stage to manufacturing stage. So far no design method has been presented to directly allocate multiple correlated critical tolerances to their process tolerances in a concurrent design environment. and runout. In order to deal with geometric tolerances in integrated tolerance charts. orientation. Generally geometric tolerances can be classified into five types: individual form. This chapter is divided into the following sections. location. which can contain nominal sizes. Technologies & Visions able accuracies. (2001) proposed a special relative hierarchical hypergraph (SRHG) to represent the assembly. The concluding remarks are given in Section 8. their geometrical characteristics must be addressed first. (2003) proposed a concurrent method to allocate the optimal process tolerances in early product design stages. Therefore. tolerance values. Huang and Gao (2003) and Chen et al. There are fourteen geometric tolerances items altogether but only . In Section 5 we derive the quality loss of multiple correlated critical dimensions in terms of the process tolerances. Finally the optimal processes are obtained by solving the model. a nonlinear optimization model is established to minimize the total manufacturing cost. In Section 6 we develop the optimal tolerance design model. Through use of SRHG. whereas Section 7 examines the implementation for a specific example. 2.

WDi and TWDi is the ith working dimension and tolerance. Profile of a line (surface) Profile of a line (surface) defines a permitted variation zone of a line (surface) relative to the corresponding theoretical geometry. Ngoi & Soew. 1996. These items — profile. Thus it can be treated as equivalent bilateral dimensional tolerance. then this item doesn’t contribute to tolerance stack-up. Ngoi & Tan. When profile of a line (surface) tolerance is used to denote an individual feature. 1999). 1995.Concurrent Process Tolerancing Based on Manufacturing Cost and Quality Loss 525 those items with fixed tolerance zones will directly affect tolerance chains. 1992. Interpretation of profile of a relevant surface R3 0 . Tseng & Kung. Consequently only four geometrical tolerances in the total fourteen can be included in the integrated tolerance chains. and concentricity — can be converted into the equivalent bilateral dimensional tolerances. Thus it can be treated as additional tolerance constraints. Figure 1 is the interpretation of the relevant profile of a surface. symmetry. when profile of a line (surface) tolerance is used to specify a relevant feature.1.05 0. 0. position. The relationship between profile of a line (surface) and their pertinent processed working dimensions and tolerances can be expressed as: GL ± TGL = ∑ i =1 ξiWDi ± TWDi n (1) Where GL and TGL is the nominal dimension the tolerance between the controlled line (surface) and the data (reference).05 R3 0 Means 20 20 A A Figure 1.1 A 0. this item possesses a fixed tolerance zone. The remaining items are treated as additional tolerance constraints (He & Gibson. However. respectively. n is the total number of working dimensions and tolerances. respectively. It can be used to specify the geometrical requirements of an individual and a relevant feature in terms of different graphical notations in mechanical drawing. 2. ξi is the unit vector of WDi.

526 Manufacturing the Future: Concepts.2 M C D C A C 25 Means 25 .2 Position Position tolerance defines the true position of a feature with respect to the references or the data. respectively.2 . WDi and TWDi is the ith working dimension and tolerance. Technologies & Visions 2. respectively.20 Ø0 0. All the pertinent dimensions and tolerances in determining position of the controlled feature with respect to the data will be the link members of the position tolerance. Interpretation of position 2. The transform model between position tolerance and their pertinent processed working dimensions and tolerances is: GP ± TGP = ∑ i =1 ξiWDi ±TWDi n (2) Where GP and TGP is the nominal dimension and position tolerance from the controlled feature to the data. Thus all the pertinent dimensions contribute to the dimension be- 0.2 15 15 15 20 15 D A 20 D Figure 2. Because position tolerance holds a fixed tolerance zone with respect to the data. it can be transformed into equivalent bilateral dimensional tolerance. Ø0.3 Concentricity Concentricity tolerance expresses the requirement that the controlled axis should locate within the given allowable cylinder zone whose axis is the datum axis. In Figure 2 the position tolerance value is specified when the controlled hole is under the maximum material condition. ξi is the unit vector of WDi. Figure 2 is the interpretation of position tolerance. n is the total number of working dimensions and tolerances.

So all the related dimensions contribute to the dimension for determining the location of the controlled feature with respect to the datum will be the link member of this specification. respectively. respectively. Generally. WDi and TWDi is the working dimension and tolerance for the ith link member of GA. or the centre plane of a slot should locate within the given zone with respect to the datum. this dimension is zero. WDi and TWDi is the working dimension for the ith link member of GB. n is the number of link members. respectively. The model for interpretation of symmetry is: GB ± TGB = ∑i=1ξ iWDi ± TWDi n (4) Where GB and TGB is the nominal dimension and symmetry tolerance between the controlled center features with respect to the datum. n is the number of link members. Generally this dimension is zero. ξi is the unit vector of WDi. 2. respectively. Figure 4 gives a simple example for interpretation of symmetry into its equivalent dimensional tolerance specification.4 Symmetry Symmetry tolerance presents the requirement that the controlled centre relevant feature such as the centre line of a hole.Concurrent Process Tolerancing Based on Manufacturing Cost and Quality Loss 527 tween the controlled axis and the datum axis will be the link members of this specification. The model for interpretation of concentricity is: GA ± TGA = ∑i=1ξ iWDi ± TWDi n (3) Where GA and TGA is the nominal dimension and concentricity tolerance between the controlled axis and the datum axis. . ξi is the unit vector of WDi. Figure 3 shows a simple example for interpretation of concentricity into its equivalent bilateral dimensional tolerance.

Technologies & Visions Ø0. Huang and Gao.1 30±0.05 0. Huang et al. let all the required assembly functional dimen- 30±0. 2003.528 Manufacturing the Future: Concepts. Gao and Huang.05 Figure 3..1 C A Ø0.2 A Figure 4.1 B B A 0.1 . 1995.1 A A 30±0.1 18 Means 0. Concurrent dimensional and geometric tolerance chains In a concurrent tolerancing environment one of the most important issues is presentation of the concurrent integrated dimensional and geometric tolerance (DGT) chains.1 0. Interpretation of concentricity 15±0. Chen et al.. Zhang. tolerance design is being executed in two separate sequential stages: BP tolerance design and process tolerance design.05 Means C A 30±0. 2003). Unlike the methods presented by several researchers (Ngoi & Tan. 2002. this paper presents a general methodology for concurrent allocation of the required assembly functional DGTs to the component process ones. 1 A 0.05 C 30±0. In the stage of product design. 1996. 2001. Interpretation of symmetry 3. In a conventional system.

S’AG} = {LAFi ±TAFi / 2. and {LCFj(TCFj). p}. n}. i = n+m+1. …. …. S’CG} = {LCFj ±TCFj/2. …. SAG. and {LAFi(TAFi). j = r+p+1. TAGi is the geometric tolerance of LAGi. j = 1. In a given assembly assume that all the component functional dimensions and tolerances be the set SCD = {LCDj ±TCDj/2. i = 1. The set notation is introduced as SCF = {SCD. …. n}. LCDj is the jth component functional dimension. r}. p+δ}. where p is the number of functional geometric tolerances. m}. n+m. i = 1. LADi is the ith assembly functional dimension. j = r+p+1. i = n+m+1. r+p+δ} corresponds to S’CG = . LCGj(TCGj) is the nominal dimension of TCGj. LAGi is the ith equivalent assembly functional dimension. i = 1. j = p+1. …. TCGj is the jth component functional geometric tolerance. n+m+β} corresponds to S’AG = { LAGi(TAGi). TAGi is the geometric tolerance treated as additional tolerance constraint. For simplicity the set notation is introduced as SAF = {SAD. …. where β is the number of functional geometric tolerances which can be treated as additional tolerance constraints. r+p} corresponds to SCG = {LCGj ±TCGj/2. {LAFi ±TAFi / 2. j = 1. which can be treated as the equivalent bilateral dimensional tolerances of the components. …. n+m+β}. SCG. j = 1. And all the component functional geometric tolerances which can be converted into the equivalent bilateral dimensional tolerances be the set SCG = {LCGj ±TCGj / 2. r+p+δ}. …. where r is the number of functional dimensions and tolerances of all the components. Where {LAFi ±TAFi / 2. TCGj is the jth component functional geometric tolerances which is treated as the additional tolerance constraint. Where {LCFj ±TCFj/2. j = 1. r+p. And all the assembly functional geometric tolerances which can be modeled as additional tolerance constraints be the set S’AG = {LAgi(TAGi)，i = m+1. Also the functional component geometric tolerances which can be treated as the additional tolerance constraints be the set S’CG = {LCGj(TCGj). r} corresponds to SCD = {LCD j ±TCD j/2. …. …. …. n+m} corresponds to SAG = {LAGi ±TAGi / 2. i = 1. m+β}. …. Also all the assembly functional geometric tolerances which can be modeled as equivalent dimensions and tolerances be the set SAG = {LAGi ±TAGi / 2. i = n+1. …. LCFj(TCFj). i = 1. …. i = m+1. j = r+1. …. …. n} corresponds to SAG = {LADi ±TADi / 2. LCGj is the nominal dimension of TCGj. m+β}. j = 1. LAGi (TAGi) is the ith equivalent assembly functional dimension. …. …. j = 1. r}. i = 1. m}. where n is the number of functional dimensions and tolerances. …. p}. …. LAGi(TAGi). …. TCDj is the tolerance of LCDj. {LCF j ±TCF j /2.Concurrent Process Tolerancing Based on Manufacturing Cost and Quality Loss 529 sions and tolerances be the set SAD = {LADi ±TADi / 2. TADi is the tolerance of LADi. where δ is the number of the functional geometric tolerances which can be treated as the additional tolerance constraints of the components. where m is the number of functional geometric tolerances which can be treated as equivalent bilateral dimensional tolerances.

thus u∈[1. 0 ≤ Kij ≤ 1. p+δ}. and the process data do not always coincide with each other. The subscription variable v denotes the sequence number of the operations related to each component. the required functional nominal dimensions of the assembly can be expressed as the related component BP nominal dimensions: LAFi = ∑ α ijξ ij K ij LCFij r+ p j =1 i = 1. the tolerance stack-up is inevitable. …. Assume that there are φ manufactured components in an assembly and the subscription variable u denotes the sequence number of the component. In the stage of process planning. the task of tolerancing. With above dimensional equations. …. TAFi∈SAF. LAFi is an assembly functional dimension.530 Manufacturing the Future: Concepts. j = p+1. TCFij∈SCF. αij = 1. θu]. K ij = ∂LAFi / ∂LCFij is the dimension coefficient of LCFij. LAFi∈SAF. however. is to allocate the obtained component functional BP DGTs to the pertinent process tolerances. fu}. Technologies & Visions {LCGj(TCGj). When the functional component BP dimension LCFij is the link member of dimension LAFi. L . where fu is the number of process dimensions and tolerances of the uth component. n + m (5) where αij is the BP dimension selection coefficient. n + m (6) where TCFij is the tolerance of component functional dimension LCFij. TAFi is the tolerance of the required assembly functional dimension LAFi. Using of the assembly drawing. ξ ij is the unit vector for LCFij. a set of assembly functional DGT inequalities can be derived to represent the relationship between the assembly functional tolerances and the component functional BP tolerances. the measurement data. φ. αij = 0. The general formulation with the worst-case model is: TAFi ≥ ∑ α ij K ijTCFij r+ p j =1 i = 1. LCFij∈SCF. …. Let processing working dimensions and tolerances of the uth component be the set SMD u = {LMD u v ±TMD u v/2. v = 1. Where θu is the total operations of the uth component. otherwise. …. because the design data. Let processing geometric tolerances of the uth component that can be treated as equivalent bilateral dimensional tolerances be the set SMG . L . In most cases. thus v∈[1. φ]. u = 1. ….

…. …. LMG u v(TMG u v) is the process dimension of tolerance TMG u v. the allocation of the component functional BP DGTs to the process DGTs can be formulated by following inequalities with the worstcase model: TCFj ≥ ∑ α uv K uvTCPuv θu v =1 u = 1. Let processing geometric tolerances of the uth component that can be treated as additional processing tolerance constraints be the set S’MG u = {LMG u v(TMG u v). TCFj is the component functional BP DGT corresponds to BP dimension LCFj. where εu is the number of geometric tolerances that can be interpreted as additional processing tolerance constraints related to the uth component.Concurrent Process Tolerancing Based on Manufacturing Cost and Quality Loss u 531 = {LMG u v ±TMG u v / 2. φ. v = fu+gu+1. fu+gu+εu} corresponds to S’MG u = {LMG u v +TMG u v. …. v = fu+1. αuv = 0. TMG u v is the component BP geometric tolerances. gu+εu}. 0 ≤ Kuv ≤ 1. fu} corresponds to SMD u = {LMD u v ±TMD u v / 2. LCFj∈SCF. v = gu+1. …. Using the process planning of each related components. LCPuv is the vth process dimension of the uth component. fu+gu+εu}. K uv = ∂LCFj / ∂LCPuv is the dimension coefficient of LCPuv. otherwise. v = 1. With above equation. {LCP u v ±TCP u v / 2. v = gu+1. …. αuv = 1. Where {LCP u v ±TCP u v / 2. where gu is the number of geometric tolerances that can be interpreted as equivalent bilateral process dimensional tolerances related to the uth component. LCP u v+TCP u v. fu+gu. v = 1. gu+εu}. v = 1. when a process dimension LCPuv is the link member of dimension LCFj. φ. The set notation related to the uth component is introduced as SCP u = {LCP u v±TCP u v / 2. L . u = 1. L . …. ϕ (8) where TCPuv is the vth process DGT specification corresponds to process dimension LCPuv of the uth component. and {LCP u v +TCP u v. u = 1. v = fu+gu+1. …. v = 1. . gu}. …. …. φ. LCFj is the component functional dimension. LCPuv∈SCP u. …. fu+gu} corresponds to SMG u = {LMG u v ±TMG u v / 2. the required nominal functional BP dimensions can be expressed as the process dimensions: LCFj = ∑ α uvξ uv K uv LCPuv θu v =1 u = 1. …. u = 1. …. v = 1. gu}. For the given process planning of the uth component. ξuv is the unit vector of LCPuv. fu}. ϕ (7) where αuv is the process dimension selection coefficient. ….

n + m ϕ θu (9) u =1 v =1 where α*uv is the concurrent dimension selection coefficient. the concurrent integrated DGT chains. In this stage. otherwise. n + m ϕ θu u =1 v =1 (10) The concurrent integrated DGT chains are main constraints and the technical bridge to link substantially the assembly functional DGT specifications and the component process DGT specifications. when a process dimension LCPuv is the link member of dimension LAFi. With above equation. the concurrent integrated dimension chains are obtained as: * * * LAFi = ∑∑ α uv ξ uv λuv LCPuv i = 1. the assembly functional DGT specifications can be directly expressed as the process DGT specifications through using the process planning information of each related component. L . which will be used for directly allocating of the assembly functional DGTs to the component process DGTs.532 Manufacturing the Future: Concepts. the . For the given process planning of the uth component. component BP tolerances are first determined in the product tolerance design stage. When the design criterions such as maximum total manufacturing tolerances or minimum manufacturing costs have been presented. L . α*uv = 1. 0 ≤ λ uv ≤ 1. Therefore some process DGT specifications obtained in the process stage will be beyond the economical bounds and the manufacturing costs will increase unnecessarily. the assembly functional DGT specifications cannot be allocated to the relevant component functional BP DGTs in an optimal way without manufacturing information. are formulated as: TAFi ≥ ∑∑ α Tuv λTuvTCPuv i = 1. the optimal process tolerances can be obtained through establishing and solving an optimization model. Technologies & Visions In a conventional tolerancing system. The disadvantages of this method are that the obtained process tolerances are just under the constraints of BP tolerances and process accuracies. ξ*uv is the unit vector * of dimension LCPuv. First. Moreover. λ* uv = ∂L AFi / ∂LCPuv is the dimension coefficient of LCPuv. α*uv = 0. The approaches used in this paper for establishing the concurrent DGT chains are divided into three steps. Therefore by substituting Equation (7) into (5). the process tolerances are acquired by allocation of the functional component BP DGT specifications to the process ones. In concurrent tolerance design.

…. normally several critical dimensions evaluate the functional performance requirements. and the deviation vector w = [w1 w2 … wp]T. … . 2. and nominal dimensions of the main component have been determined by the assembly structure design.p (11) . Finally. Second. 2.K . topological relationships. in terms of the given process planning of each component. In a concurrent design environment. Let x = [x1 x2 … xn]T be the vector of component design dimensions. wi = yi− y0i. 1996) are expressed: y i = f i ( x) i = 1. p. the component functional BP DGT specifications will be formulated by process DGTs. The remaining geometric tolerances are treated as additional tolerance constraints. 4.Concurrent Process Tolerancing Based on Manufacturing Cost and Quality Loss 533 assembly functional product DGT chains will be formulated by using the related mechanical structures of the components and the assembly constraints as the input data. In this stage. These critical dimensions are controlled simultaneously within certain variation ranges for the best working performances. their dimensions and corresponding tolerances can be converted into equivalent bilateral sized dimensions and tolerances. Therefore. Let the process dimension vector zj = [zj1 zj2 … z jm j ]T. Finally the assembly functional equations (Zhang. n). For the geometrical dimensions with fixed tolerance zones. The assembly functional DGTs are expressed as the related functional component BP DGTs by using the integrated tolerance charts in product tolerance design stage.2 . …. when each component functional BP DGT equation is substituted into the required assembly functional product DGT chains. (j = 1. xj (j = 1. the required concurrent integrated DGT chains are obtained. the assembly restrictions. i = 1. For simplicity. 2. These dimensions include sized dimensions and geometrical dimensions. Let the critical dimension vector y = [y1 y2 … yp]T. the pertinent structures and the processing plans of the components are used as the input data. we denote both sized dimensions and equivalent bilateral sized dimensions as component design dimensions and process dimensions in their different design and manufacturing stages. where mj is the number of the operations related to dimension xj. where y0i is the nominal/target value of yi. n) is the combination of a set of pertinent process dimensions of a component. Concurrent integrated dimensioning and tolerancing In assembling a complex product.

With these substitutions.2. wi and ∆xj are replaced by ti and txj. 1996) are generally expressed as: x j = g j (z j ) j = 1.K. Technologies & Visions In process planning. When component design tolerances are allocated to process tolerances. so Equation (13) needs some adjusting. ∆zjk is the algebraic difference of zjk and z jk . Equation (13) changes into inequality: ti ≥ ∑ n j =1 ∂f i ( x) ∂x j tx j x (14) Similarly. accumulated design tolerances must be less than or equal to their critical tolerance. a rational variation zone should be assigned for each design dimension. from Equation (12) the actual design dimension deviations due to their process dimension deviations can be expressed as: x j − g j (z j ) = ∑ mj k =1 ∂g j ( z j ) ∂z jk zj ∆z jk (15) where g j ( z j ) is the nominal value obtained by evaluating the machining Equation (12) with its nominal process dimension vector z j . the machining equations (Zhang. therefore. the actual critical dimension deviations due to their design dimension deviations are expressed as: wi = yi − f i ( x ) = ∑ n ∂f i ( x ) ∆x j j =1 ∂x j x (13) where fi( x ) is the nominal value obtained by evaluating the assembly functional Equation (1) with its nominal design dimension vector x . ∆xj is the algebraic difference between xj and x j . each differential coefficient is positive. absolute value of each differential coefficient is required. n (12) Since there is no need or way for critical dimensions to be controlled in the exact nominal/target value. Where ti and txj are respectively the tolerance of critical dimension yi and design dimension xj. In tolerance design.534 Manufacturing the Future: Concepts. Equa- . For worstcase tolerance stack-up. From Equation (11).

In concurrent engineering. and zjk.2.L . component design stack-up tolerance must be less than or equal to functional critical tolerances. 1997). according to statistical theory. interdependent tolerancing is divided into two separate stages. In initial product design. we get variance equations: ⎛ ∂f ( x) var(wi ) = ∑ ⎜ i ⎜ ∂x j j =1 ⎝ n ⎞ ⎟ var(∆x ) i = 1. 1996. while . p j ⎟ x ⎠ 2 (17) where variance var(∆xj) is obtained from Equation (13) and expressed as: ⎛ ∂g ( z ) ⎞ ⎜ ⎟ var(∆x j ) = ∑ ⎜ j j ⎟ var( z jk ) k = 1. Similarly in Equation (16). On the other hand. This conventional method can obtain only the optimum solutions within two separate stages. n ∂z jk ⎟ k =1 ⎜ zj ⎠ ⎝ 2 mj (18) where var(wi). Because design dimensions are functions of process dimensions and assembly critical dimensions are functions of design dimensions. var(∆xj). process planners are more concerned about component manufacturing capabilities than their functional roles in assembly. and var(zjk) are variances of wi.L. As discussed above. From Equation (11). however. Essentially. Assume that all process dimensions are of normal distributions. Ngoi and Teck. respectively.2. The best policy is to integrate the two stages into one. respectively. ∆xj. the product designer can consider more fabrication issues when initially designing the product. designers care more about product satisfaction than about subsequent production capabilities and costs. component process stack-up tolerance must be less than or equal to design tolerances. Equations (14) and (16) reveal the worst-case tolerance stack-up effect related to two stages. This makes it easy for design and manufacturing to collaborate. In Equation (14).Concurrent Process Tolerancing Based on Manufacturing Cost and Quality Loss 535 tion (15) changes into inequality: tx j ≥ ∑ mj k =1 ∂g j ( z j ) ∂z jk zj t jk (16) where tjk is jk-th process tolerance of design dimension zjk. both critical dimensions and design dimensions are of normal distributions. the two separate phases are integrated into only one stage (Zhang.

For a single critical dimension case. provided that when dimension y deviates from its target in value w. 1989): L( y ) = k ( y − y ) 2 (20) where y and y are respectively the actual and target values of critical dimension. and k is a positive constant coefficient To determine the value of k.536 Manufacturing the Future: Concepts. if process tolerance becomes smaller and smaller until it reaches a certain value. let best product performance be the point where tolerance is zero. critical tolerances must be guaranteed for functional requirements.2. It is well known that the tighter tolerance is. when critical dimension deviates from its target. p (19) 5. To simplify computation. Quality loss of multiple correlated critical dimensions High quality and low cost are two fundamental requirements for product design and manufacturing. it will result in the infinite theoretical manufacturing cost. the higher the cost is. K. Thus the following equation will be satisfied: k = A / w2 (21) where w = y− y . will cause the loss of A$. Technologies & Visions manufacturing engineers can cope with the manufacturing problems based on the component functional roles. This balances the different targets related to product satisfaction and production costs. In an assembly. For a selected machining operation. Mathematically. by substituting machining equation into functional equations the concurrent design equation can be obtained as: ti ≥ ∑∑ n mj j =1 k =1 ∂f i ( x) ∂x j ∂g j ( z j ) x ∂z jk t jk zj i = 1. the theoretical manufacturing cost is infinite. the symmetric quadratic Taguchi quality loss function is (Taguchi et al. Le and Tang (2000) presented a general formula to evaluate the total quality loss due to w: L( w) = wT Kw (22) . For a p-dimensional multivariate vector w. At that point. and vice versa..

. j = 1. For a batch of products. each actual process dimension zjk is obviously a random variable. 2000): E ( L( w)) = Trace [ KV ( w)] (27) where V(w) is the variance-covariance matrix of the parameter vector w expressed by: . the expectation loss is obvious the summation of individual contributions derived from Equation (24): E ( L( w)) = ∑ Ψ ( w ( k ) )( w ( k ) K w ( k ) ) T k (25) where ∑ Ψ(w k (k ) ) =1 (26) For the design vector x. In terms of Equations (12) and (11). …. the density function is continuous within an interval. and measurement devices. i.. The product quality loss is determined by all critical dimension distributions. let the density function of y be functionψ(w). the average loss of a batch product could be obtained by integration: E ( L( w)) = ∫ ψ ( w)kw2 dw +∞ −∞ (24) As for the multiple critical dimensions. etc. 2. Expected quality loss function is (Lee and Tang. system vibration..2..Concurrent Process Tolerancing Based on Manufacturing Cost and Quality Loss 537 where K is a p×p symmetric constant matrix. operators. temperature fluctuation. average quality loss rather than individual loss should be considered. p( p + 1) / 2 (23) Since manufacturing dimension distribution is dependent upon the related manufacturing process random factors such as machine tools. The elements of K are related by: ∑∑ k p p i =1 j =1 ij w (i k ) w (jk ) = Ak k = 1. kij = kji. If p(p+1)/2 set of product quality deviations and corresponding quality losses are available. tool wearing. The distribution of critical dimension yi is finally dependent upon the density distribution functions of pertinent process dimensions. for i ≠ j. fixtures. p. so design dimension xj and critical dimension yi are also random variables. When a product has only a single critical dimension y. design dimension xj is the combination of process dimension zjk and critical dimension yi is the combination of design dimension xj.

wl ) = ∑ n ∂f i ( x) ∂f l ( x) var(∆xk ) x ∂ k =1 ∂xk k x x (29) For tolerance design. w ) var(w2 ) 1 2 V ( w) = ⎢ ⎢ M L ⎢ L ⎢cov(w1 . When the above equation is substituted into Equations (17) and (29). the variance and covariance of critical dimensions can be expressed by: ⎛ ∂f ( x) ⎞ 2 1 n ⎟ t ⎜ i var(wi ) = ∑ C 2 j j 4 j =1 ⎜ ∂x j ⎟ x⎠ ⎝ 2 = 1 n 2⎛ ∂f ( x) ⎞ ⎟ Cj ⎜ i ∑ 4 j =1 ⎜ ∂x j ⎟ x⎠ ⎝ 2 ∑⎜ ⎜ mj ⎛ ∂g j ( z j ) ⎞ 2 ⎟t ⎟ jk z ∂ k =1 jk z⎠ ⎝ 2 (31) .73% probability. w p ) ⎣ L cov(w1 . Cj = 1/3 for normally distributed process dimensions with 99. The covariance between the i-th and the l-th critical dimensions is: cov(wi . the relation between design tolerance and process variance is: tj = 2 [var(∆x j )]1/ 2 Cj ⎤ ⎡ m ∂g ( z ) ⎞ 2 2 ⎢ j⎛ j j ⎜ ⎟ var( z jk )⎥ = ∑ ⎟ ⎥ C j ⎢ k =1 ⎜ ∂z jk z ⎠ ⎦ ⎣ ⎝ 1/ 2 (30) where tj is bilateral tolerance of design dimension xj. Cj is a constant factor depending on the probability distribution of the dimension variations concerned. each dimension variance should be expressed as the function of its dimension tolerance. w p )⎤ ⎥ L M ⎥ ⎥ O M ⎥ var(w p ) ⎦ L ⎥ (28) where variance var(wi) is determined by Equation (17).538 Manufacturing the Future: Concepts. Technologies & Visions cov(w1 . Under stable machining conditions and for large mass production. it is obviously that process dimensions are normally distributed. Therefore when component design tolerances are expressed as process tolerances in the process planning stage. w2 ) ⎡ var(w1 ) ⎢ cov(w .

several types of models have been presented (Zhang.8903t jk ) + t jk /(0. the best balance should be made between product satisfaction and manufacturing cost. 1996.261 exp(−15. With regard to cost-tolerance function. Based on this method. To determine the manufacturing cost. cost-tolerance functions can be used. 2. In a concurrent tolerancing environment. Fang and Wu. Regression techniques are often applied to the acquired discrete cost-tolerance data and determine the unknown constant coefficients for each model.3927t jk + 0. the product quality loss is expressed as the function of pertinent process tolerances.e. ….1176) (34) In actual manufacturing. The models with the highest regression precision are used as cost-tolerance functions. and k = 1. each process dimension zjk has an economical toler- . i. In the optimum model. 2000): c jk (t jk ) = 50. The one suitable for planar features is (Fang and Wu. wl ) = ⎛ ∂f ( x) ⎞⎛ ∂f ( x) ⎞ m j ⎛ ∂g j ( z j ) ⎞ 1 ⎟ ⎜ ⎟⎜ l ⎜ i ⎟ t2 = ∑C2 ∑ j ⎟ jk ⎟ ⎜ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ 4 j =1 ∂z jk ∂x j ∂x j k =1 z ⎠ x ⎠ x ⎠⎝ ⎝ ⎝ 2 n ⎞ ⎛ ∂f ( x) ⎞ 1 n 2⎛ ⎟⎜ ∂f l ( x) ⎟t 2 Cj ⎜ i ∑ j 4 j =1 ⎜ ∂x j ⎟⎜ ∂x j ⎟ x ⎠⎝ x ⎠ ⎝ (32) where tj is an mj-th process tolerance vector. tj = [tj1 tj2 … t jk … t jm j ]T. 2000). n. 6. Fang et al presented a set of cost-tolerance functions suitable for middle quantitative production in manufacturing enterprises. Optimal tolerance assignment To implement robust tolerance design. and E(L(w)) is expected quality loss function of the product. the objective is to minimize the summation of product manufacturing cost and quality loss: min ∑∑ c jk (t jk ) + E ( L( w)) n mj j =1 k =1 (33) where cjk(tjk) is manufacturing cost of jk-th process operation.Concurrent Process Tolerancing Based on Manufacturing Cost and Quality Loss 539 cov(wi .

assembly. Also the process dimensions obey normal distributions. They are given as input data in terms of product quality and manufacturing cost.t. These equations present the tolerance stack-up effects between assembly critical tolerances and pertinent manufacturing tolerances by worst-case or statistical model. the complete optimization model can be introduced as: min ∑∑ c jk (t jk ) + E ( L( w)) n mj j =1 k =1 s.540 Manufacturing the Future: Concepts. they are: x1 = 9. we do not consider the geometric tolerances and their conversion in this example. structure. For simplicity. The second constraints are process capabilities. etc. A practical example Figure 5 shows a wheel assembly with pure size dimensions. According to selected fabrication methods and machining tools. It can be expressed mathematically by: + t− jk ≤ t jk ≤ t jk (35) where tjk− and tjk+ is respectively the lower and upper bounds of process tolerance tjk In a concurrent tolerancing environment. respectively. Two kinds of constraints are proposed for the optimal model. In concurrent design equation critical tolerance must be greater than or equal to its pertinent sum manufacturing tolerance. The first are concurrent design equations. Assume that nominal design dimensions have already been assigned based on the requirements in size. Technologies & Visions ance range. x2 = . strength. 7. ∂f ( x) ty ≤ ∑ i j =1 ∂x j − i n x ∑ mj k =1 ∂g j ( z j ) ∂z jk zj t jk ≤ tyi+ + t− jk ≤ t jk ≤ t jk where tyi−and tyi+ are the lower and upper bounds of assembly critical tolerance tyi. and maintenance. each processed tolerance should specify an economical variation range. The optimum tyi is determined by solving the optimal model.

For simplicity. x6 = 12. x5 = 38. the deviation equations of critical dimensions are: w1 = y1 − y1 = − ∆x1 − ∆x 2 − ∆x3 + ∆x5 w 2 = y 2 − y 2 = − ∆x 4 − ∆x 5 − ∆x 6 + ∆x 7 With Equation (14).130.4 (unit: mm). and y2 = 0. assume that the distribution center of each process dimension is just equal to its nominal value. the functional tolerance inequalities by worst-case model are: ty1 ≥ tx1 + tx2 + tx3 + tx5 ty2 ≥ tx4 + tx5 + tx6 + tx7 Provided that the manufacturing process takes place under stable conditions. x3 = 9.Concurrent Process Tolerancing Based on Manufacturing Cost and Quality Loss 541 20. Two critical dimensions y1 = 0. each process dimension will be of normal distribution. y2 is another critical axial gap between nut 8 and frame 9.080 ~ 0.140. (2001). Each critical dimension variance can be expressed as the function of its design tolerance: .2 ± 0.2 ± 0. Wheel assembly y1 = − x1 − x2 − x3 + x5 y2 = − x4 − x5 − x6 + x7 According to Equation (13). It is not difficult to formulate the assembly functional equations using the method presented by Huang et al.2. y1 is the critical axial gap between bush 7 and frame 9. x4 = 12.075 ~ 0. x7 = 62. Frame 1 Bolt 2 Block 3 Shaft 4 Bush 5 Nut 10 Frame 9 Nut 8 Bush 7 Wheel 6 X1 X4 X2 X5 X7 X3 Y1 X6 Y2 Figure 5.

0]T. 0. the machining equations are obtained from given component process plans: .14 × 0.150]T. Provided that when critical dimension y1 and y2 deviate from their target (nominal) vector with values w (1)= [w1(1) 0]T = [0. For the corresponding process plan. The constant matrix K can thus be decided by Equation (22): k11 = A1 /( w1 ) 2 = 300 / 0. the covariance of the two correlated critical dimensions can be expressed as the function of the pertinent design tolerances: cov(w1 .542 Manufacturing the Future: Concepts.16 2 = 11718. Using the method presented by Huang et al.14 2 / 0.160.13 2 / 0.75 k 22 = A2 /( w 2 ) 2 = 300 / 0. or w(3) = [w1(3) w2(3)]T = [0.13 = −4258.15 2 = 13333. To finally determine the optimum tolerance of these two critical dimensions and then allocate them to the related process dimensions.33 k12 = k 21 = ( A3 − A1 ( w1 ) 2 /( w1 ) 2 − A1 ( w 2 ) 2 ) /( w 2 ) 2 ) /( 2 w1 w 2 ) = (300 − 300 × 0.140. w2 ) = − 1 2 tx5 36 The critical tolerance ranges of y1 and y2 in Figure 5 are determined both by performance satisfaction and manufacturing cost of this assembly. look at the economical process tolerance bounds for each machining part in Table 1. (2001).16 2 − 300 × 0.15 2 ) / 2 × 0.130]Twill result in product failure and cause a quality loss of $300.81 ( 3) (1) ( 3) ( 2) ( 3) ( 3) ( 2) (1) With this. quality loss and manufacturing cost must be determined first. Technologies & Visions 1 2 2 2 (tx12 + tx 2 ) + tx3 + tx5 36 1 2 2 2 2 (tx 4 ) var(w2 ) = + tx5 + tx6 + tx7 36 var(w1 ) = Similarly. 0. total expected loss is: E ( L( w)) = Trace [ KV ( w)] 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 = [k11tx12 + k11tx2 + k11tx3 + k 22tx4 + (k11 − 2k12 + k 22 )tx5 + k 22 tx6 + k 22 tx7 ] 36 Figure 6 shows the related structure and design dimension for each machining part. w(2) = [0 w2(2)]T = [0.

Process plan of related parts x1 = z11 − z12 x2 = z24 − z23 − z25 x3 = z31 − z32 x4 = z44 x5 = z54 x6 = z64 x7 = z74 − z73 The design tolerance inequalities are: tx1 ≥ t11 + t12 tx2 ≥ t 23 + t 24 + t 25 tx3 ≥ t31 + t32 tx4 ≥ t 44 tx5 ≥ t54 tx6 ≥ t64 tx7 ≥ t73 + t74 .Concurrent Process Tolerancing Based on Manufacturing Cost and Quality Loss 543 AB CD A BC D EF A BC DE F G X2 X7 AB AB C CD X4=X6 X1=X3 X5 Figure 6.

FL stands for finish lathing.544 Manufacturing the Future: Concepts. RM stands for rough milling.2 z71 = 80.4 z72 = 18 z73 = 20 z74 = 82. L stands for lathing. Technologies & Visions Part No Process name Measure reference Machined plane Process dimension zkq Process Tolerance tolerance . R stands for right and L stands for left.bound tkq−∼tkq+ -(µm) tkq Bush 5 11 and 7 12 21 22 Wheel 23 6 24 25 41 Frame 42 1 and 9 43 44 51 Block 52 3 53 54 71 72 Shaft 73 4 74 75 Parting-off L plane by FL R plane by RL L plane by FL L pole by L R plane by FL R pole by L R plane by RM L plane by RM R plane by FM L plane by FM R plane by RM L plane by RM R plane by FM L plane by FM Step by RL Step by RL Step by FL Step by FL Truncation C A A F B B E A D B C A D B C G G G G G A B F B C E D D B C B D B C B C E D B A z11 = 11 z12 = 2 z21= 36 z22= 34 z23= 6 z24= 32 z25= 6 z41= 16 z42= 16 z43= 14 z44= 12 z51= 42. Notes: FM stands for finish milling.2 z52= 42. Axial process plan for related parts.2 z53= 40.4 z75 = 90 t11 t12 t21 t22 t23 t24 t25 t41 t42 t43 t44 t51 t52 t53 t54 t71 t72 t73 t74 t75 27∼70 10∼25 54∼140 54∼140 12∼30 25∼62 12∼30 43∼110 43∼110 43∼110 27∼70 62∼160 62∼160 39∼100 39∼100 54∼140 27∼70 21∼52 35∼87 54∼140 Table 1.2 z54= 38. RL stands for rough lathing. The component design tolerance can be formulated as the function of its related process tolerances with Equation (20): 2 2 tx4 = t 44 2 2 tx12 = t11 + t12 2 2 2 2 tx2 = t 23 + t 24 + t 25 2 2 2 tx3 = t31 + t32 2 2 tx5 = t54 2 2 tx6 = t64 2 2 2 tx7 = t73 + t74 .

the entire optimization problem is formulated as: min{c11 + c12 + c23 + c24 + c25 + c31 + c32 + c44 + c54 + c64 + c73 + c74 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 + 325.8903t jk ) + t jk /(0.7t 54 } where c jk = c jk (t jk ) = 5.52(t11 + t12 + t 23 + t 24 + t 25 + t 31 + t 32 + 33569.37(t 73 + t 74 In this example. we only consider the manufacturing cost of process dimensions that are involved in assembly functional equations. when machining equations are substituted into assembly functional equations.37(t 44 ) 2 + 33569.52(t11 + t12 + t 23 + t 24 + t 25 + t 31 + t 32 + t 64 + t 73 + t 74 ) + 370.3927t jk + 0.0261 exp(−15. these process dimensions don’t contribute to quality loss.7t 54 + 370.37(t 73 + t 74 ) Finally. The reason is that the other process dimensions can use the most economical tolerances. Furthermore.37t 44 2 2 + 370.1176) . product quality loss is finally obtained as: E ( L( w)) 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 ] = [k11tx12 + k11tx2 + k11tx3 + k 22 tx4 + (k11 − 2k12 + k 22 )tx5 + k 22 tx6 + k 22 tx7 36 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 ) + 370.Concurrent Process Tolerancing Based on Manufacturing Cost and Quality Loss 545 In a concurrent tolerancing environment.52(t11 + t12 + t 23 + t 24 + t 25 + t 31 + t 32 + 33569. The manufacturing cost of these considered operations is: C M = ∑∑ c jk (t jk ) n mj j =1 k =1 = c11 + c12 + c23 + c24 + c25 + c31 + c32 + c44 + c54 + c64 + c73 + c74 The summation of CM and E(L(w)) is: C = C M + E ( L( w)) = c11 + c12 + c23 + c24 + c25 + c31 + c32 + c44 + c54 + c64 + c73 + c74 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 + 325.7t 54 + 370.37t 44 = 325.37t 64 2 2 ) + 370. and manufacturing costs of these operations are minimal.37t 64 ) + 370.

t2− = 0.052 0. This model removes the quality loss from objective function.280 is the lower and upper tolerance bound of critical dimension y1.018 = t44− ≤ t44 ≤ t44+ = 0. In order to test the validity of the proposed approach. The comparison results of the two methods (unit: µm). The economical process tolerance ranges for each process operation are as follows: 0. But t24，t54，t73.043 0.030 0. The optimization results of the two models are given in Table 2 for comparison.043 0. Technologies & Visions Subjected to: The concurrent tolerance stack-up constraints by worst-case model: 0. Method CM+CL CM t11 43 43 t12 25 25 t23 30 30 t24 25 49 t25 30 30 t31 43 43 t32 25 25 t44 43 43 t54 25 35 t64 43 43 t73 21 52 t74 35 87 total 388 505 Table 2.018 = t64− ≤ t64 ≤ t64+ = 0.018 = t11− ≤ t11 ≤ t11+ = 0.010 = t12− ≤ t12 ≤ t12+ = 0.025 = t24− ≤ t24 ≤ t24+ = 0. t2+ = 0.030 0.260 is the lower and upper tolerance bound of critical dimension y2. .043 0.062 0.012 = t25− ≤ t25 ≤ t25+ = 0.150. and t74 are different. and t64 are the same for both approaches.043 0.018 = t31− ≤ t31 ≤ t31+ = 0.021 = t73− ≤ t73 ≤ t73+ = 0. these tolerances are of smaller values to maintain less quality loss.025 = t54− ≤ t54 ≤ t54+ = 0. For the proposed method. respectively.160.035 = t74− ≤ t74 ≤ t74+ = 0.025 0.260 where t1− = 0.546 Manufacturing the Future: Concepts.062 0.280 − + 0.150 = t 2 ≤ t 44 + t54 + t 64 + t 73 + t 74 ≤ t 2 = 0.010 = t32− ≤ t32 ≤ t32+ = 0. t1+ = 0. The constraints are the same for these two different models.025 0.087 The proposed optimization model is solved by the nonlinear optimal method. Obtained process tolerance t11，t12，t23，t25，t31，t32，t44.012 = t23− ≤ t23 ≤ t23+ = 0.160 = t1− ≤ t11 + t12 + t 23 + t 24 + t 25 + t31 + t32 + t54 ≤ t1+ = 0. a similar optimal model is also introduced.

The design targets are quantified in monetary ways in the optimization objective function. Concluding remarks This paper has presented a robust optimization method in a concurrent tolerancing environment. and the optimum solutions are for different stages but not for the entire product design process. which is finally expressed as the function of process tolerances. increasing the design efficiency. This method can determine multiple correlated critical tolerances and directly allocate them to process tolerances by using component process plans. they only dealt with tolerancing problems within the product design stage. . Tolerance design has been extended directly from the product design to the manufacturing stage. A wheel assembly example presented by Huang and Gao (2003) has also been applied. If cost-tolerance function and related information of product quality loss are available. In a conventional tolerance design. The focus is on establishment of quality loss of product with multiple correlated critical tolerances in a concurrent tolerance design environment. The necessity of redesign and rework between product tolerance design and process tolerance design has been eliminated. the rational tolerances can be obtained in actual design and production. The purpose of this paper is to propose a robust optimum tolerance design method in a concurrent environment to balance the conflict design targets between manufacturing tolerances and product satisfaction. the optimal model is established for two separate stages. The simulation results show the validity of the proposed method. The paper presents an approach to provide the product quality loss function. In a concurrent environment. The basic method they used has now been extended profoundly to the concurrent environment to determine multiple correlated critical product tolerances and then allocate them directly to pertinent process tolerances. the product tolerance design and process tolerance design can be integrated into one stage.Concurrent Process Tolerancing Based on Manufacturing Cost and Quality Loss 547 8. Though Lee and Tang (2000) in their research introduced a method to implement tolerance design for products with correlated characteristics.

. No. 9. P. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology. Gao. (1992). L. Z. Fang. J. Vol. and Sfantsikopoulos. Vol. Y. 22. 1-2. M. A New approach for cost optimum machining accuracy. 1. 2-3.. 15. F. Optimal process tolerance balancing based on process capabilities. Bin . 22-24. 4. 2003. (2003). ISSN 0736-5845. M. for his constructive comments on the earlier version of this paper. No. 7477. C. Concurrent maximization of process tolerances using grey theory. ISSN 1001-2354. CAPE 2001. 7. ISSN 0268-3768. Y. Apr. 11-20. (2000). T. Fang. F. C. 103-107. References Chang. R. H. C. Z. 1992. Vol. M. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology. ISSN 0268-3768. Computer-aided geometrical dimensioning and tolerancing for process-operation planning and quality control. Optimal assembly tolerance allocation using hierachical hypergraphs.. (2000). 1. R. J. 7.. 50465001) to M. 16. and Chen. ISSN 0268-3768. F. Y.. Cost-Tolerance Function. Xu. Vol. Huang. 1998. 21. Optimal concurrent tolerance based on the grey optimal approach. 2000. 32-38. and Zhong. H. Z. Vol. 2000.. (2000). 36. Concurrent tolerancing based on the Taguchi’s quality loss”. M. ISSN 0268-3768. and Wu. April-June 2000. and Wu. No. C. (2001). B. Chinese Journal of Mechanical Engineering (Chinese). Y. Wei. Concurrent tolerance design and methods of technology economy assessment in process route. Vol. Gao. 3. Yao.548 Manufacturing the Future: Concepts. (2003). Chen. No. No. He. and Li. Technologies & Visions Acknowledgements This research is sponsored by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. F. Canada. F. Robotics and Computer Integrated Manufacturing. Y. ISSN 0577-6686. Mechanical design (Chinese). Proceedings of 17th International Conference on Computer-aided Production Engineering. Vol. 501-507. C. 112–117. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology. (1998). T. M. and Huang. Montreal. S. He. Z. No. No. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology. the professor of Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering. 16. Huang. Diplaris. The authors would like to thank Dr. Chen. Concordia University. Huang. B. and Gibson. M. C. 2003.

31.Y. (1997). Tolerance chart optimization for quality and cost. International Journal of Production Research. Y. A. ISSN 0020-7543. (2002). Z. An approach of tolerance design for quality improvement and cost reduction. 30. O. Vol. Y. P. China Mechanical Engineering (Chinese). Optimal concurrent tolerancing based on sequential process capabilities.. A discrete optimal tolerancing approach based on the process capabilities. (2000). A tree approach for tolerance charting..Concurrent Process Tolerancing Based on Manufacturing Cost and Quality Loss 549 H. and Teck. A. Concurrent process tolerance design based on minimum product manufacturing cost and quality loss. Gao. No. 12. Huang. March 1995.14. Xu. No. Huang. Vol. (2005). 1. Dimensional and geometrical tolerance balancing in concurrent design. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology. No. ISBN 1-86058-365-2. 385-389. G. (1997). Vol. Vol. and Xu. IMechE. Journal of Huazhong University of Science and Technology (Chinese). S. (1995). 1023-1033. (1998). M. No. Jeang. 5. 34-42. F. Vol. Geometrics in computer-aided tolerance charting. Vol. pp. ISSN 0020-7543. G. M. March 2003. 1998. C. Tolerance design for products with correlated characteristics.. 341-347. (2002). ISSN 0020-7543. M. Lee. and Tang. Vol. May 1997. K. Ngoi. 19-21. ISSN 0268-3768. L. 11. (2003). May 2001.. 5. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology. ISSN 0268-3768. Ji. and Gao. Vol. Vol. Mechanism and Machine Theory. Wuhan. B. B. (1996). The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology. 36. B. and Soew. 35. No. 714-722. (submitted). ISSN 0094-114X. 2969-2983. Ngoi. 33. and Zhong. A. Nov. Huang. M. International Journal of Production Research. 2000. No. Ngoi. No. S. 2002. Z. Huang. No. 4. 35. London. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology. 7-8. ISSN 1000-8616. Y. May 1993. and Gao. 411-414. April 2002. 1193-1211. R. Professional Engineering Publishing Limited. 1675-1687. Jeang. International Journal of Production Research. S. No. 5. Zhong. Dec. R. and Tan. F. F. A. Huang. M.. ISSN 0268-3768. R. M. No. K. 3. ISSN 0268-3768. Composite planar tolerance allocation with dimensional and geometric specifications. and Li. ISSN 1004-132X. 5. C. Vol. 1999. ISSN 0020-7543. A tolerancing optimization method for . (1993). Z. 341-347. 20. 835-868. China. (submitted). C. K. A. 25. Y. Tolerance control for dimensional and geometrical specifications. 11. F. K. 2005. International Journal of Production Research.

(1989). Vol. Ngoi. ISSN 0020-7543. . 1999. Y. 3883-3900. A. Vol. ISSN 0954-4054. International Journal of Production Research. 2. Vol. A... Vol. H. International Journal of Production Research. Raines. K. D. A. 15. J. B. 7. C. 2477-2498. 17. ISSN 0268-3768. New York. C. K. Evaluation of alternative tolerance allocation for multiple machining sequences with geometric tolerances. 4. K. Vol. and Lee. and Ong. 35. J. (1996). (1993). A complete tolerance charting system in assembly. Elsayed. A. J. 416-421. 660-665. A complete tolerance charting system. Taguchi. E. C. (1999). 34. 6. C. and Booker. W. Dec. (1999). 9. New York. 1996. International Journal of Production Research. 1993. 4. (1999). B. part B (Journal of Engineering Manufacture). R. ISSN 0020-7543. 1999. 1997. No. 37. McGraw-Hill. Optimum tolerance allocation in assembly. Chen. No. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. 1995. Component tolerance design for minimum quality loss and manufacturing cost. B. Wu. Z. ISSN 0268-3768. April 1998. No. Y. Ngoi. Technologies & Visions product design. Tseng. 453-469. Feb. Taguchi. Vol. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology. ISSN 00207543. 12. (1999). C. No. 677-693. K. ISSN 0166-3615. 10. (1998). J. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology. Ngoi. T. O. O. 290-299. M. G. Computers in Industry. Vol. Swift. On robust technology development. and Hsiang. and Kung. Determining the process tolerances based on the manufacturing process capability.550 Manufacturing the Future: Concepts. C. ISSN 0268-3768. No. International Journal of Production Research. Simultaneous tolerancing for design and manufacturing. No. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology. 3361-3382. 213. (1993).. and Min. G. Tolerance optimization in assembly stacks based on capable design. Nov. ISSN 0020-7543. G. 1999. M. Quality engineering in production system. No. (1995). 223-232. Vol. July 1999. 13. 31. ASME Press. Vol. Wei. Zhang G. G. 11. No. C. and Tang. and Teck. No. 37.

com InTech China Unit 405. 200040. Office Block. 2006 The primary goal of this book is to cover the state-of-the-art development and future directions in modern manufacturing systems. Available from: http://www. from technological and organisational point of view and aspects of supply How to reference In order to correctly reference this scholarly work.com/books/manufacturing_the_future/concurrent_process_tolerancing_based_on_man ufacturing_cost_and_quality_loss InTech Europe University Campus STeP Ri Slavka Krautzeka 83/A 51000 Rijeka. covers a survey of trends in distributed manufacturing. Vedran Kordic. Zhong (2006). Huang and Y. chain management. Germany / ARS. Aleksandar Lazinica and Munir Merdan (Ed. feel free to copy and paste the following: M. modern manufacturing equipment.intechopen. product design process. rapid prototyping. Yan An Road (West). Manufacturing the Future. 2006 Published in print edition July. R. Aleksandar Lazinica and Munir Merdan ISBN 3-86611-198-3 Hard cover. Shanghai.). Hotel Equatorial Shanghai No.intechopen. Austria Published online 01. consisting of 30 chapters. quality assurance. Concurrent Process Tolerancing Based on Manufacturing Cost And Quality Loss. 908 pages Publisher Pro Literatur Verlag.Manufacturing the Future Edited by Vedran Kordic. This interdisciplinary and comprehensive volume. China Phone: +86-21-62489820 Fax: +86-21-62489821 . InTech.65. July. Croatia Phone: +385 (51) 770 447 Fax: +385 (51) 686 166 www. F. ISBN: 386611-198-3.

- Toward an Algorithmic Control TheoryUploaded bylma
- Datasheet-EN-10029.pdfUploaded byGentelmanOnly
- 445867Uploaded byVishal Desai
- olhaes de içamentoUploaded byDavid Uribe
- Prospekt VarioRip 310 GBRUploaded byFlaviu Dobrean
- A Review of Mathematical Optimization APUploaded byRiham
- 2012 - Weight Minimization of Frames With SGA and PGAUploaded byRadu Zoicas
- Capítulo 1 Introducción.pdfUploaded byJean Pierre Argote Zorrillo
- Article.pdfUploaded byDaiana Dias
- Review HapsirUploaded byBhaskar Anupam
- STD3162.pdfUploaded byzilioa
- Assignment 2Uploaded bykoriom@live.com.au
- Electronic CompanionUploaded byanonymous author
- Managerial Decision Analysis On Goal ProgrammingUploaded byRich Kitten
- or pptUploaded bykaushiky
- optmizacionde un sitema bioquimico por progamacion linealUploaded bynannija
- B-19.pdfUploaded byluis_may22
- ICRA2014_Mavrogiannis__TaskSpecificGraspSelection_OpenBionics.pdfUploaded byAnonymous AnQfuM
- Ou 3425912596Uploaded byAnonymous 7VPPkWS8O
- crt9949Uploaded bypostscript
- Button SeismicIsolationandSuUploaded byJuan Gutierrez Ccencho
- 01 APC Overview CTSUploaded bySreekanthMylavarapu
- Engineering Drawings IntrodroductionUploaded byadnan
- Optimization INE- Midterm ExercisesUploaded byCharbel Dalely Tawk
- optimization_of_spinning_reserve_in_stand-alone_wind-diesel_power_systemsUploaded byKVV
- Bus. OptimizationUploaded byAkanksha Rathore
- A 519-06(2012)Uploaded byHeather Confessore
- Transportation Models Lect 2Uploaded byNishit Saraiya
- algorithm for relay coordinationUploaded byEléctrico Ingeniería
- Deformation MonitoringUploaded bybloggs_12

- LIC SyllabusUploaded bysagarbolisetti
- oracle-bi-apps-erp-analytics-1401327.pdfUploaded bysagarbolisetti
- Becoming a Successful Independent ConsultantUploaded bysagarbolisetti
- How to Find the Right Simulation ConsultantUploaded bysagarbolisetti
- BIP Report IntegrationUploaded bysagarbolisetti
- Group i i ServicesUploaded bysagarbolisetti
- R12 Cloud B2B Internal Material Transfer(IMT)Uploaded bysagarbolisetti
- Oracle packageUploaded bysagarbolisetti
- Order Management SetupsUploaded bysagarbolisetti
- Create_Descriptive_Flex_Field_DFF_In_Custom_Form.pdfUploaded bysagarbolisetti
- CAD-CAMUploaded bysagarbolisetti
- Order_to_Cash_Cycle_III.pdfUploaded bysagarbolisetti
- P2P cycle in OracleUploaded bysagarbolisetti
- 12order-to-cash.pdfUploaded bysagarbolisetti
- Training Manual GL Setup.pdfUploaded bysagarbolisetti
- Sql interviewUploaded bysagarbolisetti
- muhammadmansoorali-140910133314-phpapp02Uploaded bysagarbolisetti
- Linear programmingUploaded bysagarbolisetti
- The Probalance Mixed Model Line BalancingUploaded bysagarbolisetti
- RBI 2012 paperUploaded bysagarbolisetti
- Enterprise resource planningUploaded bysagarbolisetti
- 04 Dynamic ProgrammingUploaded bysagarbolisetti
- RBI 2012 paperUploaded bysagarbolisetti
- 2010 RBI paperUploaded bysagarbolisetti
- Improving simulationUploaded bysagarbolisetti
- 2010-Gr-B-DR-Gen-PAPER-I-ENGLISH.pdfUploaded bysagarbolisetti
- ProBalance Automative Tutorial PDF 274C3CD27A042Uploaded bysagarbolisetti
- top100sqlinterviewquestionsandanswers-140924015357-phpapp02Uploaded bysagarbolisetti
- RBI test paper 2014Uploaded bysagarbolisetti
- Minimum weight triangulationUploaded bysagarbolisetti