Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia CIRP 43 (2016) 76 81

14th CIRP Conference on Computer Aided Tolerancing (CAT)

On the evolvement of limiting positions as a result of the interaction of
tolerances and compliant systems
Matthias Ehlerta,* , Robert Hofmanna , Andreas Stockingera , Sandro Wartzackb
a Bayerische Motoren Werke AG, Knorrstrasse 147, 80788 Munich, Germany
b University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Chair of Engineering Design KTmfk, Martensstrasse 9, 91058 Erlangen, Germany
Matthias Ehlert. Tel.: +49-(0)151-601-45523. E-mail address: Matthias.Ehlert@bmw.de

Abstract

When talking about a large batch production of a certain mechanical product it generally comes along with specic requirements in terms of di-
mensional management to guarantee a consistently high product quality ensuring that customer requirements are met. Therefore, this contribution
is about the eect that the elasticity of the observed assembly has on the formation of the limiting positions of the considered key product charac-
teristics arising from tolerance analysis. On the example of an automotive door assembly a developed approach based on existing methodologies
is explained in detail containing CAT and FEM simulations.

c 2016
2016 The
The Authors.
Authors. Published
Published by
by Elsevier
Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of the 14th CIRP Conference on Computer Aided Tolerancing.
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of the 14th CIRP Conference on Computer Aided Tolerancing
Keywords:
tolerancing, computer aided tolerancing, geometric variation management, robust design, simulation, FEM

1. Introduction more, a suitable experiment to validate these simulations needs

Nowadays, Dimensional Management is becoming one of
the most challenging aspects of engineering. Especially, if a
product is designed for large-batch production, specic require-
ments need to be fullled in order to ensure a faultless manu-
facturing process. Therefore, intelligent computer aided toler-
ancing (CAT) approaches are increasingly in demand in indus-
trial applications, [7]. When one thinks about tolerancing of
product features it quickly becomes clear that component de-
viations have a major inuence on the robustness of that cer-
tain product. Ensuring this is one of the pivotal tasks during
product development e.g. in automotive industry, [20]. In or-
der to meet direct and indirect customer requirements a robust
design methodology is indispensable in all phases of the manu-
facturing process to ensure that components and products are
robust to corresponding process variations, see [5], [19], [22].
Talking about robustness this term mostly implies the use of
virtual and statistical methods in the early design stages. The
application of simulation tools can be the key for an early de-
tection of interactions between contributors that have a signi-
cant inuence on the considered Key Product Characteristics
(KPCs), see [3], [4], [17]. Therefore it is essential to know cou-
pling approaches that can deal with these interactions in order
to make an overall valid system simulation possible. Further-
to be designed and performed.
The following piece of work deals with the topic of virtual
coupling concepts for overall system simulations, identifying
the eect of compliant systems on geometric deviations, which
include how simulations can be coupled to cover these eects.
As a practical demonstrator an automotive door assembly is
examined. For this system it must be ensured that all customer-
relevant functional requirements will be fullled perfectly (e.g.
tightness against the permeation of dust or humidity, handling
comfort, opening and closing forces, ...). These are decisively
inuenced by the characteristics of the multi-layer sealing
system, the structural stiness and the tolerance situation taking
place along the sealing gap.
First, state-of-the-art approaches will be introduced includ-
ing their qualitative (dis-)advatages. On the one hand, based on
these approaches, coupling concepts for overall system simula-
tions arise. On the other hand, a complementary approach will
be introduced. A case study using the demonstrator is meant
to compare the results based on selected KPCs. In terms of
this comparison the advantages and drawbacks of all individual
approaches will be shown.

2212-8271 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of the 14th CIRP Conference on Computer Aided Tolerancing
doi:10.1016/j.procir.2016.02.150
 Matthias Ehlert et al. / Procedia CIRP 43 (2016) 76 81 77

2.2. Approach 2: Method of Inuence Coecients (MIC by

Nomenclature S.C. Liu & S.J. Hu)
CAT Computer Aided Tolerancing Following [13], traditonal methods like the Root-Sum-
DoE Design of Experiments Square method (RSS) or state-of-the-art tolerance analysis tools
FEM Finite Element Method like 3DCS Analyst (3DCS) or VisVSA are not sucient to in-
KPC Key Product Characteristic volve the eect of elasticity of a system when executing vari-
LHS Latin Hypercube Sampling ation analysis in the course of tolerancing. Against this back-
LSL Lower Specication Limit ground, the method of inuence coecients is proposed. This
MCS Monte-Carlo-Simulation method attempts to nd a linear connection between single part
MIC Method of Inuence Coecients deviations and the compressive behaviour of the whole assem-
RSM Response Surface Method bly group. The aim here is both to reduce a wide variety of
RSS Root-Sum-Square method FEM-simulations and therefore to improve computational e-
SOVA Stream-Of-Variation-Analysis ciency. This is done by identifying a sensitivity matrix on the
USL Upper Specication Limit basis of a nite element analysis, which in turn will be used
h frequency of occurrence in the following tolerance simulation. Using this approach, the
s estimated standard deviation computational eciency is signicantly increasing in the range
x estimated mean of several orders of magnitude.

2.3. Approach 3: Stream-Of-Variation-Analysis (SOVA by

J. Camelio & S.J. Hu & D. Ceglarek)
2. State-of-the-art tolerance calculations taking into ac-
count elastic eects
The method of inuence coecients, mentioned in
subsection 2.2, is pursued further within the stream-of-
The following chapter gives a brief overview on existing ap-
variation-analysis-approach by means of expanding it to multi-
proaches with regard to the coupling of function-oriented rigid
station systems, see [1], [2], [3]. In addition, the geometrical
tolerancing results with corresponding geometric deformations
covariances, meaning the interdependencies between adjacent
arising from FEM simulations.
points on individual parts, will be taken into consideration. Us-
ing a principal components analysis, deviation pattern can be
2.1. Approach 1: STA-DEF (by L. Markvoort) identied which leads to a reduction of variables for the respec-
tive problem, [21]. Considering this it becomes clear that the
In [16] an approach named STA-DEF is introduced by expansion / widening of the limiting positions (see [7]) of se-
L. Markvoort, see Fig. 1. This process is devided in two mod- lected key product characteristics of the considered product as
ules, namely: STA (Statistical Tolerance Analysis) and DEF a consequence of the manufacturing process is examined. On
(DEFormation analysis). The statistical tolerance analysis is the one hand, it is then possible to analyse individual inuences
based on a Monte-Carlo-Simulation (MCS), the deformation arising from the mounting sequence on the question of whether
analysis is the result of a complying FEM simulation. This ap- the geometric tolerance specications for the overall assembly
proach, though, is an iterative process, which does not have a can be achived or not. On the other hand it is therefore pos-
dened cancellation criterion such as a convergence criterion sible to do a contributor analysis regarding the corresponding
comparing dierences between input and output data. There- deviations for each an every key product characteristic.
fore, the rapidly growing computing eort to increase the ac-
curacy of the result is pointed out as an argument to limit the 2.4. Other approaches and further information
number of required iteration loops both manually or as a conse-
quence of empirical specications. More detailed information regarding coupling concepts and
their respective (dis-)advantages can be found in the works of
L. Markvoort [16], A. Stockinger [21], R. Lustig [14] and
INPUT STA OUTPUTS K. Waermefjord [24]. In addition, other approaches are in-
Statistical troduced within these publications to reduce computing time,
Installation
for example through using the taylor expansion (see [25]) or a
conditions Tolerance Analysis
STA-DEF sequential, system independent analysis (see [14]) or an auto-
and assembly mated contact detection in order to improve the goodness of the
sequence Deformation predictions concerning related deformations (see [24]). Fur-
distribution
CAD model information thermore, the work of B. Lindau can be mentioned. One the
one hand, this deals with forming simulations in the early de-
loads DEF
velopment phases in order to achive a high predictive accuracy
DEFormation
of the geometrical shape of non-rigid sheet metal panels that
material data analysis are assembled into car bodies. Therefore, overall virtual assem-
bly simulations can then be carried out to study the eects of
Fig. 1. STA-DEF model as described in [21]; based on [16]
the part variation when assembled, producing a sub-assembly,
see [11]. On the other hand, testing procedures are introduced
78 Matthias Ehlert et al. / Procedia CIRP 43 (2016) 76 81

to verify the use of the method of inuence coecients in this CAT Simulation
context, see [12]. component tolerances
number of simulation runs n
approx. 10000 simulations
assembly tolerances limiting

K
joint tolerances positions
mounting tolerances
3. Simulation approach for tolerance calculations taking
1 PPP
into account non-linear eects

Statistical Design of Experiments, DoE
3.1. Presentation of existing and developed approaches limiting positions minimisation of the number of simulation
stiffness parameter combinatorics of limiting positions specifications

Based on the current state-of-the-art know-how it can be de-

rived that dierent basic strategies exist, able to couple the re- FEM Simulation
3D System Simulation (side frame, sealing
sults from several simulations. There is a distinction to be made system, door, mounting of the sealing system
whether if this coupling is performed using statistical moments, number of simulation runs m statistical
simulation approx. 100 simulations basis data
such as estimated mean and standard deviation, or superposition specifications concerning
of simulation data or through direct integration of the simula- the system

K
tion methods. Due to the fact that direct source code adjust- behavior

ments are not an option and the simulation eort will increase
1 PPP
dramaticly using the Monte-Carlo-method as a state-of-the-art
tool in tolerance management, the latter mentioned method will Fig. 3. Basic process taking into consideration interactions between geometri-
not be used. Hence, the basic strategies shown in Fig. 2 can be cal deviations and system stiness
derived. It may be added that a MIC (see [21]) is not applicable
as a result of geometrical as well as material-related and contact
conditions of the observed automotive door assembly.
In order to minimize the number of required FEM simulation
runs, a statistical Design of Experiments (DoE) is performed,
A: B: C:
Estimated Mean Shift Statistical Moments Direct Source Superposition see [9]. Investigated and applicable methods are D-Optimal
process CAT DoE FEM CAT DoE FEM 1. CAT DoE FEM Designs as well as Latin Hypercube Sampling (LHS). Using
2. RSM CAT+ a DoE, simulation parameters and limiting position information
1 1 1
K

K

K

provide guidelines for proper simulation runs.
CAT Within the FEM simulations, the assemblies side frame,
method PPP PPP PPP door, sealing system as well as other stiness-relevant parts / as-
K

K
K

semblies are taken into account. Additionally, when mounting

FEM
the primary or secondary sealing to the door or to the sideframe,
1 PPP 1 PPP 1 PPP
sealing system-related adjustment concepts are implemented in

average the course of an assembly simulation in the course of the non-

in mm linear FEM simulations.

standard

Finally, a set of input and output parameters (input & output

deviation
in mm
matrix) arises, that characterize the system behavior in terms of
stinesses, sealing characteristics and limiting positions. These
K

K

K

resulting ndigs are processed through the following three approaches in

distribution
1 PPP 1 PPP 1
Fig. 2. Approaches for coupling of statistical simulations
Overall, the presented approaches have one thing in common
- they are founded on a basic process that considers interac-
tions between geometrical deviations and system stiness, see
Fig. 3. This means, the anticipated limiting positions are calcu-
lated from a statistical consideration of the rigid overall system.
As a result from these simulations, the limiting positions for all
functionally relevant KPCs can be determined.
Due to a transformation, all information concerning the lim-
iting positions of the alignment points can be converted clearly
to displacement boundary conditions (translation and rotation)
needed for FEM simulations. Derived specications for the
limiting positions occur. These specications are varied in ac-
cordance with typical FEM input parameters, such as Shore
hardness of the sealing system, elastic modulus of the involved
parts and friction coecient to model the process of door clos-
ing. This means, a set of parameters appears containing derived
limiting positions and stiness aecting parameters.
PPP
order to nd a statistical overall statement.
Approach A: Estimated Mean Shift
In comparison with a rigid CAT simulation, this approach
enables the user to calculate an overall distribution with a mean
shift for every KPC. This can be achieved through an arithmetic
superposition of the averages in combination with the maxi-
mum statistical variance coming from tolerance and FEM sim-
ulation. The outcome is a substitue distribution that is described
as a function of the parameters average and variance. This ap-
proach is based on the hypothesis that the elastic deformation is
not increasing or decreasing the variation in comparison to the
result of the rigid system simulation.
Approach B: Statistical Moments
Performing a statistical superposition of the mean values as
well as of the variances, using the Root-Sum-Square method
(see [8]), an overall distribution with a mean shift can be cal-
culated within this approch. Analogue to Approach A the out-
come is a substitue distribution that is described as a function of
the parameters average and variance. This approach is based on
 Matthias Ehlert et al. / Procedia CIRP 43 (2016) 76 81 79

the hypothesis that the elastic deformation causes an increase Table 1. Qualitative (dis-)advantages of the approaches
of the variance compared to the rigid system. Using the RSS
Advantages Disadvantages
method, this increase becomes a contributor of the statistical
calculation of the KPC if it is ensured that it acts as an indepen- Approach A: + numerically - correlations will
dend contributor (law of error propagation, see [15]). Estimated Mean Shift less expensive not be preserved
+ rapid superposing - no predications
of the results about statistical
Approach C: Direct Source Superposition + low FEM eort variations from
If the outcome both from CAT and FEM simulations is avail- (only a few simula- FEM simulation
able as directly allocatable data series, a direct numerical super- tions necessary;
position of the source data can be performed. As a rst result Condence interval
for the mean)
of the direct allocation of the linked data series, a distribution is
Approach B: + numerically - correlations will
generated (e.g. visualized by a histogram). It is characterized Statistical Moments less expensive not be preserved
by a mean shift and a variance that can increase or decrease + rapid superposing - form of the result
compared to the rigid system. Second, this overall distribution of the results distribution
can be described generally as a function of the parameters av- o medium FEM eort
(Condence interval
erage, variance, skewness and kurtosis. Compared to the rigid
for the standard
system, this approach is based on the hypothesis that the elastic deviation)
deformation is not interacting too strong with the deviation sit- Approach C: + correlations and - numerically
uation, which in turn would mean that the outcomes of the CAT Direct Source result distributions expensive
simulations (geometrical states) are wrong. Hence, this would Superposition will be preserved - high consistency
+ simple, direct requirements
be a problem due to the fact that the input for the FEM sim-
numerical super- on DoE
ulations are generated on the basis of the corresponding CAT position of the - RSM model has a
simulations. source data signicant eect
Proceeding in this way, a few hundred input data sets are on the result
calculated leading to the same amount of output data sets. Con-
sequently, a relatively small and statistically less reliable output
scope results. To increase the statistical signicance of the re-
sults, the following procedure can now be used: Since a DoE 4. Case Study
is performed the system behavior can be described at discrete
points inside an n-dimensional space of input and output param- 4.1. System description and input variables
eters. The experimental design comes along with a positve fea-
ture: A homogeneous space of grid point occurs, which allows The environment of an automotive door assembly is chosen
to generate an interpolation between these grid point using sub- to be the demonstrator. In particular, the main components that
stitute functions. This method is known as Response Surface belong to this assembly are the side frame, the multi-layer seal-
Method (RSM). Therefore, the outcome is a descriptive substi- ing system and the door as well as some other attachment and
tute function that represents the overall system behavior. This trim parts, see Fig. 4.
function enables the user to extract the requested result distri-
butions depending on the respective input data sets. If the CAT multi-layer
simulations are repeated accordingly, the results at the KPCs sealing system
can be corrected online. It yields an overall result distribution
which can be described as a function of the parameters average,
variance, skewness and kurtosis. Therefore it has a potentially side frame
higher siginicance than the rst two approaches. door
Fig. 4. Schematic representation of the demonstrator

In order to nd the limiting positions (statistically largest de-

3.2. Qualitative comparison of the approaches
From a scientic perspective, the approaches can already be
evaluated qualitatively on the basis of their specic character-
istics. Table 1 shows this comparison between these three ap-
proaches.
In general, there is a trade o between numerical simulation
eort and quality of the result distribution. Therefore, all of
these approaches have their place, whether they are simple ap-
proaches that are still more precise than a rigid CAT simulation
or more complex approaches like integrative DoE aproaches al-
lowing highest precision by simultaneously increased simula-
tion eort.
viations from the nominal dimensions that can occur, see [10],
[6]) for every KPC, the approach applied is shown in this chap-
ter. This one is based on a tolerance simulation while excluding
any kind of elastic system behavior. Afterwards, taking into
account FEM simulations will bridge this gap.
The tolerance simulation considers deviations and displace-
ments arising from all contributors as well as their related ad-
justment concepts and mounting sequences. As mentioned be-
fore, the limiting positions (...) are not only founded on di-
mensional deviations arising from the rigid body in white, but
from the door sealing system inuences with its geometric de-
viations, stiness conditions and corresponding reaction forces
as well. Additionally, the elasticity of all parts, the process of
closing and some other factors also have an impact on these
80 Matthias Ehlert et al. / Procedia CIRP 43 (2016) 76 81

positions, [7]. Within corresponding FEM simulations these present case. The procedure is as follows: Based on the tol-
eects have to be included to improve the statements about the erance simulation outcome a covariance matrix can be derived
limiting positions. To reduce the number of time-consuming that includes all observed KPCs. From this symmetrical ma-
and expensive simulation runs, a statistical experimental de- trix the 20 biggest interactions (likely or contrary) between all
sign, based on rigid tolerance calculations, is set up. Among KPCs will be chosen. These interactions as well as those six
other things, this experimental design serves as an input for the KPCs that are supposed to reduce the six degrees of freedom
FEM simulations. (with reference to the six alignment points) are then entered
in the preparation of the D-Optimal experimental design. This
4.2. Reference simulation: tolerance simulation without con- resulting experimental design will be assigned to every of the
sideration for elastic eects three approaches / coupling concepts A, B and C. The ndings
will be shown in the following subsection 4.4
As said in subsection 4.1, the tolerance simulation takes into
consideration deviations and displacements as well as related
4.4. Quantitative comparison of the approaches
adjustment concepts and mounting sequences in order to deter-
mine statistic distributions for all KPCs, [7].
On the right hand side of Fig. 6, the comparison of the re-
In the present example, the manufacturing process for the
sults (estimated mean, standard deviation, resulting distribu-
considered automotive door assembly is modeled within a tol-
tion) between the three approaches can be seen using the ex-
erance simulation using the state-of-the-art way, [6]. In order to
ample of one selected KPC. The two subgures shown on the
build the overall assembly according to specication, it needs
left hand side show the probability distribution functions (CAT
to be ensured that the door is aligned accurately with respect
& FEM) based on their respective simulations. These are the
to the sideframe. For this purpose the door is positioned on a
variables to be coupled. The results for estimated mean (solid
workpiece carrier with regard to its specic alignment concept.
line) and standard deviation (dashed line) according to the in-
The workpiece carrier itself is positioned along the side frame
dividual approach can be seen on the right hand side of Fig. 6.
using adjustment points on the side frame afterwards. Due to
the fact that these mounting process steps come along with cor-
responding mounting tolerances, it is now the aim to minimize h (-)
them before connecting side frame and door via hinges. There-
a) CAT Approach A
fore a so-called BestFit-Move is realised. This move corrects

the relative position between side frame and door in the best

possible way using laser measurement technology when build-
m
ing the real assembly in the plant. Subsequently, the relevant

KPCs as well as their corresponding measurements are going to h (-)
be assigned. The manufacturing process is carried out 10 000 Approach B
times leading to an equal number of measured values for every
vectorial KPC. These values result in probability distribution coupling concept

functions from which the Lower / Upper Specication Limit m
(LSL / USL) can be derived. Inside this simulation all dened
geometric deviations and displacements will be varied within h (-)
their respective tolerance specications using a MCS, see [18] b) FEM Approach C

and [23].
Fig. 5 shows possible probability distribution functions on
10 chosen KPCs as a result of the rigid tolerance simulation m
that in turn represents the manufacturing process.

Fig. 6. Comparison of the results between the three approaches

Whilst there are no dierences for the estimated mean com-

paring approaches A and B a dierence can be observed when
comparing the standard deviations. It appears that there is an
increased value for the standard deviation in approach B (statis-
tical superposition) due to the eect of error propagation. This




leads in turn to an expansion / widening of the limiting posi-
tions. In contrast, on the one hand, approach C shows a com-
Fig. 5. Possible probability distribution functions on chosen KPCs as a result paratively value result for the standard deviation. On the other
of the rigid tolerance simulation hand, it becomes clear that there is a signicant mean shift. In
addition, one can recognize that there is a more precisely char-
acterised result distribution. In order to maintain or improve
4.3. Design of Experiments: Link between CAT and FEM the quality of result distribution a larger experimental design
would be necessary. This, however, is often counter to the aim
In order to keep the simulation eort low whilst keeping the of minimising the number of attempts as well as reducing cost-
accuracy of the results high a statistical DoE is used for the intensive simulation runs.
 Matthias Ehlert et al. / Procedia CIRP 43 (2016) 76 81
5. Summary of results and conclusion
This paper deals with the question of interface issues
between a tolerance simulation (rigid system behavior) and
a corresponding numeric simulation (elastic system behav-
ior). Within this publication the goal is twofold; one goal
is to introduce existing coupling approaches including their
(dis-)advantages that enable the user to perform overall system
simulations. The second goal is to point out a complemen-
tary approach. Furthermore, within the scope of a case study
(demonstrator: automotive door assembly), the procedure de-
scribed is applied. As initially expected, the results of this
case study show dierent characteristics with reference to the
attributes examined, which are estimated mean, standard devi-
ation, skewness and kurtosis.
Approach C has been identied to be the most promising ap-
proach due to two abilities. On the one hand, this approach is
able to perform a direct numerical superposition of the source
data. On the other hand, this one keeps the form and charac-
teristics of the distribution for each and every KPC across the
simulation chain. At the same time, however, this is the most
cost-intensive and time consuming approach. A comparison
with the less-expensive approaches A and B shows that there
are signicant mean shifts due to elastic eects arising from
their respective FEM simulations. However, they do not reach
the level of approach C. With regard to the variances it can be
stated that the hypothesis of a growing variance (approach B)
can be rejected due to the results achieved in approch C. This
is in line with the assumption that approach C stands for the
highest precision. When comparing the approaches A and C,
it is noticeable that the standard deviations dier signicantly,
whereby the smaller standard deviation in approach C opens up
a huge potential for the sealing design / conguration.
One substantial task in this context is the experimental vali-
dation. A comparison with experimental data as well as corre-
sponding explanations will be addressed in a future publication;
to nally select the most suitable approach.
References
[1] Camelio JA, Hu SJ, Ceglarek D. Modeling Variation Propagation of Multi-
Station Assembly Systems with Compliant Parts. Journal of Mechanical
Design. Vol. 125; 2003. p. 673-681.
[2] Camelio JA, Hu SJ, Marin S. Compliant Assembly Variation Analysis Us-
ing Component Geometric Covariance. Journal of Manufacturing Science
and Engineering. Vol. 126; 2004. p. 355-360.
[3] Ceglarek D, Huang W, Zhou S, Ding Y, Kumar R, Zhou Y. Time-Based
Competition in Multistage Manufacturing: Stream-of-Variation Analy-
sis (SOVA) Methodology-Review. The International Journal of Flexible
Manufacturing Systems. Vol. 16; 2004. p. 11-44.
[4] Chen Y, Ding Y, Jionghua J, Ceglarek D. Integration of Process-Oriented
Tolerancing and Maintenance Planning in Design of Multistation Manu-
facturing Processes. IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engi-
neering. Vol. 3. No. 4; 2006. p. 440-453.
[5] Day D, Raines M, Swift K. Setting proper tolerances early in the de-
sign phase helps avoid headaches in production. MachineDesign. Vol. 3.
www.machinedesign.com; 2005.
[6] Ehlert M, Stockinger A, Wartzack S. Validation of customer requirements
by system simulation taking tolerances and system variations into account.
ISoRD - International Symposium on Robust Design. Copenhagen. Den-
mark; 20114. p. 61-68.
[7] Ehlert M, Heling B, Wartzack S. Virtual validation of functional automo-
tive door assembly properties by means of superposed CAT and FEM. In-
ternational Conference on Engineering Design ICED. Milan. Italy; 2015.
81
[8] Fischer BR. Mechanical Tolerance Stackup and Analysis. Marcel Dekker,
Inc.. New York. USA; 2009.
[9] Gundlach C. Entwicklung eines ganzheitlichen Vorgehensmodells zur
problemorientieren Anwendung der statistischen Versuchsplanung. Disser-
tation. Universitaet Kassel. Germany; 2004.
[10] Kapici S, Ehlert M, Stockinger A, Coska C, Sammer K. Virtual validation
of limiting positions in the nal assembly of the new BMW 3 series. Au-
tomotive Circle International: Montagesysteme 2013. Bad Nauheim. Ger-
many; 2013.
[11] Lindau B, Andersson A, Lindkvist L, Soederberg R. Using Forming Simu-
lation In Virtual Assembly Analysis. Proceedings of ASME 2012 Inter-
national Mechanical Engineering Congress & Exposition, IMECE2012;
2012.
[12] Lindau B, Andersson A, Lindkvist L, Soederberg R. Body in White Ge-
ometry Measurements of Non-Rigid Components: a Virtual Perspective.
Proceedings of the ASME 2012 International Design Engineering Techni-
cal Conferences & Computers and Information in Engineering Conference,
IDETC/CIE. Vol. 5; 2012. p. 497-505.
[13] Liu SC, Hu SJ. Variation Simulation for Deformable Sheet Metal Assem-
blies Using Finite Element Methods. Journal of Manufacturing Science and
Engineering. Vol. 119; 1997. p. 368-374.
[14] Lustig R. Integration und Verarbeitung von Verformungsinformationen
im Umfeld rechnergestuetzter Toleranzanalysen. VDI Fortschritt-Berichte.
Reihe 20. Dissertation. FAU Erlangen-Nuernberg. Germany; 2008.
[15] Mannewitz F. Komplexe Toleranzanalysen einfach durchfuehren. Kon-
struktion; 2005.
[16] Markvoort L. Mthodologie danalyse statistique de tolrances dans les as-
semblages impliquant des composants dformables. Mmoire de doctorat en
Automatique et Informatique des Systmes Industriels et Humains. Univer-
sit de Valenciennes; 2007.
[17] Prakash N, Phoomboplab T, Izquierdo LE, Ceglarek D. Self-Resilient Pro-
duction Systems: Going Beyond Design Robustness. 11th CIRP Interna-
tional Conference on Computer Aided Tolerancing. Annecy; 2009.
[18] Rubinstein R. Simulation and the Monte Carlo method. Technion. Israel
Institute of Technology. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 1981.
[19] Stockinger A, Lustig R, Meerkamm H. Computer-based and experimental
validation of an approach to combine tolerance zones with elastic defor-
mations. International Conference on Engineering Design. Paris. France.
28-31 August 2007; 2007.
[20] Stockinger A, Meerkamm H. Virtual dimensional product validation by in-
tegration of simulations. International Conference on Engineering Design.
Stanford, CA, USA; 2009, p. 181-192.
[21] Stockinger A. Computer Aided Robust Design-Verknuepfung rechnerun-
tersttzter Entwicklung und virtueller Fertigung als Baustein des Toleranz-
managements. Dissertation. FAU Erlangen-Nrnberg. Germany; 2010.
[22] Thornton A C, Donnelly S, Ertan B. More than Just Robust Design: Why
Product Development Organizations Still Contend with Variation and its
Impact on Quality. Research in Engineering Design. Vol. 12; 2000. p. 127-
143.
[23] VDI. Monte-Carlo-Simulation. VDI 4008. Dsseldorf: Verein Deutscher In-
genieure; 1999.
[24] Waermefjord K, Lindkvist L, Soederberg R. Tolerance Simulation of Com-
pliant Sheet Metal Assemblies Using Automatic Node-Based Contact De-
tection. Proceedings of IMECE2008. ASME International Mechanical En-
gineering Congress and Exposition. Boston. USA; 2008.
[25] Xie K, Wells L, Camelio JA, Youn B. Variation Propagation on Compli-
ant Assemblies Considering Contact Interaction. Journal of Manufacturing
Science and Engineering, Vol. 129; 2007. p. 934-942.