Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Available
ScienceDirect
ScienceDirect
online atonline
www.sciencedirect.com
Available at www.sciencedirect.com
Procedia CIRP 00 (2018) 000–000
ScienceDirect
Procedia CIRP 00 (2018) 000–000
ScienceDirect www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

Procedia CIRP 00 (2017)

Procedia 000–000
CIRP 80 (2019) 174–179
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

26th
26th CIRP
CIRP Life
Life Cycle
Cycle Engineering
Engineering (LCE)
(LCE) Conference
Conference

Tolerance
Tolerance Allocations
Allocations on Products:
onDesign
28th CIRP Products: A
A Life
Conference,Life Cycle
Cycle
May 2018, Engineering
Engineering
Nantes, France Perspective
Perspective
a a b a
Yue Wang
Wanga,, Sydney
Sydney Calhoun
Calhouna,, Lisa Bosman
Bosmanb,, and and
and J.W. Sutherland a*
A new methodology
Yue to analyze theLisa functional physical
J.W. Sutherland architecture
* of
existing products forLeadership
anEcological
assembly Engineering,oriented
University, product
West Lafayette, INfamily
West Lafayette, IN 47906, USAidentification
Environmental and Ecological Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47906, USA
a
Environmental and a
Purdue University,
Technology and Innovation, Purdue
b
47906, USA
Technology Leadership and Innovation, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47906, USA
b

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-765-496-9697; fax: +1-765-494-4482. E-mail address: jwsuther@purdue.edu

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-765-496-9697; fax: +1-765-494-4482. E-mail address: jwsuther@purdue.edu
Paul Stief *, Jean-Yves Dantan, Alain Etienne, Ali Siadat
École Nationale Supérieure d’Arts et Métiers, Arts et Métiers ParisTech, LCFC EA 4495, 4 Rue Augustin Fresnel, Metz 57078, France
Abstract
Abstract
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +33 3 87 37 54 30; E-mail address: paul.stief@ensam.eu
Since manufacturing cannot (part after part) produce components that exactly achieve every stated nominal value – tolerances must be assigned
Since manufacturing cannot (part after part) produce components that exactly achieve every stated nominal value – tolerances must be assigned
to the nominal values. Many tolerance allocation methods have been developed, and practitioners consider these along with different stages of
to the nominal values. Many tolerance allocation methods have been developed, and practitioners consider these along with different stages of
the product life cycle when determining tolerances. For example, product designers usually allocate tolerances according to the functionality of
the product life cycle when determining tolerances. For example, product designers usually allocate tolerances according to the functionality of
the products. On the other hand, process planners often do not consider the use stage, and instead consider process costs, precision, and accuracy,
Abstract
the products. On the other hand, process planners often do not consider the use stage, and instead consider process costs, precision, and accuracy,
and how one process may impact another process. Thus, an “optimal” tolerance that considers only one stage of a product’s life cycle is generally
and how one process may impact another process. Thus, an “optimal” tolerance that considers only one stage of a product’s life cycle is generally
not
Innot optimal
today’s when other
business stages are
environment, considered.
the considered.
trend towards In principle, product life cycle management (PLM) and computer-aided engineering (CAE)
optimal when other stages are In more product
principle, variety
product lifeand customization
cycle management is unbroken.
(PLM) andDue to this development,
computer-aided the need
engineering (CAE) of
software
agile and tools should be production
reconfigurable able to determine
systems optimal
emerged tolerances.
to cope An
withinvestigation
various of engineering
products and research
product and To
families. available
design PLM/CAE
and optimizesoftware tools,
production
software tools should be able to determine optimal tolerances. An investigation of engineering research and available PLM/CAE software tools,
with respect
systems to tolerance
as well allocation,
as to choose is reported.
the optimal product Emphasis
matches,isisproduct
placed on a systematic
analysis methodsanalysis of the ability
are needed. tomost
Indeed,to perform tolerance
of the allocation
knownallocation
methods aim from a
with respect to tolerance allocation, is reported. Emphasis placed on a systematic analysis of the ability perform tolerance fromtoa
life cycle
analyze a engineering
product or one(LCE)
product perspective.
family on Problems
the physical caused
level. by tolerance
Different allocation
product methods
families, however,thatmay
focus only
differ on certain
largely in lifeofcycle
terms the stages and
number are
life cycle engineering (LCE) perspective. Problems caused by tolerance allocation methods that focus only on certain life cycle stages are
analyzed,
nature of such as over-design,
components. This fact mistaken an
impedes scrapping
efficient of satisfactory
comparison andproducts,
choice and
of poorly performing
appropriate product products.
family Based on for
combinations thethe
gaps between
production
analyzed, such as over-design, mistaken scrapping of satisfactory products, and poorly performing products. Based on the gaps between
manufacturers’
system. needs and available
A new methodology methods,
is proposed some future
to analyze existingresearch
products directions
in view are suggested.
of their functional and physical architecture. The aim is to cluster
manufacturers’ needs and available methods, some future research directions are suggested.
these© ©
2019 in
products
2019
The
Thenew Authors.
assembly
Authors.
Published
oriented
Published
by Elsevier
product
by families
Elsevier
B.V.
for the
B.V.
This is anof existing
optimization
This is an
open access
open assembly
access
article under
lines and
article under
the CCof future
the creation BY-NC-ND
the CC BY-NC-ND
license
reconfigurable
license
© 2019 The Authors. Published
Based on Datumby Elsevier
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/).
assembly systems. Flow B.V.the
Chain, This is an open
physical accessofarticle
structure the under the
products is CC BY-NC-ND
analyzed. license
Functional subassemblies are identified, and
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/).
a(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/)
Peer-review
functional
Peer-review
underisresponsibility
analysis
under performed.
responsibility
of the scientific
Moreover,
of the a
scientific
committee
hybrid functional
committee
of the
and
of the
26th CIRParchitecture
physical Life Cycle Engineering
graph (LCE)isConference.
(HyFPAG) the output which depicts the
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 26th26th
CIRP CIRP
LifeLife Cycle
Cycle Engineering
Engineering (LCE)
(LCE) Conference.
Conference.
similarity between product families by providing design support to both, production system planners and product designers. An illustrative
Keywords:
example of Tolerance Allocation;
a nail-clipper is usedProduct life cycle
to explain the management (PLM); Computer-aided
proposed methodology. An industrialengineering (CAE)
case study on two product families of steering columns of
Keywords: Tolerance Allocation; Product life cycle management (PLM); Computer-aided engineering (CAE)
thyssenkrupp Presta France is then carried out to give a first industrial evaluation of the proposed approach.
© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 28th CIRP Design Conference 2018.
1.
1. Tolerance
Tolerance Allocation
Allocation and
and Stages
Stages of
of the
the Product
Product Life
Life been developed.
been developed. Practitioners
Practitioners usually
usually carry
carry out
out thethe tolerance
tolerance
Cycle
Cycle Assembly; Design method; Family identification
Keywords: allocation process considering its effect on certain
allocation process considering its effect on certain stages of stages of the
the
product life cycle, such as design, manufacturing,
product life cycle, such as design, manufacturing, use, and use, and
As
As thethe manufacturing marketplace has
manufacturing marketplace has become
become more more and and remanufacturing/recycling, as
remanufacturing/recycling, as shown
shown in in Fig.
Fig. 1.1. In
In this
this paper,
paper,
more
more competitive,
competitive, industry is forced to constantly improve in
industry is forced to constantly improve in tolerance
tolerance allocation
allocation methods
methods are categorized
are categorized and analyzed
and analyzed
1.terms
Introduction of the product therange
stagesand characteristics ofmanufactured
focus. and/or
terms of of quality,
quality, cost,
cost, andand cycle
cycle time.
time. Generally
Generally speaking,
speaking, according
according
assembled
to the
to stages of product
of product cycle of
cycle their focus.
their
products
products with smaller deviations from
from the nominal valuevalue are the indesign
In the this system.
design stage,In product
this context,
product the maintypically
designers challengeuse in
Due towith
expected to thesmaller
better fast
perform
deviations
development
in terms of
the
in nominal
the functionality;
designed domain are
of In
modelling
computer aided and
aided design
stage,
analysis is
design (CAD) now not
(CAD) software
designers
only
software toto cope
to map
typically
with
map functional
use
single
expected
communication to betterandperform
an in terms
ongoing of
trend designed
of functionality;
digitization and computer
products, a limited product rangeintoor existing productfunctional
families,
however,
however, with with this
this smaller
smaller variance
variancearecomes comes aa higher
higher requirements
requirements of
of tothe product
theanalyze
product into characteristics
characteristics such as
such as
digitalization,
manufacturing manufacturing
cost [1]. To enterprises
balance the facing important
trade-off between but also
material to be
and able
dimensions. and
Basedto compare
on the products
design to
and define
the
manufacturing
challenges cost
in cost,
today’s [1]. To balance
market are the trade-off
environments:to a products between
continuing material
new product andfamilies.
dimensions.
It can be Based
observedon the design and
thatprocess
classical the
existing
quality
quality and and tolerances
cost,reduction
tolerances are assigned
assigned to products to
to availability
availability of manufacturing
of manufacturing resources,
resources, process planners
planners
tendency
guarantee towards
adequate of
functionality product
– a development
bi-lateral tolerancetimes and
creates product
undertake families
such are regrouped
tasks in function
as selecting
selecting the typeof clients
type or features.
of machine,
machine, the
guarantee
shortened adequate
product functionality
lifecycles. In Since – a bi-lateral
addition, tolerance
there is creates
an increasing undertake
However, such
assembly tasks as
oriented product the
families of
are hardly the
to find.
lower
lower andand upper specifications.
upper specifications. Since aa product
product usually
usually consists sequence of processes, operation scheduling, and fixture/layout
demand
of multipleof customization,
components being
(parts), at
the the same
tolerance time
of a aconsists
inproduct
globalis
sequence
On theInof
design.
processes,
product familyoperation
the manufacturing
manufacturing
scheduling,
level,stage,
products and fixture/layout
the differ
mean mainly in two
and standard
standard
of multiple with
competition components
competitors(parts),
all the
over tolerance
the of aThis
world. product
trend,is design.
main In the
characteristics: (i) the stage,
number of the mean
components andand (ii) the
often allocated
often allocated to these
to these individual components. deviation of of the
the processes
processes are are controlled.
controlled.
whichMany is tolerance
inducing the individual
development
allocation
components.
methods and fromsoftware
and macro tools,
to micro
have
deviation
type of components (e.g. mechanical, electrical, electronical).
Many tolerance allocation methods
markets, results in diminished lot sizes due software tools, have
to augmenting Classical methodologies considering mainly single products
product varieties (high-volume to low-volume production) [1]. or solitary, already existing product families analyze the
2212-8271 © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
To cope with
2212-8271 © 2019 this
Theaugmenting variety
Authors. Published as wellB.V.
by Elsevier as This
to be able
is an opentoaccessproduct structure
article under on a physical
the CC BY-NC-ND level (components level) which
license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/).
identify possible optimization potentials
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/). in the existing
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 26th CIRP Life Cycle Engineering (LCE) Conference. an efficient definition and
causes difficulties regarding
Peer-review under
production responsibility
system, of the scientific
it is important to have committee of the
a precise 26th CIRP Life Cycle
knowledge Engineering
comparison of(LCE) Conference.
different product families. Addressing this
doi:10.1016/j.procir.2017.04.009
doi:10.1016/j.procir.2017.04.009
2212-8271 © 2019 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/3.0/)
2212-8271 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Peer-review
Peer-review under
under responsibility
responsibility of scientific
of the the scientific committee
committee of the of theCIRP
28th 26thDesign
CIRP Conference
Life Cycle 2018.
Engineering (LCE) Conference.
10.1016/j.procir.2019.01.089
2 Author name / Procedia CIRP 00 (2019) 000–000
Yue Wang et al. / Procedia CIRP 80 (2019) 174–179
Fig. 1 Tolerance allocation and its potential impact on stages of product life cycle
Generally, processes with higher precision will have a
higher direct operational cost, and additionally, some indirect
factors, such as labor, will affect the accuracy and cost of the
process. The tolerances of individual components could impact
the difficulty of assembly and the overall performance of the
product. These costs are usually considered in manufacturing
processes.
Product (and/or component) inspection assesses the product
(or component) relative to the appropriate specification limit.
If an unnecessarily tight tolerance is assigned, a large number
of good products/components could be rejected, this resulting
in rework or scrap. If tolerances on components are too loose,
this may result in assembly process problems, or produce poor
quality assembled products. Both situations incur a waste of
resources and could ultimately result in loss of market and high
maintenance expenses [2]. Taguchi’s loss function concept
seeks to consider functional performance during the use stage
of the product, and this function can be integrated into the
tolerance allocation process.
With the popularization of the notion of a circular economy,
there is increasing attention to using products or components
for multiple uses cycles. In this paradigm, when a product
reaches end-of-life (EOL or end-of-use, EOU), the value
embedded in the product can be recovered via reuse,
remanufacturing, or recycling. From a sustainability
standpoint, appropriate steps at product EOL can help close
materials loops in the product life cycle [3]. Certainly, the
notion of multiple use cycles for products and/or components
calls increasing attention to tolerances and specifications, since
performance is of interest over a much longer period of time.
Ideally, information from different stages of the product life
cycle (or even over multiple life cycles) should be considered
in the tolerance allocation process. Even with the help of CAE
tools, it is still difficult to make decisions that comprehensively
consider multiple stages of the product life cycle. This paper
investigates engineering research and available PLM/CAE
software tools, with respect to tolerance allocation. Emphasis
is placed on a systematic analysis of the ability to allocate
tolerance from a life cycle engineering (LCE) perspective.
Problems caused by tolerance allocation methods that focus
only on certain life cycle stages are also examined.
175
2. Tolerance Allocation Research
Research on tolerance allocation is reviewed. Research is
categorized based on the principal stage of the product life
cycle that is considered.
2.1. Product Design
In the design stage, product designers map requirements into
functional capabilities of products. Compared with other stages
of the product life cycle, the cost of design is relatively low,
however, it does have significant impact on the cost of other
stages [3]. CAD tools are ubiquitous in the design process, and
have enabled designers to optimize structures, geometry,
dimensions, and materials [4]. Tolerance allocation is a major
task addressed in the design stage. Quality cannot be
manufactured/inspected into a product, it can only be “designed
in” [5]. Unfortunately, very few traditional CAD tools consider
product quality.
Traditional CAD software tools do not support geometric
dimensioning and tolerance data. Features and parameters are
typically used in the CAD tools to present the geometry and
dimensions of an individual component. One of the difficulties
in dealing with the task of tolerance allocation using a CAD
system is to select the features and parameters that have
influence on the geometry or dimension in the component and
how these influences stack up to affect the assembled product.
To solve the problem, Din et al. [6] provide a method to
calculate the sensitivity information between the parameters in
the CAD model and the dimensional information of the
individual components and product. The method uses a worst-
case approach, which means that the allocated tolerances tends
to be tighter than necessary.
Assembly characteristic information, such as mating
relationships and constraints, are needed to analyze tolerances.
Mohan et al. [7] proposed a framework to carry out tolerance
allocation using limited information in B-Rep data. A model is
provided to review the design data necessary for tolerance
analysis and allocation. In this model, the assembly and pattern
features, tolerance loops, and directional variation that needs
control are analyzed. Based on Mohan’s model, Haghighi et al.
176 Yue Wang et al. / Procedia CIRP 80 (2019) 174–179
Author name / Procedia CIRP 00 (2019) 000–000
[8] provided a method to perform first order tolerance
allocation with consideration limited to the geometric condition
for assembly. This method allocated tolerances based on
recognized features from design data. The function, design, and
manufacturing process specifics were not considered. Biswas
et al. [9] extended this research to provide a two-stage
algorithm to allocate tolerances using geometric data from
design. First, tolerances are allocated to individual components
based on dimensions. Then, stack up effects of the initial
tolerances are analyzed and adjusted iteratively. This model
also only considered geometric conditions for assembly.
Louhichi et al. [10] presented a model that integrates
dimensional and geometrical tolerances into ideal geometric
designs, and transforms theoretical design data into more
realistic geometries that can be used in assembly.
Due to the lack of data in the design stage, other stages are
either ignored or carried out based on the experience of product
designers. Although the tools mentioned above cannot provide
optimal tolerances for components, they are still helpful as
designers can adjust the design quickly based on the feedback
offered in other stages.
Fig. 2 Tolerance and cost
2.2. Manufacturing
Manufacturing processes produce components with
geometric and dimensional variations (process precision).
Product designers often focus on the precision of the
components needed to perform design function, but often have
limited consideration for processing cost, which is closely
related to the accuracy and precision of the process. Process
engineers usually select the process types and parameters by
considering quality, throughput, and manufacturing cost [9,11].
As a result, the allocated tolerances created by the product
designers might conflict with the goals of the process
engineers. In allocating tolerances, it is important to consider
process planning as part of the tolerance-cost relationship.
Different functions have been proposed to model the
relationship [12], e.g., reciprocal [13], reciprocal power [14],
and exponential [15–17]. Figure 2 (a) shows two processes
with different tolerance-cost relationship.
Based on these models, the tolerance allocation problem is
usually modelled as a constrained nonlinear multivariable
optimization problem. When multiple processes are available,
the process planner allocates tolerances considering the
accuracies, precisions, and costs of the alternative processes,
and different combinations of these processes to produce
3
individual components, so that the overall quality of the
product and the cost can be optimized.
Factors, such as stack up effects of components during
assembly, make it hard to find closed-form solutions to the
problem. Many researchers have provided algorithms to solve
the optimization problem [18] [19].
Processing parameter optimization is another research area
in tolerance allocation. Often this research seeks to find the
parameters that minimize the total cost in manufacturing, with
a constraint on the overall tolerance. Wang and Liang [20]
provided a tolerance allocation method that, not only selected
machining processes, but also considered the influence of
machining parameters. Sivakumar et al. [21] adapted two
optimization techniques, i.e., NSGA-II and MOPSO, in order
to optimize three combined objectives: minimizing tolerance
stack up, minimizing manufacturing cost, and minimizing the
quality loss.
Assembly process planning is also an issue that affects the
tolerance allocation process and few studies have considered
this area. Andolfatto et al. [22] provided a graph-based method
that selects assembly technique given the assembly sequence.
Here, manufacturing cost minimization was used as the
objective, and geometrical tolerance allocation is considered as
the quality performance indicator.
2.3. Use and Recycle
Two products that assembled from components with
dimensions within tolerances may not have the same level of
quality. A tolerance allocation method that only considers
design and manufacturing may produce products with large
deviations from the nominal value. This deviation of function
will cause economic loss. The concept of quality loss proposed
by Taguchi [23] uses a quadratic function to quantify the loss
due to functional variation from target value in a monetary
scale. As shown in Fig. 2 (b), the total cost of a product can be
represented as a summation of the processing cost in the
manufacturing stage and the quality loss in the use stage. When
considering multiple stages of product life cycle, the
optimization problem becomes even more complex to solve.
Choi et al. [24] carried out first order Tayler series
expansion for nonlinear design functions. The processing cost
and quality loss were then integrated into a cost model. Zahara
and Kao [25] adapted a similar form of quality loss function
[24] and developed an algorithm that combines the Nelder-
Mead simplex method and particle swarm optimization to
allocate tolerance for an overrunning clutch assembly
application. Yet, this method only considered the worst-case
scenario. Chen and Kao [26] considered a production system
with 100% inspection.
Though products are designed to fulfil functional
requirements by customers, the use stage is only a part of the
product life cycle, the condition of all components deteriorate
through the use stage, and eventually the products will reach
end of life. The original “design-use-dispose” model has
caused a heavy environmental burden. As a result, an emergent
challenge has focused on making the production industry more
sustainable.
 Yue Wang et al. / Procedia CIRP 80 (2019) 174–179
4 Author name / Procedia CIRP 00 (2019) 000–000
By avoiding unnecessary scraping of EOL product, the
value in the components (energy, material, labor, et al) are
retained. However, value recovery is usually not considered
when products are designed [27], and remanufacturers have
difficulties acquiring information about the returned
product/components [28]. This makes it harder for
remanufacturers to carry out actions such as categorizing
returned products and estimating quality of reassembled
products. Tightening the tolerance of products increases
manufacturing cost, however, fewer products are expected to
be returned or scrapped due to quality issues. If a returned
product can be cost effectively remanufactured, the initial
tolerance allocation process can be adjusted to consider factors
such as users’ expectation, reverse supply chain, and second
market [29].
Few studies on tolerance allocation directly considered the
EOL stage of products. Some studies provided selective
reassembly strategies to deal with the uncertain qualities of
returned component [30–32] In those studies, returned
components are graded based on their quality levels
(dimensional precisions). By matching components according
to their grades, dimensional variations of reassembled products
can be controlled. Some studies on tolerance analysis of
remanufactured components have been provided [33–35].
Though, the studies reviewed in this section do not provide
techniques that directly related to tolerance allocation
considering the EOL stage of products, they are enlightening in
allocating tolerances in reassembling processes.
3. Software
Computer aided design (CAD) and Computer aided
manufacturing(CAM) software has been widely used in the
manufacturing industry to facilitate work such as product
design, process planning, and processing parameter
optimization. Even though there are computer-aided tolerance
tools that deal with processing variations, few of them support
tolerance allocation [8] [36]. Instead of automatic analysis,
those tools depend on users to input complete information, such
as clearance for mating feature, tolerance stack up, and
distribution of the stack up [8]. In principle, PLM and CAE
software tools should be able to determine optimal tolerances
that considers multiple stages of product life cycle. In this
section, four tolerancing software tools are reviewed with
respect to tolerance allocation. The software tools’ abilities to
consider multiple stages of product life cycle and problems
caused by only considering certain stages are analyzed.
3.1. 3DCS Variation Analyst
3DCS Variation Analyst is a tolerance allocation tool that
can either be an independent tool or used as a plugin into CAM
software, such as Siemens NX [37]. 3DCS Variation Analyst is
based on three types of simulations (i.e., Monte Carlo
simulation, sensitivity analysis, and root sum squared model).
The statistical outputs of the simulations show the estimated
percent of products that will be out of specification, the main
177
contributing tolerances and parts to variation issues, and
specified statistical measures such as process capability rates
(e.g., Cpk and Ppk). When functioned as a plugin for Siemens
NX, 3DCS uses CAD/CAM based production and
manufacturing information from Siemens NX to analyze
sources of variation and potential issues with the build of the
product. As information on use and recycle stage of the product
life cycle is not available in CAD/CAM software, tolerances
allocated using this software cannot consider these two stages
and might not be optimal.
3.2. Sigmetrix CETOL 6σ
Sigmetrix has four software solutions that help users
achieve designs through tolerance analysis and the correct
application of geometric dimensioning and tolerancing
(GD&T) [38]. The first product is CETOL 6σ, which is
described as a “full-integrated” 3-D tolerance analysis solution.
The second product is EZtol, which is a standalone 1D
tolerance stack up analysis tool. The third is Tolerance
Analysis Extension (TAE), which is an integrated 1-D
tolerance stack up tool. Finally, the last product is the GD&T
Advisor, which is an interactive tool that guide users on the
correct application of GD&T. Other than traditional worst-case
analysis and root sum square model, Sigmetrix’ software also
supports second order tolerance analysis which incorporates all
distribution moments. This software only uses information in
the design stage and are not able to generate results from a LCE
stand point.
3.3. TOLCAP
Tolcap is a web-based product design tool that considers the
cost and capability of different manufacturing methods [39].
By considering production capability and cost in the design
stage, a product designer can predict whether the tolerances
being used on a drawing will provide suitable process
capability before carrying out the production process, so that a
minimum number of defectives will be achieved. This
ultimately bridges the gap between product designer and
process planner. This tool ensures minimum defectives.
However, a minimum number of defectives does not
necessarily correspond to the economic performance of the
manufacturing system.
3.4. ToleranceCalc 6.0
ToleranceCalc 6.0 is tolerance allocation software created
by GEOMATE Company [40]. It performs Monte Carlo
simulation, worst-case analysis, and contributor sensitivity
analysis on 1D/2D tolerance vector chains that are sketched in
CAD geometry. Users can perform “reverse” tolerance analysis
(i.e., tolerance allocation) for easy mediation between design
performance needs and manufacturing process capabilities.
Each run delivers a sensitivity analysis report that lets users
know which tolerances have the greatest impact on the stack
178 Yue Wang et al. / Procedia CIRP 80 (2019) 174–179
Author name / Procedia CIRP 00 (2019) 000–000
up. Based on the sensitivity analysis, users can create informed
tolerance allocation strategies, which includes feedback from
manufacturing process. Information on use and recycle stage is
not available in this software. Thus, this software is not capable
of allocating tolerance with an overall consideration of product
life cycle.
4. Discussion and Outlook
Traditionally, the tolerance allocation problem has been
carried out in silos considering product life cycle stages
separately. Thus, the ‘optimal’ allocated tolerances are likely
not be optimal from the whole life cycle point of view. This
paper provides an investigation on engineering research and
available PLM/CAE software tools, with respect to tolerance
allocation. Problems caused by tolerance allocation methods
that focus only on certain life cycle stages are identified.
Due to the complexity of the problem, it is very hard to build
a model that can integrate every stage of the product life cycle.
It would still be very beneficial to build models that can
integrate multiple life cycle stages, allowing practitioners the
ability to balance priorities across these stages. Future research
is suggested to perform academic studies and build
commercially available software tools that can balance the
conflicts in multiple stages of product life cycle. An overview
of challenges and an outlook of research directions that lead to
this goal are listed below:
• As design has a critical influence on the whole life cycle
of products, design platform with a database that integrate
the knowledge of product designers, process designers,
quality engineers, processing operators, and
remanufacturers would be beneficial.
• Tolerance-cost models highly depend on field data.
Current tolerance-cost models are over simplified.
Instructions on how to collect relevant data and build
accurate cost models that include multiple stages of
product life cycle can be helpful for practitioners.
• In many of the tolerance allocation models, processing
parameters are optimized with the goal of minimizing
manufacturing cost. These models can be extended to
study the relationship among processing parameters,
tolerances of processed components, and environmental
performance of assembled products.
• For some products, different stages of product life cycle
have different levels of economic/environmental impact.
For example, the energy consumption and the CO 2
emission of an engine in the use stage is much higher than
other stages of the product life cycle. It might be helpful
to build a tool that quantify the level of impact for each of
the stages. Practitioners can balance the results and make
an overall good decision when conflicts among different
stages are unavoidable.
Disclaimer
Certain commercial software systems are analyzed in this
paper to facilitate a compare of currently available tools on the
market. Such analyses do not imply recommendation or
5
discouragement of any specific software tool.
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the
Discovery Park Big Idea Challenge grant (F.00038152.06.005)
at Purdue University, and the support from the Indiana Next
Generation Manufacturing Competitiveness Center (IN-Mac)
(F.00139086.02.004).
References
[1] Spotts, M., 1973, “Allocation of Tolerances to Minimize Cost of
Assembly,” Journal of Mechanical Design, (I), pp. 762–764.
[2] Devor, R. E., Chang, T., and Sutherland, J. W., 2007, Statistical Quality
Design and Control, Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
[3] Ramani, K., Ramanujan, D., Bernstein, W. Z., Zhao, F., Sutherland, J.,
Handwerker, C., Choi, J.-K., Kim, H., and Thurston, D., 2010, “Integrated
Sustainable Life Cycle Design: A Review,” Journal of Mechanical Design,
Transactions of the ASME, 132(9), pp. 0910041–09100415.
[4] Feng, S. C., and Song, E. Y., 2000, “Information Modeling of Conceptual
Design Integrated with Process Planning,” The 2000 International
Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition.
[5] George Dieter, 2000, Engineering Design: A Materials and Processing
Approach, The McGraw-Hill Companies.
[6] Wan Din, W. I., Robinson, T. T., Armstrong, C. G., and Jackson, R., 2016,
“Using CAD Parameter Sensitivities for Stack-up Tolerance Allocation,”
International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing, 10(2), pp.
139–151.
[7] Mohan, P., Haghighi, P., Vemulapalli, P., Kalish, N., Shah, J. J., and
Davidson, J. K., 2014, “Toward Automatic Tolerancing of Mechanical
Assemblies: Assembly Analyses,” Journal of Computing and Information
Science in Engineering, 14(4), p. 041009.
[8] Haghighi, P., Mohan, P., Kalish, N., Vemulapalli, P., Shah, J. J., and
Davidson, J. K., 2015, “Toward Automatic Tolerancing of Mechanical
Assemblies: First-Order GD&T Schema Development and Tolerance
Allocation,” Journal of Computing and Information Science in
Engineering, 15(4), p. 041003.
[9] Biswas, D., Venkiteswaran, A., Hejaz, S. M., Shah, J. J., and Davidson, J.
K., 2016, “Automated Iterative Tolerance Value Allocation and Analysis,”
Proceedings of the ASME 2016 International Design Engineering
Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering
Conference, Charlotte, pp. 1–14.
[10] Louhichi, B., Tlija, M., Benamara, A., and Tahan, A., 2015, “An
Algorithm for CAD Tolerancing Integration: Generation of Assembly
Configurations According to Dimensional and Geometrical Tolerances,”
Computer-Aided Design, 62, pp. 259–274.
[11] Kim, Y. J., Cho, B. R., and Phillips, M. D., 2000, “Determination of the
Optimal Process Mean with the Consideration of Variance Reduction and
Process Capability,” Quality Engineering, 13(2), pp. 251–260.
[12] Chase, K. W., Greenwood, W. H., Loosli, B. G., and Hauglund, L. F.,
1990, “Least Cost Tolerance Allocation for Mechanical Assemblies with
Automated Process Selection,” Manufacturing review, 3(1), pp. 49–59.
[13] Chase, K. W., and Greenwood, W. H., 1988, “Design Issues in Mechanical
Tolerance Analysis,” Manufacturing Review, 1(1), pp. 50–59.
[14] Sutherland, G. H., and Roth, B., 1975, “Mechanism Design: Accounting
for Manufacturing Tolerances and Costs in Function Generating
Problems,” Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering, 97(1), pp.
283–286.
[15] Speckhart, F. H., 1972, “Calculation of Tolerance Based on a Minimum
Cost Approach,” Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering,
94(2), pp. 447–453.
[16] Wilde, D., 2018, “Allocation of Sure-Fit Tolerances,” (November 1975),
pp. 1395–1398.
[17] Peters, J., 2018, “Tolerancing t i e Components of an Assembly for
Iinimum Cost.”
[18] Singh, P. K., Jain, S. C., and Jain, P. K., 2005, “Advanced Optimal
Tolerance Design of Mechanical Assemblies with Interrelated Dimension
Chains and Process Precision Limits,” Computers in Industry, 56(2), pp.
 Yue Wang et al. / Procedia CIRP 80 (2019) 174–179
6 Author name / Procedia CIRP 00 (2019) 000–000
179–194.
[19] Sing, P. K., Jain, S. C., and Jain, P. K., 2005, “Comparative Study of
Genetic Algorithm and Simulated Annealing for Optimal Tolerance Design
Formulated with Discrete and Continuous Variables,” Proceedings of the
Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering
Manufacture, 219(10), pp. 735–758.
[20] Wang, P., and Liang, M., 2005, “An Integrated Approach to Tolerance
Synthesis, Process Selection and Machining Parameter Optimization
Problems,” International Journal of Production Research, 43(11), pp.
2237–2262.
[21] Sivakumar, K., Balamurugan, C., and Ramabalan, S., 2011, “Simultaneous
Optimal Selection of Design and Manufacturing Tolerances with
Alternative Manufacturing Process Selection,” Computer-Aided Design,
43(2), pp. 207–218.
[22] Andolfatto, L., Thiébaut, F., Lartigue, C., and Douilly, M., 2014, “Quality-
and Cost-Driven Assembly Technique Selection and Geometrical
Tolerance Allocation for Mechanical Structure Assembly,” Journal of
Manufacturing Systems, 33(1), pp. 103–115.
[23] Taguchi, G., 1986, Introduction to Quality Engineering, Asian
Productivity Organization, Tokyo.
[24] Choi, H.-G. R., Park, M., and Salisbury, E., 2000, “Optimal Tolerance
Allocation With Loss Functions,” Journal of Manufacturing Science and
Engineering, 122(3), p. 529.
[25] Zahara, E., and Kao, Y. T., 2009, “A Hybridized Approach to Optimal
Tolerance Synthesis of Clutch Assembly,” International Journal of
Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 40(11–12), pp. 1118–1124.
[26] Chen, C. H., and Kao, H. S., 2009, “The Determination of Optimum
Process Mean and Screening Limits Based on Quality Loss Function,”
Expert Systems with Applications, 36(3 PART 2), pp. 7332–7335.
[27] Cong, L., Zhao, F., and Sutherland, J. W., 2017, “Integration of
Dismantling Operations into a Value Recovery Plan for Circular
Economy,” Journal of Cleaner Production, 149, pp. 378–386.
[28] Abu, M. Y., Jamaluddin, K. R., and Zakaria, M. A., 2016, “Classification
of Crankshaft Remanufacturing Using Mahalanobis-Taguchi System,”
International Journal of Automotive and Mechanical Engineering, 13(2),
pp. 3413–3422.
179
[29] Ardeshirilajimi, A., and Azadivar, F., 2015, “Remanufacturing of
Commercial Returns in a Market with a Variable Quality Tolerance,”
IEOM 2015 - 5th International Conference on Industrial Engineering and
Operations Management, Proceeding.
[30] Jin, X., Ni, J., and Koren, Y., 2011, “Optimal Control of Reassembly with
Variable Quality Returns in a Product Remanufacturing System,” CIRP
Annals - Manufacturing Technology, 60(1), pp. 25–28.
[31] Wang, Y., Mendis, G., Peng, S., and Sutherland, J., 2019, “Component-
Oriented Reassembly in Remanufacturing Systems: Managing Uncertainty
and Satisfying Customer Needs,” Journal of Manufacturing Science and
Engineering, 141(2), pp. 0210051–02100512.
[32] Liu, M., Liu, C., Xing, L., Mei, F., and Zhang, X., 2016, “Study on a
Tolerance Grading Allocation Method under Uncertainty and Quality
Oriented for Remanufactured Parts,” International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology, 87(5–8), pp. 1265–1272.
[33] Liu, M., Liu, C., and Zhu, Q., 2014, “Optional Classification for
Reassembly Methods with Different Precision Remanufactured Parts,”
Assembly Automation, 34(4), pp. 315–322.
[34] Shen, W., Pang, K., Liu, C., Ge, M., Zhang, Y., and Wang, X., 2015, “The
Quality Control Method for Remanufacturing Assembly Based on the
Jacobian-Torsor Model,” International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology, 81(1–4), pp. 253–261.
[35] Zhang, Y., Yin, Y., and Yang, M., 2010, “A New Selective Assembly
Approach for Remanufacturing of Mating Parts,” 40th International
Conference on Computers and Industrial Engineering: Soft Computing
Techniques for Advanced Manufacturing and Service Systems, CIE40
2010.
[36] Frère, L.-M., Royer, M., and Fourcade, J., 2018, “Tolerance Analysis
Using a Computer Aided Tolerancing Software: ANATOLE 3D,” Procedia
CIRP, 75, pp. 267–272.
[37] “DCS” [Online]. Available: https://www.3dcs.com/tolerance-analysis-
software-and-spc-systems/3dcs-software.
[38] “Sigmetrix CETOL” [Online]. Available: https://www.sigmetrix.com/.
[39] “Tolcap” [Online]. Available: https://www.tolcap.com/.
[40] “ToleranceCalc” [Online]. Available: https://www.tolerancecalc.com/.