The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-018-1920-2

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

A comprehensive review of tolerance analysis models

Yanlong Cao 1,2 & Ting Liu 2 & Jiangxin Yang 2

Received: 6 November 2017 / Accepted: 15 March 2018

# Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2018

Abstract
During the design and manufacturing process, the dimensional and geometric tolerances assigned to parts will affect the required
functionality through a stack-up of deviations. Choosing an appropriate tolerance analysis model is important to calculate the
influence that every tolerance has on key characteristics, and these models are fundamental tools for shortening the product
development cycle with improved quality at a lower cost. There are many tolerance analysis models proposed in the literature.
This paper, relying on the sizable literature, briefly presents eight of the most widely used models for tolerance analysis. Through
a study of the research status of the analysis methods and applications, a comparison is proposed to show each method’s
advantages and disadvantages, similarities, and differences. Such a comparison furnishes criteria which are helpful in choosing
the most appropriate model under various circumstances, as well as improving the accuracy of analysis.

Keywords Tolerance analysis . Tolerance models . Key characteristics . Research status . Comparison

1 Introduction different targets are considered. An assembly with the re-

The tolerances allocated for individual part dimensions, form,
position, and direction in the design stage will transfer and
accumulate in the process of mechanical assembly to severely
impact the final product performance and cost. Thus, tolerance
analysis is urgently needed to predict the accumulated effects
of these individual tolerances on the functional requirement of
the assembly. The focus of tolerance analysis is conditional
upon the adopted mathematical or physical models that de-
scribe the variations of the tolerance zone and the accepted
analysis methods that assess the effect of part deviations on
the product functional requirements.
A study of tolerance analysis performed for mechanical
assembly can be divided into five aspects for the most part,
as shown in Fig. 1: the analysis stage, analysis principle,
analysis object, analysis method, and final analysis state.
First, in the different stages of the product life cycle,
* Jiangxin Yang
yangjx@zju.edu.cn
1
State Key Laboratory of Fluid Power and Mechatronic Systems,
College of Mechanical Engineering, Zhejiang University,
Hangzhou 310027, China
2
Key Laboratory of Advanced Manufacturing Technology of
Zhejiang Province, College of Mechanical Engineering, Zhejiang
University, Hangzhou 310027, China
striction of specified dimensional and geometric tolerances
conforming to quality requirements or inversely allocation of
individually optimal tolerances is implemented in design
while tolerance transfer, that is, taking into process planning
and the complex variables including natural variability and
unavoidable random or systematic variability is conducted in
manufacturing, as well; error calculation or evaluation is
proceeded based on data measured from coordinate measur-
ing machines (CMMs) in inspection stage through algo-
rithms, i.e., least squares and minimum zone method, to
estimate the quality and thereby adjust the parameters in
design phase to achieve optimization. Testing or experiment
is conducted to verify the effectiveness of the proposed
methods in the functional analysis. It should be noted that
a visualization technology is important to show the results in
inspection and testing stages intuitively, and then to conform
to the design requirements. Second, the process of tolerance
analysis must meet certain principle; the division of indepen-
dent principle (IP) and the relevant requirements balances
the correlation of dimensional tolerances and geometric tol-
erances, i.e., the maximum material requirement (MMR)
controls the dimensional precision, and the actual contour
satisfies the maximum material virtual boundary (MMVB).
The choice for the tolerance zones’ interactions and the da-
tum procedure deals with the tolerance zones and datums
separately: the former schematizes more tolerances applied
to the same features; the latter covers an assigned
 Int J Adv Manuf Technol

Analysis
Object

Part Rigid

Assembly Flexible
Analysis Point-
Stage based
Feature-
Tolerance based
Design
Manufac
Conformance
turing
3
Analysis State
Tesng 1 Tolerance 5
Analysis Stac Sequence
Inspecon Time
Visualizaon
discrete
2 Dynamic Kinemac
Relave
4 Deviaons
posion

Analysis
Principle
Analysis
method
Material Linear/nonlin Explicit/im
Envelope/in condion 1D/2D/3D
ear plicit
modifier(MMC
dependence
/LMC)
Worst case/stascal Fuzzy/non-probabilisc

Tolerance
Datum
zone
precedure Assemblability Funconal
Sensivity analysis
interacon analysis
Interference
Sasfying the Sensivity/contrib
detecon/assemb
funconal uon/distributed
ly yield
requirements visualizaon

Fig. 1 The various aspects of tolerance analysis

precedence among the datums. Third, a single part or assem-
blies are two analytical objects. At the part level, the design-
er specifies tolerances and expresses the corresponding tol-
erance zones. Conversely, at the assembly level, clearances
and fit are specified. The functional requirement is pursued
for analyzing the range of the admissible play. The differ-
ence between rigidity and flexibility decides the model to be
selected because some models are based on a rigid body
hypothesis, i.e., T-Map model, which fails to represent flex-
ibility, whereas other models, such as the skin model shape
and deviation domain (DD), are not limited to a rigid body
that available to model a flexible part or assembly as well
[1]. These models can either be point based or feature based.
Compared to a feature that characterizes position and direc-
tion information at the same time, the pose of a point in
space is described by position rather than orientation, with
variations that vary along with the selection of different
points [2]. Fourth, according to the requirements for func-
tion, performance, and appearance, combined with
dimensionality and objective function characteristics, i.e.,
linear or non-linear, explicit or implicit. Two main ap-
proaches, worst case (deterministic case) and statistical case,
are applied. The worst-case method relies on the complete
interchangeability of the parts. Statistical tolerance methods
are mainly referred as the root sum squares (RSS) method
and Monte Carlo method, of which variations are probability
distribution assumed. Fuzzy and non-probabilistic are de-
scribed as the bounds of the parameters without distribution
requirement. By these means, tolerance analysis, i.e., assem-
bling analysis, functional analysis, and sensitivity verifica-
tion, can be achieved. Finally, compared to conventional
static analysis, tolerance analysis of system in motion is
accomplished by performing the kinematic analysis at differ-
ent discrete positions considering several kinds of devia-
tions, i.e., manufacturing deviation, deformation [3], joint
clearance [4], and deviation interactions [5], as well as the
assembly sequences to obtain different resulting part posi-
tions and time-dependent function requirements [6].
Int J Adv Manuf Technol

Many tolerance analysis models have been presented in the
published literature, as shown in Table 1. Boyer et al. [18]
initially introduced a mathematical definition of variational
space, followed by a variational solid modeling with paramet-
ric modeling of the range of the tolerance zone [19]. A virtual
boundary [20–22] describes the part within the deviation of
the extreme boundary. Desrochers et al. [23, 24] use elemen-
tary surfaces (spheres, cylinders, planes, etc.) to model the six
lower kinematic pairs, that is the so-called topologically and
technologically related surfaces (TTRS). The matrix uses a
displacement matrix to describe the roto-translational varia-
tion of a feature [25–28]. Three main sources of variations in
a mechanical assembly are included in the vector loop-based
model, in which each vector represents a corresponding com-
ponent dimension [29–32]. A semantic model is established
with logical quantifiers. The relationship between tolerance
specifications and tolerance stacking is embedded in this
mathematic model [33–37]. A gap-based approach, called
GapSpace [38, 39], and the further Revised GapSpace [9]
use a gap to describe the relationship between features belong-
ing to different components. Davidson et al. [40–43] proposed
the T-Map model with the one-to-one mapping of points in a
hypothetical Euclidean volume, which can represent all the
variational possibilities of a feature. Similar to the T-Map
model, the deviation domain considers the maximum dis-
placement of all border points of the toleranced features which
can represent all 3D variations that are allowed for certain
features. The torsor model characterizes tolerance zones by a
set of screw parameters [44, 45]. The Jacobian model regards
a substitute surface as functional element, and the kinematic
chains formulate the displacement matrices [46, 47]. A modal
model, which generates a basis for characteristic defects to
relate the measured defects with the origin surface [48–50],
has an advantage in form error representation. GeoSpelling is
proposed as a coherent and complete model to manage the
geometric variations along the product lifecycle [51]. As a
kernel concept of GeoSpelling, the skin model was developed
for interfacing between a workpiece and its environment
[52–54]. To avoid the shortcoming of infinite points, the skin
model shape was developed for its convenience in computer
expression [55, 56]. On the basis of the models addressed
above, a series of extended models were derived. For exam-
ple, the combination of Jacobian and torsor models brought
about the unified Jacobian–torsor model with the advantages
of tolerance representation and error propagation simulta-
neously [57, 58]. The modal interval and small degrees of
freedom (MI-SDOF) model the size and tolerance with a small
degree of freedom and its induced uncertainty is denoted by a
modal interval [59]. As an extension of the torsor model, the
proportioned assembly clearance volume (PCAV) weighs the
relative position of the assembly and the ideal surface with a
small displacement torsor [13]. A comprehensive model com-
bining deviation propagation and small displacement torsor
(DP-SDT) theory is efficient to realize tolerance analysis and
optimization [14]. The well-known tolerance models and
some derived models are summarized in Table 1.
The tolerance analysis methods are mainly worst case or
statistical case. A deterministic approach assumes that each
component dimension is at its maximum or minimum limit
and the statistical methods are based on the hypothesis that
the tolerances follow a certain distribution. For a statistical
approach, Chase et al. [60] maintained a root sum squared
(RSS), assuming a normal or Gaussian distribution for the
component variations. Taguchi aimed to choose the group
with the most suitable experimental factors [61, 62].
Ilumoka et al. [63] adopted a Taylor series expansion meth-
od. Convolution can acquire any requisite convolution
density function [64]. Evans employed a numerical inte-
gration method which is correct for an implicit assembly
function [65]. In particular, the Monte Carlo (MC) method

Table 1 Tolerance models

Models References Derived models

Variation model Boyer et al. (1991), Gupta et al. (1993) Combine with skin model [7]
TTRS Charles et al. (1989), Clément et al. (1991) FTTRS [8]
Matrix Clément et al. (1994), Desrochers (1994, 1997) –
Semantic Wang (2006, 2007, 2008) –
GapSpace Morse et al. (2000), Zou et al. (2003, 2004) Revised GapSpace [9]
T-Map Davidson et al. (2002, 2003), Bhide et al. (2003) M-Map [10]
Deviation domain Giordano et al. (1993, 1999, 2001) Combine with Modal [11]
Polytopes Teissandier et al. (1999) Combine with screws [12]
Torsor Bourdet et al. (1976, 1988, 1996), PCAV [13]; DP-SDT [14];
Clément et al. (1991) combine with skin model [15]
Jacobian Salomons et al. (1996), Laperriére et al. (1999) Combine with skin model [15]
Jacobian–torsor Laperriére et al. (2002, 2003), Ghie et al. (2003) Combine with CLIC [16]
Vector loop Chase et al. (1995, 1996), Gao et al. (1993, 1996) Combine with skin model [7]
Skin model Ballu et al. (1993), Mathieu et al. (2007) Skin model shapes [17]

is the most widely used method in statistical tolerance anal-
ysis with an ability to solve both linear and non-linear
assemblies, but there is a shortage in large computation
[66, 67]. To avoid this, a number theoretical net (NT-net)
was developed to reduce the computing effort and the var-
iability of the MC’s results for generating a good lattice
point (GLP) has a better convergent rate [68, 69]. The
abovementioned methods prevail in multi-dimensional
cases with general (i.e., Gaussian) distributions. In some
cases, it might be unknown or difficult to obtain the design
parameter information; therefore, fuzzy methods [70, 71]
and non-probabilistic analysis are suggested because they
do not need the presumed probabilistic information [72,
73].
There is a significant amount of review in the literature
that makes a lot contribution to the tolerance analysis
research. Some pay particular emphasis on one elaborate
model, i.e., skin model shape in [74, 75] and T-Map in
[76], or do a more detailed contrast of two or three famil-
iar models resembling in modeling theory and calculation
method [1, 77–81], analysis on several common-used
models [2, 82–84], some well-defined solution technolo-
gies of analysis methods [85, 86], and overview of current
CAT software in different nested tolerance models [87,
88]. Hong et al. [89] reviewed on various tolerancing
issues in design and manufacturing. Polini described the
most common criteria used to categorize existing models
for tolerance analysis [90]. However, there still lacks a
body of conclusive literature in which the hot tolerance
analysis approaches are compared systematically and ob-
jectively regarding the status quo and in applications that
show their advantages, disadvantages, similarities, and
differences. This paper aims to conduct a comprehensive
summarization and complete comparison of eight toler-
ance analysis models, which cover a wide variety of
existing tolerance analysis approaches, i.e., screw
theory-based tolerance analysis models such as TTRS
model, matrix model, and Jacobian–torsor model (which
combines the Jacobian model and torsor model); deviation
space-based models such as deviation domain and T-Map;
kinematic-based model, gap-based model; and point
cloud-based model. These models have been most widely
used, extensively investigated, and consistently pursued
by the researchers in recent decades. A comprehensive
review of these models in the state-of-the-art research will
facilitate a generalized acknowledgement of the tolerance
analysis domain and offer a convenient selection of the
most appropriate models to satisfy specific tolerance anal-
ysis goals.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: Sect. 2
introduces eight widely applicable tolerance analysis
models and briefly presents each with respect to analytical
procedure, research status, and strengths and weaknesses.
Int J Adv Manuf Technol
Case study is provided in Sect. 3. Section 4 compares these
eight models with respect to several criteria. Section 5 pro-
vides a prospective review of the potential research in the
field of tolerance analysis.
2 Tolerance analysis models
Tolerance analysis models can be divided into a two-level
topological relationship, that is, a part level and an assembly
level. The established models necessarily satisfy the compat-
ibility and computability criteria, which require not only meet-
ing ISO/ASME standards but also possibly representing all
tolerances including size, form, location, direction, and run-
out. They are also simultaneously and ably integrated into
CAT systems to realize the extraction of dimension chains or
feature information, therefore, automatically implementing
tolerance analysis and optimization.
2.1 TTRS model
The technologically and topologically related surfaces
(TTRS) model is a typical representative of the degree of
freedom model that utilizes several different concepts from
constraints and rigid body motions. Desrochers et al. [24,
91] initially formulated the idea of using dimensioning and
tolerancing. In this model, the tolerance is decided by the
correlation between 7 unit surfaces and 28 surface-related sit-
uations. The two surfaces of the same part are called TTRS,
while surfaces in contact belonging to different parts are called
Pseudo-TTRS. The tolerance expression process starts from
the extraction of the necessary information from the CAD
system and arranges each surface in the form of a binary tree,
that is, a TTRS binary tree. Then, it constructs its minimum
geometric datum element (MGDE) with 13 kinds of relative
constraints between a point, line, and plane [92]. Finally, the
different MGDE and their mutual relationships determine the
type of tolerances. The TTRS model can effectively display
design specifications and process plan specifications [93]. The
available application of this model in industrial cooling water
pumps has shown the global consistency of tolerances in a
practical industrial environment [94].
The TTRS model adopted for tolerance analysis for assem-
bly can be performed using the following steps:
1. Create TTRS graph for the assembly with identified
MGDE surfaces.
2. Create geometric tolerance TTRS graph combined with
TTRS datum, tolerance type, and tolerance zone.
3. The toleranced TTRS builds tolerances based on torsors/
screws or matrices and several internal parameters.
Int J Adv Manuf Technol
4. Combine the torsor/screw parameters or matrix limits of
all the toleranced TTRS along the stack path/paths in the
assembly.
5. Use the target features’ tolerance TTRS, identifying the
limiting parameter directions.
6. The sum of all the parameters in the combined torsors/
screws or matrices along the limiting parameter directions
will yield the final deviation for the target feature.
The TTRS-based tolerance analysis has been demonstrated
applicable for series and parallel assemblies by means of worst
case (WC) or statistics methods along the specific SDT pa-
rameters’ axes. A genetic algorithm is employed to solve non-
linear objective functions and non-linear constraints [95]. A
modified TTRS model can automatically generate all the
GD&T in the manufacturing stage and is concurrently suitable
for tolerance analysis and allocation [96]. This model can deal
with the issue of datum precedence, and it may solve tolerance
interactions as revealed in the ASME and ISO standards by
constraints of torsors or matrices. In using the TTRS model to
reorganize 3D geometry information provided by a CAD sys-
tem, only the topological surface is considered and the artistic
face is ignored. The strengths and weaknesses of this model
are shown in Table 2.
2.2 Matrix model
The matrix model introduced by Desrochers et al. [25] was
developed from the TTRS model, and it uses a homogeneous
transformation matrix to describe the small displacements of a
feature within the tolerance zone and the clearance between
two features. This model describes the nominal geometric
relationship between parts and variations caused by geometric
deviations. A displacement variation in the tolerance zone
depends on six independent parameters, that is, three rotation
parameters and three translation parameters. The rotation pa-
rameters can be expressed as α, β, γ, which, respectively,
represent rotations around the x, y, and z axes while u, v, and
w denote, respectively, translations along the coordinate axes.
The six variable ranges are restricted by a series of inequal-
ities, which can effectively express the variation of features,
i.e., point, line, surface, and the fit between them in 3D space.
Table 2 Strengths and weaknesses of the TTRS model
Strengths [1, 97] Weaknesses [1]
• Successfully models datum • Partly conforms to tolerance
precedence standards
• Able to model clearances and • Tolerance zone types are not decided
spaces (by torsors or matrices) by tolerance type but by features
• Presents tolerance
specifications
Specifically, due to the fact that a point in space is depicted by
position without taking direction information into account,
therefore different matrix models may be obtained as different
points are selected.
Every matrix model D for a feature can be described as the
product of six homogeneous transform matrices.
2 D ¼ T w  T v  T u  Rw  Rβ  Rα 3
CγCβ −SγCα þ CγSβSα SγSα þ CγSβCα u
6 SγCβ
6 CγCα þ SγSβSα −CγSα þ SγSβSα v77
4 −Sβ SαCβ CαCβ w5
0 0 0 1
ð1Þ
where C is the abbreviation of cos () and S is sin ().
This 4 × 4 homogeneous matrix is the general expression of
the model. According to the division of seven elementary sur-
face types in the TTRS model and their different invariant de-
grees, Eq. (1) can be correspondingly calculated. For each fea-
ture, different tolerance types may result in the same matrix
equation; however, the variation in each variable degree of free-
dom (DOF) is always different. The focus of matrix model
establishment is to confirm the local datum reference frames
(DRFs) and its displacement matrix, which is defined with re-
spect to the local DRF for each feature to which a tolerance is
applied. Taking a cylinder tolerance zone shown in Fig. 2 as an
example, line [A, B] is the axis element. The ideal cylinder
without form defects and thickness has two invariance degrees
that cannot translate along the z-axis and rotate around the z-axis
in the tolerance zone, so w and γ in Eq. (1) have no effect on the
tolerance analysis of the cylinder and can be ignored. The other
four degrees, i.e., α, β, u, and v, decide the matrix D. Additional
constraints are also necessary to ensure that the deviation varies
within the bounds of the cylindrical tolerance zone:
2 3
Cβ SαSβ SβCα u
6 0 Cα −Sβ v 7
D¼6 4 −Sβ SαCβ CαCβ 0 5
7 ð2Þ
0 0 0 1
Fig. 2 Cylindrical tolerance zone
 Int J Adv Manuf Technol

0 ≤ α≤ π; 0 ≤8
β ≤2π 3 functions and various constraint inequalities which truly cause
>
> XA
8 qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi >
> 4 YA 5 ¼ D  A a complex calculation and optimization process; thus, it is not
> t >
>
< X 2A þ Y 2A ≤ < conducive for parallel or complicated serial assembly. This
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 2 with 2 ZA 3 ð3Þ
model has been successfully integrated into CAD systems,
>
: XB þ YB≤
2 2 t >
> XB
>
> 4 5 i.e., CATIA.3D FDT and FROOM. The corresponding
2 >
> YB ¼ D  B
: strengths and weaknesses are listed in Table 3.
ZB

2.3 Vector loop model

It is obvious that a complete modeling of the toleranced
feature is realized through a matrix shown in Eq. (2) describ-
ing the possible deviations of axis [A, B], along with a set of
constraints shown in Eq. (3) representing the geometry and
dimension of the tolerance zone.
Tolerance analysis using a matrix model can be conducted
following the basic steps given below:
1. Create an assembly graph where the local DRFs are asso-
ciated to the features, including functional features and
part features.
2. Determine the points for measuring the displacements and
their corresponding paths that connect the points to the
global DRF.
3. Calculate the range of displacement of each point in the
global DRF and add additional constraints to restrict the
points of features inside the tolerance zone.
4. Calculate the total displacement when multiple tolerances
are specified.
5. The worst-case method is adopted to determine the max-
imum and minimum deviations.
It should be mentioned that the statistical approach used to
be considered as not applicable to the matrix model [83, 90];
however, new works in the literature show that the Monte
Carlo method can be applied to plane and cylinder for solving
the non-linear objective function in this model [98].
The matrix model is a point-based model which is suitable
for assembly with joints that are in contact or gapped. All the
dimensional and geometric tolerances can be calculated ex-
cept the form tolerance. It does not give a complete one-to-one
mapping between the model variable and assigned tolerance;
therefore, the conversion between tolerance and model vari-
able hardly meet the ASME or ISO standards. The choice of
different points for a feature may result in disparate objective
Vector loop-based model uses vectors to represent the dimen-
sions in an assembly. Each vector represents either a compo-
nent dimension or a kinematical variable dimension. Three
main sources of deviation in a mechanical assembly are fully
considered, that is, respectively, (1) dimensional deviation, (2)
geometric feature deviation, and (3) deviation due to small
kinematic adjustments which occur during the assembly pro-
cess in response to the dimensional variations and geometric
feature variations of the components. In this model, dimen-
sional tolerances are reflected as change in the length and
direction, which are considered by combining variations of
the vectors into vector loops. Geometric tolerances are taken
into account by introducing some vectors of Zero-Length ±
Tol into the vector loops whose orientations depend on the
type of kinematic joint and the corresponding geometric fea-
ture tolerances associated with it. These two deviations are
natural variations in manufacturing processes.
Kinematic deviation is embodied in the model by creating
kinematic joints at the interfaces of mating parts, and the type
of joint is determined by the conditions of the mating contact.
There are 6 common joints in 2D assemblies and 12 common
joints in 3D assemblies, and these joints are then connected by
vectors and linked to form kinematic chains or vector loops.
Kinematic deviations normally serve as resultant assembly
dimensions which can only be measured by solving the vector
equations after the parts are assembled. Chase [30] completed
a vector loop modeling for the 2D assembly, i.e., one-way
clutch and geometric block assembly with cylinder sliders,
in which the direct linearization method (DLM) was applied
to analyze the assembly tolerances. This method does not need
an explicit function to describe the relationship between the
assembly dimensions and the manufactured part dimensions.
Gao [32] further developed this model to 3D mechanical as-
semblies, for example, a serial crank slider mechanism, in

Table 3 Strengths and

weaknesses of the matrix model Strengths [25, 26] Weaknesses [2, 25]

• Successfully integrated in CAD • Without consideration of form tolerance

• Easily represents tolerance zones
• Easy for tolerance propagation calculation
(transformation matrix)
• Partly conforms to tolerance standards
• Point-based model
• Complex non-linear constraint inequalities
• Worst case mostly, and the statistical method
has not been fully developed
Int J Adv Manuf Technol
which a closed vector loop defines a kinematic closure con-
straint for the assembly and an open vector loop describes a
gap or a stack dimension corresponding to a critical assembly
feature. Later on, Chase [99] provided a more generalized
approach to include all the geometric feature variations into
the tolerance analysis and took an example of Tape hub for
illustration.
The tolerance analysis process with the vector loop com-
bined with DLM can be performed as follows:
1. Create the assembly graph, defining the number of vector
chains and loops.
2. Draw a benchmark for the frame of reference, mark the
kinematic joints, and create the datum paths.
3. Create vector loops, where the open loop describes the
key characteristic and the closed loop indicates the pres-
ence of one or more adjustable elements in the assembly.
4. Derive the stack-up equations. The assembly constraints
within vector loop-based model may be expressed as a
concatenation of homogeneous rigid body transformation
matrices, which result in a set of non-linear equations.
Apply a first-order Taylor series expansion of the
closed-loop equations, which can be written in matrix
form.
A½ΔX  þ B½ΔY  þ C ½ΔZ  ¼ 0 ð4Þ
where A represents the partial derivatives with respect to the
manufactured variables, B is the partial derivatives with re-
spect to the kinematic variables, C represents partial deriva-
tives with respect to the geometric feature variables, ΔX
means the variations of the manufactured variables, ΔY is
the variations of the kinematic variables, and ΔZ means the
variations of the geometric feature variables.
Solving Eq. (4) for ΔY gives the following:
For B as a full-ranked matrix assuming, the variations of
the kinematic variables can be yielded:
½ΔY  ¼ −B−1 A½ΔX −B−1 C ½ΔZ  ¼ S X ½ΔX  þ S Z ½ΔZ  ð5Þ
For B as a singular matrix assuming, the variations of the
kinematic variables can be yielded:
 −1  −1
½ΔY  ¼ − BT B BT A½ΔX − BT B BT C ½ΔZ 
¼ S X ½ΔX  þ S Z ½ΔZ  ð6Þ
where SX and SZ are the tolerance sensitivity matrices for the
dimensional variables and geometric feature variables,
respectively.
5. The kinematic variations can be obtained from Eq. (5) or
(6) for the closed-loop constraint. A estimation of
kinematic variation in worst case or statistical method
can be performed:
Worst case:
 
   
ΔY ¼ ∑ni¼1 S Xi T Xi þ ∑nj¼1 S Zj T Zj ð7Þ
RSS:
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 2ffi
 X X 2
ΔY ¼ ∑i¼1 S i T i þ ∑ j¼1 S j T j
n m Z Z
ð8Þ
where T Xi and T Zj are the tolerance vectors for the dimensional
variables and geometric feature variables, respectively, and n
and m are the corresponding number of dimensional variables
and geometric feature variables.
6. Estimation for variation of the assembly performance
requirement can be obtained by substituting the kine-
matic variations into the linearized equations for the
open loop.
In addition to DLM, the homogeneous transform matrix
combined with the Newton–Raphson iterative procedure is
introduced to represent the vector loop-based assembly func-
tion and solve the assembly constraint equations. It has proved
to be useful when it is difficult or impossible to get the explicit
assembly function [100].
The DLM using a truncated Taylor’s series expansion is an
approximation. In addition to this, Gao [101] developed a new
Monte Carlo simulation employing an iterative technique for
closed-loop assemblies, breaking the limitation of required ex-
plicit functions and normal distribution in the traditional Monte
Carlo approach. A comparison of the DLM and modified
Monte Carlo simulation shows that the DLM is more accurate
under conditions of relatively small tolerances and not highly
non-linear assembly functions [102]. A new second-order tol-
erance analysis (SOTA) method combining the advantages of
the linearized method and the Monte Carlo simulation achieves
the strength in speed, tolerance allocation, closed-loop con-
straints, non-linear geometric effects, and non-normal input
and output distribution [103]. A good point set method is pro-
posed to generate the points for the toleranced dimensions be-
cause of its more uniform point clouds [104].
A vector loop-based equation evaluates the sensitivity ma-
trix with respect to both manufactured dimensions and geo-
metric variables which can be convenient for sensitivity anal-
ysis and assembly rejects calculations [105]. As can be seen,
this approach considers only those parts in contact. The rigid
body motion in 3D embarks from the starting point, runs
through each node, and finally returns to the original point;
it is thus a truly point-based model. Neither the datum proce-
dure nor the tolerance principles can be considered in this

model. The tolerance interaction relationship cannot be solved
either. The manufacturing signature related to the points on the
manufactured surface is considered in vector loop model with
a skin model insertion [7]. Tolerance analysis and allocation
can be successfully handled by 3D software CETOL 6 Sigma
[106]. Table 4 compares the merits and demerits of the vector
loop model.
2.4 T-Map model
The T-Map® (Patent No. US6963824) model proposed by
Davidson is a one-to-one mapping from all the variational
possibilities of a feature within its tolerance zone to the hypo-
thetical Euclidean volume point space. The size, position,
form, and orientation tolerance allocated for a target feature
decide the shape, size, and internal subsets of the points. Each
T-Map is a convex hull set on the metric space that captures all
the variation possibilities of which the shape or shape varia-
tion are thought of as a subset. Based on this, some new
mathematical models for features are very compatible with
the ASME/ANSI/ISO standards for geometric tolerances
[42]. The T-Map for a feature with combined tolerances is
modeled by a basis simplex and described with areal coordi-
nates. A T-Map created in n dimensions will be constructed
from the n dimensions basis simplex made from n + 1 basis
points. Taking a 3D variation as an example, the correspond-
ing four defined basis points form the tetrahedron, as shown in
Fig. 3, and it is described with the centroid coordinates. Four
masses γ1, γ2, γ3, and γ4, respectively, are located at σ1, σ2, σ3,
and σ4. As long as γ1 + γ2 + γ3 + γ4 ≠ 0, the position of the
centroid of these masses, that is, σ can be derived from Eq.
(9); obviously, it can be any point in the space of the basis
tetrahedron by changing the four γ.
ðγ 1 þ γ 2 þ γ 3 þ γ 4 Þσ ¼ γ 1 σ1 þ γ 2 σ2 þ γ 3 σ3 þ γ 4 σ4 ð9Þ
The single T-Map generation steps are as follows: (1) con-
firm the tolerance type and the DOF of the toleranced feature;
Table 4 Strengths and
weaknesses of the vector loop Strengths [29, 101]
model
• Successfully integrated in CAD
• Models three kinds of variations, especially
kinematic deviations
• Convenient calculation of small displacements
and functionality
• DLM strengths in computational accuracy and
efficiency
• Easily obtains analysis parameters, such as
sensitivity, contributor, and assembly rejects
• Suitable for over-determined systems
Int J Adv Manuf Technol
Fig. 3 Basis tetrahedron
(2) choose the coordinate system of the tolerance zone, usually
in the geometrical center; (3) calculate the maximum param-
eters along the DOFs limited by each tolerance zone; (4) lo-
cate the n + 1 feature positions which represent the maximum
parameters when n DOFs are constrained; and (5) map these
n + 1 feature positions to the hypothetical Euclidean point
space. After these procedures have been done, the T-Map
model for round face [40], cylindrical face [41], axes [42],
polygonal faces [43] (rectangular and triangular faces), angled
face [107], point-line clusters [108], line profile [109], circular
run-out [110], and total run-out have been created and applied
for tolerance analysis and allocation for assembly, such as pin
holes [111], tabs, and slots [112].
The T-Map-based tolerance analysis for assembly using the
worst-case method can be performed as follows:
1. Generate an individual T-Map for the toleranced feature.
2. Make each T-Map conform to model the deviations at the
target feature of the assembly by matrix transformation.
3. Calculate the accumulated T-Map for the target feature by
Minkowski sum.
4. Create a functional T-Map to represent the functional
requirement.
5. Keep the accumulated T-Map within the functional T-
Map.
Weaknesses [78, 99]
• Without consideration of tolerance interactions,
datum procedures, and tolerancing principles
• DLM is an approximation
• Point-based model
Int J Adv Manuf Technol

The normal worst-case approach requires the accumu-
lation of the T-Map completely remaining inside the
functional T-Map. Statistical analysis with this model
produces a geometric relationship between the statistical
model and its functional requirement, which follows
these steps:
1. Obtain the T-Map of the target feature.
2. Calculate the intersection of the dimensions of interest.
3. Get the frequency distribution from which the variable of
the dimensions of interest can be derived [113]. Obtain
each point of the distribution as the area obtained by
intersecting the map with the surface of the functional
map that has been translated inward as a calculated
amount.
4. Normalize the frequency distribution to obtain the relative
frequency distribution of the dimensions of interest.
5. Convolute the relative frequency distributions of the di-
mensions of interest for the target features.
The statistical analysis and allocation that yield the
geometric relationship of n-D variations to 1D clearance
are displayed in ref. [112], where the effects of the
implemented MMC and LMC are discussed. In addition,
the higher dimension probability T-Maps have been pro-
posed such that the point clouds are constructed for the
features within a size range to extract the pass percent-
age [114].
The T-Map is a rigid assumption model that is suitable for
tolerance accumulation calculation in serial or parallel assem-
blies. However, clamping-induced deformations resulting
from imperfect geometry can be taken into account in this
model to gain the functional T-Map [115]. Combining T-
Maps with established manufacturing maps (M-Maps) can
represent the analytical relationship among all relevant design
and machining tolerances for the transfer of cylindrical [116]
or planar datum [10]. The main characteristics are generalized
in Table 5.
2.5 Deviation domain model
The deviation domain represents all the variations possible for
a feature or a target feature inside its tolerance zone. It is
proposed on the basis of the small displacement torsor where
the geometric variation (tolerance) of a feature is relatively
small compared to its nominal dimension and can be de-
scribed with two vectors in the 6D configuration space, that
is, three kinds of rotations α, β, and γ representing rotations
around the axes x, y, and z, respectively, and three kinds of
displacements indicating the translations along these three ax-
es. A complete assembly is composed of parts and joints sep-
arately corresponding to deviation domains and clearance
domains.
For every functional and toleranced feature of the parts, the
deviation space can be defined by inequalities related to the
components with limited DOFs of the deviation torsor. Its
construction considers tolerance type, feature type, and the
parameterized representation of SDT. Aimed at the non-
invariant components of the SDT for a toleranced feature, it
uses a set of linear inequalities to indicate the boundaries of
the tolerance zone. For example, a planar feature with a spec-
ified position tolerance relative to reference A, as depicted in
Fig. 4a, allows three DOFs (one for translations along the z--
axis and two rotations around x and y), and the maximum
deviations along these three axes inside the tolerance zone
determine the deviation domain. For each border point p of
the feature, the displacement is expressed by inequalities
shown in Eq. (10). The convex hull built with these inequal-
ities is the deviation domain (see Fig. 4b).
t ! t
− ≤ δ P :!
z≤ ð10Þ
2 2
The clearance space is the small relative displacement of
the joint between two distinct parts. The bounds of the clear-
ance space are decided by the contact conditions and the de-
gree of freedom of the joint. In the 6D configuration space, the

Table 5 Strengths and

weaknesses of the T-Map model Strengths [1, 42, 43, 76] Weaknesses [76]

• Models all types of 3D deviations, either size or geometric
tolerances, and their interactions
• Modeling of some features are consistent with
ASME/ANSI/ISO standards for geometric tolerances
• Incorporates rule#1 (the trade-off between form and size in
ASME standard), floating tolerance, bonus/shift tolerance,
and datum precedence
• Provides multiple stack-up equations and metric measures
to aid a designer in selecting optimal tolerances
• Accumulation of multiple tolerances for worst case and
statistical analysis
• The model has not been fully developed
• The calculation of points to areal coordinates
and functional T-Maps may be difficult
• Covers only 1D clearance frequency
distributions
• Visualization of higher dimensional T-Maps is
troublesome
• Tolerance representations for joints need
further research
• Poorly integrated into CAD software

Fig. 4 a Plane feature with position specification. b Association deviation domain
clearance space is along the direction of the non-invariant
degree, as shown in Fig. 5a. The domain corresponds to the
DOF of the cylindrical joint, that is, the translations and rota-
tions around the y and z axes, respectively [117]. The clear-
ance domain obtained from a linear set of inequalities can be
shown in Fig. 5b. It can be obviously derived that the maxi-
mum displacement cannot be reached when a rotation exists.
The tolerance analysis process with the deviation domain
model can be carried out using the following steps:
1. Build the dimension chain from the datum to the target of
the assembly and identify all the toleranced features and
all the joints.
2. Model the deviation domains for all toleranced features,
and the clearance domains for all the joints in the chain.
3. Calculate the sum of the deviation domains and clearance
domains. For a serial assembly, the Minkowski sum is
used to get the accumulated deviations for the target
Fig. 5 a Cylindrical joint. b
Clearance space
Int J Adv Manuf Technol
feature and the accumulated clearance domain. But if
the joints are assembled in parallel, the intersection oper-
ation is performed on all the corresponding domains.
4. Check whether the accumulated deviation domain re-
mains within the accumulated clearance domain.
The assembly is feasible if step 4 is satisfied. Therefore,
this method is easily used for assemblability verification.
The obtained deviation domain or clearance domain en-
ables a visual maximum and minimum deviation of each
feature and its functional requirement. Optimal tolerancing
in mechanical design is achieved by the relationship be-
tween the accumulated deviation and the clearance do-
main. If no clearance exists in the assembly, a functional
domain is needed to describe the functional requirement of
the assembly. The alignment of the accumulated and func-
tional domains results in the stack-up equations for the
assembly.
Int J Adv Manuf Technol

A new worst-case method for the deviation domain model enables the transformation of local parts deviations to globally
was proposed by Mathieu, which uses the influence of coef- functional requirements [129]. The torsor model describes the
ficients to analyze the relation between functional tolerances small displacement variation of features with constrained
and the specified geometric tolerances. This method mainly torsors which define the extreme limits in the 3D tolerance
focuses on serial assembly without clearance at present, and zone.
the result for mechanisms with parallel linkages still needs The Jacobian model expresses the effect of functional ele-
further research [118]. Statistical analysis in this model em- ments (FEs) on functional requirements (FRs) in the tolerance
ploys the Monte Carlo simulation to represent the possible chain. An FE can be a point, line, or surface of the part. Two
variations resulting from the deviations and clearances [119] FEs separately belong to different parts constituting a kine-
with the shortage of absent parameters contributing to toler- matic pair, while two FEs coming from one part make up an
ance identification. To solve this, sensitivity analysis methods internal part. The Jacobian matrix proposed maps all SDT
are adopted with an interface module to simulate the impact of from their local origin to the point of interest. It is a matrix
deviating component surfaces on the assembly clearances whose columns are extracted from the various homogeneous
[120, 121]. transform matrices relating to the reference frames of the FEs
Form tolerances, i.e., straightness and flatness, can be to that of the FR. It can be formulated as
modeled by vibration modes which in turn modify the devia- 2  h i 3

tion domain. The variation of the clearance domain due to Ri0 … W ni Ri0 : RiPT i
6 33 33 33 33 7
form deviation is measured by modal parameterization [11]. ½ J FEi ¼ ½ J i0 ¼ 6
4 ⋮ ⋱  ⋮h i 7
5
A concept of use rate (UR) is presented to make a tolerance ½033 … Ri0 33 : RiPT i
33 66
analysis of the mechanism with flexible joints, which shows
ð11Þ
the potential of this model in flexible part representation [122].
The deviation domain with its main benefits and drawbacks is 
where Ri0 ¼ ½C 1i C 2i C 3i  is the local orientation change
shown in Table 6. h i
Similar to T-Map and deviation domain, the polytope meth- of frame i with respect to original frame 0; RiPT i ¼
od is proposed based on sets of constraints dealing with devia- ½C 1 C 2 C 3 PT i represents the direction change of the tolerance
tion volumes defined by the admissible displacements of with respect to the three coordinate axes of frame i. W ni is a
toleranced features inside its tolerance zone [125, 126]. skew-symmetric matrix indicating the position change of
Through operations on polytopes, namely Minkowski sums frame n with respect to frame i, during which
and intersections, different applications have been developed 2 3
for tolerance analysis of overconstrained and flexible assem-  n 0 −dzni dyni
blies [127] and assembly interference diagnosis [128]. These W i ¼ 4 dzni 0 −dxni 5; dxni ¼ dxn −dxi ; dyni
algorithms have been implemented in the open source tool −dyi dxi
n n
0
politopix, which together with the open source tool PolitoCAT ¼ dyn −dyi ; dzni ¼ dzn −dzi
allows the creation, visualization, and computation of polytopes
for tolerance analysis: http://i2m.u-bordeaux.fr/politopix.html. Torsor theory is presented to represent the surface or fea-
ture variation with respect to its nominal position in six de-
2.6 Jacobian–torsor model grees of freedom. Taking into account the TTRS foundation
and positional tolerancing principles, the components of var-
The Jacobian model is a kinematic-based method which uses iation can be shown as the screw parameters, which indicate
transformation matrices of open chains in robotics, and the invariant degrees and non-invariant degrees.

Table 6 Strengths and

weaknesses of the deviation
domain model
Strengths [117, 121–124]
• Models all types of 3D deviations, either size or
geometric tolerances, and their interactions
• Could handle flexible joints
• Incorporates bonus/shift tolerances
• Optimal tolerance in mechanical design
• Serial and parallel assembly
• Easily performs an assemblability analysis
• Suitable for contact or non-contact joints
• Sensitivity or contribution analysis
Weaknesses [77, 118]
• Deviation domain is defined by linear inequalities,
and complex surfaces need to be discretized
• No sufficient polyhedral computation code
• Set of inequalities enables complex computation,
especially for parallel assembly
• Not yet integrated into CAD software
 Int J Adv Manuf Technol

The unified Jacobian–torsor model introduced by The Monte Carlo approach is commonly used for random
Desrochers et al. [130] is an innovative tolerance analysis meth- number generation in the statistical analysis of Jacobian–
od, which uses the small displacement torsor (SDT) for toler- torsor model [131]. Ghie [132] combined the Jacobian–torsor
ance representation and the Jacobian for tolerance propagation. model and uncertainty measurement to carry out
Its construction combines the advantages of both two methods. assemblability evaluation. A study on the influence of
The relationship between FEs and FR is shown in Eq. (12). cylindricity error to actual fitting clearance and final required
function makes a breakthrough for the Jacobian–torsor model,
½FR ¼ ½ J½FE ð12Þ which is normally considered unable to incorporate form error
[133].
where [FR] is the functional requirement (play, gap, clearance) In addition, the Jacobian–torsor model has successfully
represented by the translational and rotational vectors of general applied for geometrical variations and uncertainty manage-
assembly. The [FE] is related mathematically to the functional ment in a multi-disciplinary environment [134], error propa-
elements (tolerance, kinematic joint, etc.,) for the assembly gation analysis through fixture assembly [135], serial and par-
parts. [J] indicates the Jacobian matrix. tial parallel connections in assembly [136], modeling of con-
Expanding Eq. (12) into ical structures and their joints [137], the deformation effect
22h i 3 3 connected to geometrical error caused by the temperature field
6 uu 7
66h i 7 7 and force field [138], and model modification resulting from
66 v 7 7
66 v 7
66h i77 7
the interactions between tolerances. It should be noted that the
66 7 7
66 ww 7 7 constraints between translational vectors and rotational vec-
2h i3 66h i 7 7
66 7
u u 66 αα 7 7 7 tors and the relation between dimensional tolerances and geo-
6h i 7 66h i7 7
6 7 66 7
6 vv 7 66 ββ 7 7 metric tolerances can be used for other 3D tolerance analysis
6h 64h i 7 7
6 i77 6 5 7 models, such as the matrix model [139]. A summary of these
6 ww 7  6 7
6h 7 6 δδ 7
6 i 7 ¼ ½ J 1 J 2 J 3 J 4 J 5 J 6 FE1 …½ J 1 J 2 J 3 J 4 J 5 J 6 FEn :6 2 h i 3 7
6 … FE1
7 characteristics is displayed in Table 7.
6 αα 7 6 7
6h i7 6 6 h u ui 7 7
6 7 66 7
6
6 ββ 7
7 66 vv 7 7 7 2.7 GapSpace model
4h i 5 66h i7 7
66 7 7
δδ 66 w 7 7
66 7
i7
w
66h 7 7
66 7 The 1D GapSpace model was first proposed by Morse [140,
66 αα 7 7 7
66h i7 7 141] to derive the necessary and sufficient conditions for a
66 7 7
66 β β 7
44h i 7 5 5 satisfactory assembly. In this model, the GapSpace is divided
δδ FEn into regions in which the assembly is feasible or not feasible.
ð13Þ Two basic concepts, the directed dimension tree and the liai-
son, are presented. The directed dimension tree is a data struc-
where i represents the number of functional elements on the ture that describes the size scheme of the parts in a specified
assembly chain. direction, and each directed dimension tree corresponds to an
u; v; w; α; β; γ : Lower limit of dispersions (translation exclusive set of feature characteristics. The liaison is consid-
and rotation) defining the tolerance zone. ered to be the adjacent specification for pairs of features,
u; v; w; α; β; γ : Upper limit of dispersions (translation which belong to different parts, that is, the signed distance
and rotation) defining the tolerance zone. of two features. Considering the liaisons as independent var-
The deterministic (worst case) and statistical case analysis iables, a linear vector space with basis vectors is constructed,
based on the Jacobian–torsor model can be performed by the which forms the GapSpace model. Taking a hinge assembly in
following procedures [57, 58]: Fig. 6 as an example to illustrate the modeling, we can see that
four liaisons obviously exist separately g1, g2, g3, and g4.
1. Build the expression of the Jacobian–torsor model. The Therefore, four basis vectors ½ 1 0 0 0 , ½ 0 1 0 0 
work includes FEs and FR identification, reference frame ; ½ 0 0 1 0 ; and ½ 0 0 0 1  are chosen to make up
foundation, and the Jacobian matrix establishment. the GapSpace.
2. For the worst-case method, use the multiplication operator The statistical analysis based on the 1D GapSpace model
in arithmetic interval algorithms to obtain the maximum follows [38]
and minimum values of FR.
3. For statistical analysis, random number generators are used 1. Identification of all liaisons and dimension trees.
to generate a sample of random variables (tolerances) with- 2. Assembly graph construction.
in each SDT component, and then compute the correspond- 3. Fit condition (FC) representation.
ing average and standard deviation of the torsor to obtain 4. Assembly space capture.
the objective FR in the specified direction. 5. Tolerance regions within the assembly space generation.
Int J Adv Manuf Technol

Table 7 Strengths and

weaknesses of the Jacobian–
torsor model
Strengths [136, 138, 139]
• Easily handles tolerance representation and propagation
• Easily obtains functional requirements
• Serial and partial parallel assembly
• Deals with tolerance interactions
• Deals with deformations under working conditions
• Easily handles sensitivity or contribution analysis
Weaknesses [133, 136]
• Incorporation of form error is not fully developed
• Insufficient handling of bonus tolerances
• The set of inequalities engenders complex
computation, especially for parallel assembly
• The final functional requirement is an interval
instead of a determined value
• Not yet integrated into CAD software

6. Joint probability density function (pdf) is built for the
manufactured dimensions.
7. Integration of the pdf through the tolerance region and the
assembly region.
8. Functional requirement verification.
Zou later extended the GapSpace model to the multi-
dimensional assembly. In contrast to its 1D condition, there
is no need for the dimension tree. The gap is no longer repre-
sented by directed arcs, and the node does not correspond to a
feature, but rather to a constraining simplex (CS). There are
planar gap, cylinder-slider gap, edge-slider gap, parallel cylin-
der gap, and eccentric gap included according to the different
node characteristics and serve as basic analysis unit. The CS is
proposed as the basic functional unit in a part, which is asso-
ciated with constraints on the dimensions, while fitting condi-
tion is a key element for performing various GapSpace assem-
bly analyses. Each fitting condition has two equivalent repre-
sentations: gap representation and geometric representation,
which form the basis of tolerance analysis. A more developed
assembly graph is used to represent the relationship among
these constraints for every component. The GapSpace-based
analysis incorporates several steps as shown below [39, 142]:
1. Find all the gaps and compute all the CSs for each
component.
2. Build the assembly graph and find all FCs based on the
assembly graph.
3. Representation of FCs by means of a linear sum of gaps or
geometric parameters.
1. For the worst-case method, it is necessary to consider the
extreme values of the tolerances and calculate the corre-
sponding maximum material constraining simplex
(MMCS) and least material constraining simplex
Fig. 6 A hinge assembly
(LMCS), then obtain the maximum and minimal values
of the FC. However, in the statistical case, the distribution
of each tolerance is assumed first and then arbitrary FC is
generated with the pdf.
4. Tolerance analysis such as assemblability analysis re-
quires that all the FCs are non-negative.
You [9] modified this model by integrating various dimen-
sions and tolerances, strictly distinguishing component and
assembly D&T specifications, bringing in more effective
mathematical analysis methods, i.e., the Monte Carlo and sim-
plex algorithms for complex linear or non-linear multivariate
distribution stack-up functions. Compared to the original
model, the revised GapSpace assembly analysis (RGSA)
covers a more comprehensive analysis, such as tolerance syn-
thesis, checking of clearances, sensitivity analysis,
assemblability analysis, and tolerance synthesis. It considers
more D&T schemes including surface deviations, shape and
direction deviations, and the different dimensional schemes
like manufacturing dimensioning, parametric dimensioning,
and parallelism dimensioning. Gap is one of the basic units
of the RGSA model; dimensions and tolerances instead of CS
are treated as basic functional units in fitting condition. This
model have merits and demerits in Table 8.
2.8 Skin model/skin model shape model
A part will deviate from its initial nominal geometry due to
the existence of manufacturing imprecision and measure-
ment uncertainty. Various models either ignore the form or
shape defects of features or translate geometric deviations of
features into simple translation and rotation deviations which
have tremendous effects on the part representation as well as
on tolerance analysis results at the assembly level. In re-
sponse to this, the skin model is proposed with a consider-
ation of form error and it certainly accords with the geomet-
rical product specification standard (GPS). As a physical
interface between the workpiece and the environment, the
skin model itself is an infinite model, which is not con-
cerned with geometry information. The discrete shape ap-
proach for skin model simulation was presented by Zhang
[54, 143] in which modeling with geometric error was
 Int J Adv Manuf Technol

Table 8 Strengths and

weaknesses of the GapSpace Strengths [9, 38]
model
• Suitable for certain GD&T tolerancing methods
• Tests the quality of an assembly and calculates the
sensitivities
• RGSA can deal with floating assembly and bonus
tolerances
• Suitable for tolerance representation and analysis in
the mechanical design, manufacturing, and
inspection stages
• Easily performs analysis for over-constrained
assemblability
• Suitable for contact or non-contact joints
• Addresses the relative motion of the parts of a
floating assembly
Weaknesses [9]
• Extreme values of fitting conditions are obtained by,
respectively, substituting corresponding MMCSs
and LMCSs into fitting conditions
• GSA is not suitable for all types of tolerance
representation and RGSA does not easily handle 3D
constraining simplex calculations
• Integration into the Solidworks software has not yet
been fully realized
• The effect of tolerances on motion has not been
discussed

divided into two phases. Systematic and random deviations
generated by different methods are added to the nominal
model in the prediction stage and simulate the possible out-
comes with feasible sample methods in the later design stage
[144]. A comprehensive framework for skin model simula-
tions was constructed by Schleich [53]. The conceptual and
computational process for geometric representation is
highlighted in ref. [145]. However, the intrinsically infinite
representation hinders the opportunity for the identification
and simulation of the skin model in computer-aided
software.
The skin model shapes are finite representation of the
skin model that use point clouds or surface meshes to allow
a finite workpiece representative. This method has success-
fully incorporated form, orientation, location, and profile
tolerances with well-defined computation and scaling
[146]. A skin model shape that satisfies the specified tol-
erance specifications can be generated in a five-stage sim-
ulation [17], as shown in Fig. 7. The tolerance analysis is
performed to demonstrate the effects of geometric part de-
viations and different assembly sequences on multiple
function key characteristics [74], which comprises three
steps as shown in Fig. 8, respectively, (1) skin model shape
creation, (2) assembly simulations, and (3) key character-
istic calculations as well as visualization.
As can be seen, the main technologies that need to be
addressed focus on two aspects as follows:
1. Modeling of deviations
The generation of the skin model shape can be divided into
two stages depending on the available information in the prod-
uct design.
In the prediction stage, the point clouds which make up the
toleranced features build up on the nominal model and then
enhanced by random and systematical deviations [53, 54].
Random deviations can be derived from Markov Chain
Monte Carlo (MCMC) [144] or Gaussian random fields
(GRF) [143], while system deviations can be obtained by
second-order shapes [144] or modal method [147]. To gener-
ate consistent skin model shape for deviated part, FEA method
is adopted [148].
In the observation stage, limited observations are obtained
from measurements on part prototypes or results of
manufacturing process simulations. Computer visualization
tools or regression analysis are used to generate geometry
sampling close to real world situations [149].
2. Relative positioning
Tolerance analysis requires the simulation of the relative
positioning considering different kinds of geometric part de-
viations. The approaches for the relative positioning of dis-
crete geometry are mainly constrained registration [150] and
difference surface [50]. The former falls short in the

Fig. 7 Illustration of the skin model shape generation process

Int J Adv Manuf Technol

Fig. 8 Skin model shape-based

tolerance analysis

consideration of the assembly process, i.e., assembly direc-
tion, assembly force, workpiece gravity, or assembly se-
quence; the latter employs difference surface to compute the
deterministic contact points based on point-wise feature dis-
tances [151]; further, an optimized approach is proposed com-
bining both the difference surface and the constrained regis-
tration method [152].
The skin model shape-based simulations fulfill the follow-
ing criteria:
1. Contact quality evaluation. The model uses the weight of
point-onto-point sets under different methods and objec-
tive functions to measure the accuracy of relative
positioning.
2. Motion tolerancing [6]. It conducts tolerance analysis for
discrete time steps over a motion cycle.
3. Deformation calculation [151]. It presents a calculation of
deformation effects caused by the part’s thermal and
working environment.
The strengths and weaknesses of the skin model shape in a
geometric tolerance presentation are summarized in Table 9.
3 Case study
To compare the eight models previously described, a simple
assembly shown in Fig. 9 has been applied. It features two
parts in perfect contact. The aim of the tolerance analysis is to
measure the gap g on the leftmost of the assembly when the
tolerances applied to the components. The relevant parameters
are listed in Table 10:
Tolerance analysis by TTRS The tolerance analysis based on
TTRS model starts with the detection of the kinematic loops
from the assembly graph. Figure 10 shows the assembly graph
for the case, then the loop (O1, O2, O3, O4) can be obtained.
The TTRS trees resulting from the assembly with
MGDE/MGRS surfaces are shown in Fig. 11.

Table 9 Strengths and

weaknesses of the skin model Strengths [17, 74, 150, 151, 153] Weaknesses [143, 146]

• Represents all types of tolerances • No sufficient means for tolerance principles

• Conforms to GD&T standards • The discrete accuracy depends on processing
• Point cloud or mesh surface can be directly obtained in FEA software
from FEA and CFD • Has not been integrated into CAD software
• Deals with tolerance interactions • Difficult to analysis on complex assembly
• Deals with deformations in the working conditions
• Suitable for rigid and flexible parts
• Easily handles geometric tolerance management in
the design, manufacturing, and inspection stages
• Allows a more realistic prediction of assembly
characteristics in product development
• Deals with over-constrained assembly
• Allows contact and mobility simulations
 Int J Adv Manuf Technol

Fig. 9 Illustration of the case. a Part 1. b Part 2. c The assembly and function requirement

The torsor representation for the toleranced TTRS, that is 2 3

separately TTRS.1 and TTRS.2, by considering that the ex- ½0; 0 2 3
6 7
treme points A and B or C and D remain into the tolerance 6 h ½0; 0 i 7 ½0; 0
6 t1 t1 7 6 ½0; 0 7
zone are 6 − ;þ 7 6 7
6h 2 2 7
i 7 ¼ 6 ½−0:2; þ0:2 7
6
8 9 T1 ¼ T2 ¼ 6 t
6 − ;þ
1:2 t 1:2 7
7 6 ½−0:005; þ0:005 7 ð16Þ
>
<0 − >
= 6 20 7 6 7
6h t t 1:2 i 7
20 4 ½−0:005; þ0:005 5
T1 ¼ − h t þt − i ; T2 6 1:2 7
> 1:2 t 1 þ t 1:2 > 4 − ;þ 5 ½0; 0
:− − − 1 ; ; 20 20
2 2 ½0; 0
8 9
>
<0 − >
= where the T1 is the torsor of the toleranced TTRS.1 and T2 is
¼ − h t þt 0 t þt i ; ð14Þ the torsor of the TTRS.2.
>
:− − − 2 2:2
;
2 2:2 >
;
2 2 The cumulative torsor G is expressed along the stack loop
in the assembly:
where t1 and t2 are the tolerances on the dimensions and t1.2
and t2.2 are the tolerances of geometry. The functional require- G ¼ T1 þ T2 ð17Þ
ment Δg can be expressed by the translation along the global
And, therefore, the functional requirement in the worst-case
z-axis.
approach performed along the z-direction is
ðt 1 þ t 2 þ t 1:2 þ t 2:2 Þ
Δ g¼ g ¼ ð20−18Þ  ð0:2 þ 0:2Þ ¼ 2  0:4 ð18Þ
2
ð0:4 þ 0:4 þ 0:1 þ 0:1Þ The solution of TTRS model can also be screw [154] and
¼ ¼ 0:5 ð15Þ
2 matrix approaches.

However, considering tolerance interactions, the torsor of

plane specified with an orientation tolerance besides a dimen-
sional tolerance becomes [139]

Table 10 Tolerance
values proposed ta tb tc td

− 0.2/0.2 0.1 − 0.2/0.2 0.1

Fig. 10 The assembly graph of the case
Int J Adv Manuf Technol

displacements of point E is decided by two sections that

describes in Eq. (20).

Δg ¼ ΔZ E −ΔZ F ð19Þ
ΔZ E ¼ ΔZ E;O1 þ ΔZ E;O3 ð20Þ

where the ΔZ E;O1 and ΔZ E;O3 mean the variations resulting

Fig. 11 The TTRS trees for each part of the case
from the local DRF O1 of part 1 and local DRF O3 of part 2,
respectively.
Considering the planar tolerance zone for the case. The
Tolerance analysis by matrix model The initial step for the tolerance matrix is then defined as shown in Eq. (21). If
matrix model in tolerance analysis is to transform the POi→ O j is the transformation matrix of coordinate frame O0
tolerances of the assembly according to TTRS method; to frame Oj,then the vector of displacement MM′ of a point
the corresponding assembly graph can be derived as M in the tolerance zone to point M′ expressed in O0 is now
shown in Fig. 10. The related links between the two described in Eq. (22). Therefore, the displacements of point E
parts form a global DRF that been called O0 and three are given as Eqs. (23) and (24).
local DRFs namely O1, O2, and O3 associated with the 2 3
Cβ 1 −Sα1 Sβ1 Sβ1 Cα1 0
key features, as displayed in Fig. 9. Moreover, the 6 0 Cα1 −Sα1 0 7
graph shows the required measure (g) between the point Dðα; β; wÞ ¼ 6 4 −Sβ 1 Sα1 Cβ 1 Cα1 Cβ 1 w1 5
7 ð21Þ
E and point F. 0 0 0 1
The clearance (g) between E and F can be approxi- h 0
i  h 0
i
mately measured in the z-axis of the global DRF that MM ¼ P−1O0→ O j Δ D j −I Δ M ð22Þ
O0 Oj
can be expressed in Eq. (19), among which the value of
ZF is zero for the behalf of origin of coordinates. The

2 32 32 3
1 0 0 0 Cβ 1 −1 −Sα1 Sβ1 Sβ1 Cα1 0 0
60 1 0 0 7 6 0 Cα1 −1 −Sα1 0 7 6 7
ΔZ E;O1 ¼ ½p1 ⋅½D1 −I ⋅½E O1 ¼6 76 76 0 7
40 0 1 20 54 −Sβ 1 Sα1 Cβ 1 Cα1 Cβ 1 −1 w1 54 −18 5
2 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
ð23Þ
−18Sβ 1 Cα1
6 18Sα1 7
¼6 7
4 −18ðCα1 Cβ 1 −1Þ þ w1 5
0

2 32 32 3 2 3
1 0 0 0 Cβ2 −1 −Sα2 Sβ2 Sβ2 Cα2 0 0 0
60 1 0 07 6 0 Cα2 −1 −Sα2 0 7 607 6 0 7
ΔZ E;O3 ¼ ½p2 ⋅½D2 −I ⋅½E O3 ¼6
40
76 76 7 ¼ 6 7 ð24Þ
0 1 2 54 −Sβ2 Sα2 Cβ 2 Cα2 Cβ 2 −1 w2 54 0 5 4 w2 5
0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0

To make sure all the points of planar surface within the 8 9

>
> −10Sβ 1 þ w1 > >
tolerance zone, the constraints have to be fulfilled at the ex- < =
10Sα1 Cβ 1 þ w1 10Sβ 1
treme four points of part 1 and part 2. The constraints of the −0:2 ≤ ≤ 0:2 −0:1 ≤ ≤0:1
>
> 10Sβ1 þ w1 > > 10Sα1 Cβ 1
: ;
components under the dimensional and geometric tolerances −10Sα1 Cβ 1 þ w1
of part 1 are ð25Þ
 Int J Adv Manuf Technol

where −0.2 ≤ w1 ≤ 0.2, − tb/20 ≤ α1 ≤ tb/20, − tb/20 ≤ β1 ≤ Table 11 Elements of R

and T matrices of the Loop
tb/20.
loop
The constraints of the components under the specified di- R T
mensional and geometric tolerances for four vertices of part 2
are 0 x1
8 9 0 α1 = 0 ± 0.05
>
> −10Sβ 2 þ w2 > > 90° x3
< =
10Sα2 Cβ 2 þ w2 10Sβ 2
−0:2 ≤ ≤ 0:2 −0:1 ≤ ≤0:1 90° x2
>
> 10Sβ2 þ w2 > > 10Sα2 Cβ 2
: ; 0 α2 = 0 ± 0.05
−10Sα2 Cβ 2 þ w2
0 g
ð26Þ

where −0.2 ≤ w2 ≤ 0.2, − td/20 ≤ α2 ≤ td/20, − td/20 ≤ β2 ≤

td/20.
The sum of two contributors due to the DRFs O1 and O3
makes up the displacement of ΔZE, which can be shown in
Eq. (27). For worst-case method, the variation of g is calcu-
lated by Eq. (28); this constrained non-linear multivariable
function can be solved by built-in non-linear programming
solvers in MATLAB. Therefore, the required measurement g
may be maintained in Eq. (29).
ΔZ E ¼ −18ðcosα1 ⋅cosβ 1 −1Þ þ w1 þ w2 ð27Þ
Δg ¼ −36ðcosα1 ⋅cosβ 1 −1Þ þ 2ðw1 þ w2 Þ ð28Þ
g ¼ ð20−18Þ
 ½−36ðcosð−1:1385e−8Þ⋅cosð−1:1385e−8Þ−1Þ þ 0:4≈2
 0:4
ð29Þ
Tolerance analysis by vector loop The vector loop has been
created for the case assembly using the datum paths as a guide,
as shown in Fig. 12. There exists only one open loop that
represents the gap whose variation is the result of the accumu-
lation of components’ tolerances. As concerning for the open
loop, the corresponding elements of R and T matrices of the
loop are concluded in Table 11.
Fig. 12 The vector loop for the case
The constraint with vector loop-based assembly model can
be expressed as a concatenation of homogeneous transforma-
tion matrices and gives
Δg ¼ Δx1 þ Δα1 −Δx2 −Δα2 ð30Þ
where Δx = {Δx1, Δx2 }T = {0.2, 0.2 }T; Δα = {Δα1, Δα2 }T
T
= ; tb2 ;
tb
2
As concerning the sensitivity analysis, we have
   
Δg ¼  ∑jS i jΔxi þ ∑S j Δα j
¼ ð0:2 þ 0:2 þ 0:05 þ 0:05Þ ¼ 0:5 ð31Þ
g ¼ ð20−18Þ þ Δg ¼ 2  0:5 ð32Þ
Tolerance analysis by T-Map The tolerance analysis by
means of T-Map method begins with the modeling of T-
Maps for all the toleranced features in the assembly chain
from the datum to the target. The T-Map for the tolerance
zone of the planar surface with definition of dimensional
tolerance t can be shown in Fig. 13a. Figure 13b displays
an across section of it; the maximum orientation varia-
tions in one direction for the tolerance zone is a very
small angle that equals t/dy. However, the orientation tol-
erance t1 applied allows a smaller rotation angle t1/dy, as
illustrated in Fig. 13c; the directional deviation is replaced
by t1 for any part on which an orientational tolerance is
specified.
The functional feature for the assembly is the left face
of part 2. The T-Map models for toleranced features of
two parts can be demonstrated in Fig. 14a, b. The
toleranced surfaces of the two parts share the same lateral
dimensions and tolerances; therefore, the non-vertical
lines of the two T-Maps have the same slope. The dimen-
sions of the accumulation map are in terms of ta and tc
using Minkowski Sum, as illustrated in Fig. 14c. To
avoid specifying excessively tight tolerances on the indi-
vidual parts, the functional T-Map for the target face
should allow the accumulation T-Map to inscribe in it,
as expressed in Fig. 14d. The equations for tolerances
stack-up are got for the normal and x or y directions of
Int J Adv Manuf Technol

Fig. 13 a The T-Map for the toleranced planar feature with when size and orientation tolerances t and t1 are specified. d A half-
dimensions dx × dy. b A point map that represents half the planes in one section of the dicone when size tolerance t, orientation tolerance t1 , and
planar section of the tolerance zone of a. c A half-section of the dicone form tolerances t0 are specified

the superimposed T-Maps as Eq. (33) for dimension and the substitution surface with respect to the nominal surface can
direction control. be modeled by SDT method. For a planar surface, the SDT
representation can be shown in Eq. (35).
t f ¼ ta þ tc ¼ 0:4
ð33Þ
t fb ¼ tb þ td ¼ 0:2 E ¼ f0; 0; w; α; β; 0gT ð35Þ

As considering the worst-case range of gap in this case, we
focus on z-direction only, the result is
g ¼ ð20−18Þ þ t f ¼ 2  0:4
As concerning the tolerance zone of tolerance, which
bounds a two-parallel plane centered on the nominal surface.
The constraints have to be fulfilled in three components for
ð34Þ limiting the displacement of the plane for part 1; we obtain the
following system of inequalities where εi = ± 1.

Tolerance analysis by deviation domain The case conducted tb tb

for analysis in this paper is a general serial assembly without − ≤ ðε2 ⋅10β 1 þ ε3 ⋅10α1 Þ≤
2 2 ð36Þ
clearance. For each part, the variation of position and the −0:2 ≤ ðε1 ⋅w1 þ ε2 ⋅10β1 þ ε3 ⋅10α1 Þ≤ 0:2
orientation of toleranced features are completely defined by
the tolerancing of one surface with respect to the other. On the Each of these inequalities represents a boundary hyper-
hypothesis of the small displacements, the small variations of plane; the intersection of these hyperplanes forms the

Fig. 14 a Half-section of the T-

Map for part 1. b Half-section of
the T-Map for part 2. c A half-
section of the accumulation map
for the assembly. d Half-section
of the functional T-Map and,
inscribed in it, the accumulation
T-Map
 Int J Adv Manuf Technol

deviation domain, which is a convex polytope as shown in Tolerance analysis by Jacobian–torsor The key work for
Fig. 15a. The limit variation of each component becomes Jacobian–torsor model is to obtain the Jacobian matrix for
−0:2 ≤ w1 ≤ 0:2; − 20
tb
≤ α1 ≤ 20
tb
; − 20
tb
≤ β1 ≤ 20
tb
. In the same way, error propagation and the torsors for all consecutive pairs.
the deviation domain can be built for part 2 with boundary con- The definition of pairs, functional surface, and coordinate
straints satisfying −0:2 ≤ w2 ≤ 0:2; − 20 td
≤ α2 ≤ 20td
; − 20
td
≤ β2 ≤ 20
td
. frames can be presented in Fig. 16.
Combining the two deviation domains using Minkowski sum, Based on the relationship of this assembly in Fig. 16, we
which is formed by adding each vector in domain A to each vector can identify the FEs in chain that make influence on the func-
in domain B, as expressed in Eq. (37), in which A and B are two tional requirement g. They are internal pair (0, 1), (2, 3) and
polytopes. And then, we obtain the tolerances stack-up for the kinematic pair (1, 2). Then, the Jacobian matrix can be calcu-
target feature (see Fig. 15b); the result is presented in Eq. (38). lated for each FE; the kinematic torsor between FE1 and FE2
is considered null because the form or shape tolerances are not
A þ B ¼ fa þ bja∈A; b∈Bg ð37Þ being considered here; we find the Jacobian matrix:
8 22 3 2 3 3
>
> t z ¼ 
ð0:2 þ 0:2
Þ 1 0 0 0 18 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
>
> 66 0 −18 0 0 7 6 07 7
<r ¼  tb
þ
td 66 1 0 7 60 1 0 0 0 7 7
x
ð38Þ 66 0 0 1 0 0 07 6
7 60 0 1 0 0 077 7
7
>  20 20  J ¼6 6
66 0 0 07 6 07 7 ð40Þ
>
> tb td 66 0 0 1 7 60 0 0 1 0 7 7
>
: ry ¼  þ 44 0 0 0 0 1 05 40 0 0 0 1 05 5
20 20 0 0 0 0 0 1 FE1 0 0 0 0 0 1 FE2

Concerning the gap g along z-direction in worst-case meth-

The dispersions of the virtual joints, due to the applied
od, we get
tolerances, can be established based on the torsor theory.
g ¼ ð20−18Þ þ t z ¼ 2  0:4 ð39Þ Then, the expression of Jacobian–torsor model is

22 3 3
½0; 0
2h i3 66 ½0; 0 7 7
66 7 7
u; u
6 h i 7 22 6 6 ½−0:2; þ0:2 7 7
6 7 3 2 3 36 6 7 7 2 3
6 v; v 7 1 0 0 0 18 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 6 6 ½−0:005; þ0:005 7 7 ½−0:09; 0:09
66 7 7
6h i7
7 6 60 0 −18 0 0 7 6 07 76 4 5 7 6 ½−0:09; 0:09 7
6
6 w; w 7 66 66 1 7 60 1 0 0 0 7 76 ½−0:005; þ0:005 7 6 7
0 07 6 07 76 ½  7 6 7
6h
6 i7
7 ¼ 66
0 0 1 0 7 60 0 1 0 0 7 76 2 0; 0 3FE1 7 ¼ 6 ½−0:4; 0:4 7 ð41Þ
6 α; α 7 6 60 0 0 1 0 07 6 07 76 ½  7 6 ½−0:01; 0:01 7
66 7 60 0 0 1 0 7 76 0; 0 7 6 7
6h
6 i7
7 44 0 0 0 0 1 0 5 40 0 0 0 1 0 5 5666
6 ½0; 0 7 7 4 ½−0:01; 0:01 5
7 7
6 β; β 7 7 7
6 7 0 0 0 0 0 1 FE1 0 0 0 0 0 1 FE2 6 6
6 6 ½−0:2; þ0:2 7 7 ½0; 0
4 h i 5 6 6 ½−0:005; þ0:005 7 7
δ; δ 66 7 7
4 4 ½−0:005; þ0:005 5 5
½0; 0 FE2

(a) (b)
Fig. 15 a Deviation domain for part 1. b Minkowski sum of two deviation domains
Int J Adv Manuf Technol
Fig. 16 Definition of the parts and the associated coordinate frames
Paying attention to the “z” direction, the translational var-
iation of the functional requirement is [−0.4, +0.4]; therefore,
the objective gap can be represented as
g ¼ ð20−18Þ  0:4 ¼ 2  0:4 ð42Þ
Tolerance analysis by GapSpace There are three gaps asso-
ciated with the part 2: g 1 , g 2 , and g 3 . However, no
constraining simplex can be found for the assembly be-
cause the assembly is movable along one direction of x.
To make the model fixed, an extra fixture is imagined to
form the gap g 4 which is exactly opposite to g 3 . The
allowed range of g1 is the objective of interest. All of the
four gaps are planar gaps, among which g2, g3, and g4 are
theoretical zero. The assembly graph for the example is
depicted in Fig. 17b; obviously, two FCs are found. We
focus on FC in z-direction; the corresponding parameters
are listed in Table 12. The gap-based and the geometric
parameter-based representation of the FC is listed in Eq.
(43). Table 13 reveals the dimensions of the constraining
simplex. The range of gap g 1 equals the range of FC
Fig. 17 a Gaps of assembly. b
Assembly graph
because gap g2 is zero. Therefore, the maximum and min-
imum gap can be maintained by Eq. (44).
FC ¼ g1 þ g 2 ¼ CSLengthðpart 1Þ−CSLengthðpart 2Þ ð43Þ
g max ¼ LMCS part1 −LMCS part2 ¼ 2 þ 0:6
ð44Þ
g min ¼ MMCS part1 −MMCS part2 ¼ 2−0:6
Tolerance analysis by skin model shape This analysis process
starts from the generation of the skin model shapes for all
toleranced features; the constraints are applied to all the dis-
crete points to ensure the geometric tolerance zones. The
modeling of key features of part 1 and part 2 can be seen in
Fig. 18. These two skin model shapes are assembled in the
rightmost side employing the relative positioning approach
based on the constrained registration method. It should be
mentioned that the skin model shape considering actual sur-
face with form defect distinguishes it from other models. In
this regard, the displacement between feature C and feature D
cannot be ignored anymore. To obtain this small displace-
ment, an optimization problem is defined with a constraint
that requires the signed normal distance between any of the
reference points in feature C and their correspondences in
feature D to take a non-negative value, as expressed in Eq.
(45). The numerical solution of this constrained optimization
problem can be performed employing an active set, quapro or
iHLRF algorithms [152].
min f ðα; β; wÞ
ð45Þ
Subject to DistðC; DÞ ≥ 0 ∀C; ∀D
The functional requirement of this case is the determination
of gap between feature A of part 1 and feature B of part 2. The
distances can be measured by means of ray tracing ap-
proaches. The results of the gap distribution can be seen in
Fig. 19. Orientation variations can be obtained by applying
 Int J Adv Manuf Technol

Table 12 Parameters in FC = g1 + g2

CT Sine law Contribution coefficient Sign

Part 1 g1 + g2 1 +
Part 2 g1 + g2 1 –

relative positioning between the final position of feature B and

its nominal position.

Results of the case Table 14 makes a summary of the results

when the eight selected models are applied to analyze the
effect of tolerances on the final key function requirement.
The GapSpace-based worst-case analysis concerns the
dimensions MMCS and LMCS which are borrowed from
virtual sizes of MMC or LMC. Extreme values of fitting
conditions are obtained by, respectively, substituting cor-
responding MMCSs and LMCSs into fitting conditions,
thus resulting in larger variations. Vector loop considers
geometric tolerances as variation sources that are indepen-
dent from the dimensional variations in the assembly;
therefore, there exists no tolerance interaction in this mod-
el. The calculation of TTRS, matrix, T-Map, deviation
domain, and Jacobian–torsor involves the evaluation of
the six small displacement variations of features specified
with an orientation tolerance besides a size tolerance,
where tolerance interactions can be considered.
Orientation tolerances mainly restrict the rotational dis-
placements, and size tolerances limit the translational dis-
placements. Analysis performed by skin model shape
yields smaller results; several reasons may account for
this. First, the part feature deviations are not simplified
to rotational and translational imperfections as in other
models. Second, the calculation of small displacements
considering dependency between function element pair,
i.e., the actual feature D not only determines the small
displacement between feature A and D, but restricts the
allowed variation between feature D and C, which allows
a more realistic prediction of assembly characteristics.
However, this method requires the generation of skin
model shapes for all surfaces, assembling of parts bit by
bit and measure of distances for all points between func-
tional features which restricts its use on complex assem-
blies containing a large number of parts and joints.
Fig. 18 Illustration of the assembly
4 Comparisons
So far, we have listed eight tolerance analysis models for parts
or assemblies, and each of them has their own advantages and
disadvantages. In this section, we propose comparisons to
benchmark the tolerance analysis models, in order to identify
their common features as well as those that set them apart. The
points of comparison are selected from those proposed in the
literature, which are commonly involved in a tolerance anal-
ysis problem, such as tolerance principle, stack-up functions
built, and solved methods. This kind of comparison will pro-
vide a guideline for selecting a model most appropriate for
specific goals. The differences and similarities between the
eight models with the selected indicators of comparison are
listed in Table 15, in which the symbol “×” means the indica-
tor is currently unknown or unable to calculate based on the
published literature to date, “√” denotes the indicator as appli-
cable or already put into use, and “Δ” means the indicator is
incompletely developed based on the latest publications, but
showing potential to be solved. The following section inter-
prets the results in detail based on the respective items.

Table 13 Dimensions of CS

CS Nominal CS length MMCS LMCS

Part 1 (g1, g2) 20 19.7 20.3

Part 2 (g1, g2) 20 18.3 17.7
Fig. 19 Gap distribution of the case
Int J Adv Manuf Technol
Table 14 Case study results
Model Results
TTRS [1.6 − 2.4]
Matrix [1.6 − 2.4]
Vector loop [1.5 − 2.5]
T-Map [1.6 − 2.4]
Deviation domain [1.6 − 2.4]
Jacobian–torsor [1.6 − 2.4]
GapSpace [1.4 − 2.6]
Skin model/skin model shape [1.8401 − 2.1805]
1. Dimensionality means the model allows the analysis of
parts or assembly in one dimension or two dimensions or
three dimensions. All of the models listed show the abil-
ity for error analysis in the three spaces, which is neces-
sary for actual mechanical structure characterization.
2. Tolerance type refers to the type of tolerance consisting
of form, orientation, position, and run-out. It is obvious
that nearly all of the models are suitable for the repre-
sentation of dimensional, orientation, position, and form
tolerance except for the TTRS and matrix models, which
are not able to deal with form tolerance. The unified
Jacobian–torsor model used to be considered as having
no ability to handle form tolerance as a Jacobian model
or a torsor model [2], but a revised model integrates
cylindricity error into the tolerance analysis of precision
rotary assemblies by modifying the expressions of the
SDTs of the cylinder pairs [133] and shows a potential to
represent other form tolerances. Deviation domain using
SDT components to represent each geometric tolerance
zone, except form error, in the form of convex polytope
referred to as the deviation domain. To solve this demer-
it, model parameterization is adopted to modify the de-
viation domain so as to represent form variations [155].
The representation and propagation for run-out toler-
ance, which includes circular run-out and total run-out,
can barely be solved, except for the T-Map and skin
model shape method.
3. Analysis method refers to the type of approach that can
be adopted to solve the assembly stack-up functions, i.e.,
worst case or statistical method. Table 15 displays the
analysis method applied to each model in the literature.
The root sum square solution for T-Map model and ma-
trix model still needs further development while worst-
case method is commonly applied to linear function for
seven models. Due to the fact that assembly and mobility
simulation of skin model shapes are performed based on
relative positioning of point clouds, in which no assem-
bly function is defined, therefore WC and RSS are not
applicable. The Monte Carlo simulation has been accept-
ed for non-linear functions. Some other methods such as
DLM, SOTA, and the estimated mean shift are adopted
in the vector loop. The simplex algorithm and numerical
integration are taken in the GapSpace model. The com-
bination of a Monte Carlo simulation and a simplex al-
gorithm approaches a solution method for linearization
and optimization [156]. Table 16 reviews the various
approaches proposed for tolerance analysis in the litera-
ture with respect to the best choice for certain purposes.
4. Sensitivity/contribution indicates the influence of each
composition loop change on the variation range of a
closed ring in an assembly chain. It is important to obtain
a recommendation from the sensitivity or contribution
results to optimize tolerance values or the tolerance
schemes. The TTRS and the matrix models still lack a
suitable algorithm to calculate them while the vector
loop, GapSpace, and Jacobian–torsor [157] models eas-
ily settle this issue. The T-Map model and deviation
domain model adopt global sensitivity-based tolerancing
techniques for convex hulls [120]. For the skin model
shape, sensitivity analysis is applied to evaluate the part
tolerances to key characteristics (KCs) and then iden-
tifies their main contributors.
5. Objective means the functional requirement is represent-
ed through the surface or through points belonging to the
features or through gaps between the features. The
TTRS, T-Map, deviation domain, and Jacobian–torsor
are surface-based approaches. More specifically,
GapSpace model has gap representation and geometric
representation to form the target objective determined by
the dimensions and tolerances. Therefore, it can be a
gap-based or a surface-based model as well. The
surface-based model has more stable precision for selec-
tion of different points which in a point-based model
may lead to different results. A gap-based model is con-
venient for the quality test of an assembly where clear-
ances are the key elements.
6. Envelope/independent describes a related requirement or
unrelated requirement between size tolerance and geo-
metric tolerance. The envelope principle demands that
the actual size does not exceed the maximum material
dimensions. However, this has only been realized in the
T-Map models at present.
7. Datum precedence represents a sequence of datums
when multiple datums are applied to the same feature,
and a low benchmark accommodates a high priority. The
matrix model and the vector loop are two models that are
not able to distinguish the datum precedence among the
eight models.
8. Joint type refers to the joint types between the parts,
either with contact between the features or with clear-
ance. Apart from vector loop model, the others may
consider both contact and clearance among the mating
parts. GapSpace can be gap-based where the gap can be
Table 15 Comparisons of the eight models

Order Models TTRS Matrix Vector loop T-Map Deviation Unified GapSpace Skin model
domain Jacobian torsor shape

1 Dimensionality 3D 3D 3D 3D 3D 3D 3D 3D
2 Tolerance type Dimensional √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Geometrical Form × × √ √ Δ Δ √ √
Orientation √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Position √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
3 Analysis WC √ √ √ √ √ √ √ ×
method Statistical RSS √ × √ × √ √ √ ×
Others GA GA/Monte Carlo DLM/Monte Carlo/s Convolution of Monte Carlo Monte Carlo Monte Carlo/simplex Statistical shape
(Δ) order (SOTA)/ probability algorithm/numerical analysis
estimated mean T-Maps integration
shift
4 Sensitivity/contribution × × √ Δ Δ √ √ √
5 Objective Suface Point Point Suface Suface Suface Gap/surface Point
6 Envelope/independence × × × √ × × × ×
7 Datum precedence √ × × √ √ √ √ √
8 Joint type Contact/clearance Contact/clearance Contact Contact/clearance Contact/clearance Contact/clearance Contact/clearance Contact/clearance
9 Material modifier × × × √ √ × √ ×
10 Stack-up function Linear/network Linear/network (δ) Linear/network Linear/network Linear/network Linear/network Linear/network ×
11 Tolerance interaction √ √ × √ √ √ × √
12 Rigid/flexible Rigid Rigid Rigid Rigid Rigid/flexible Rigid Rigid Rigid/flexible
13 Compatibility with specification Not fully ISO Not fully ISO Not fully ISO Not fully ISO Not fully Not fully ISO Not fully ISO Not fully ISO
and ASME and ASME and ASME and ASME ASME/ISO and ASME and ASME and ASME
14 Suitable for tolerance synthesis √ × √ √ √ √ √ Δ
15 Tolerance transfer √ × × √ √ √ √ √
16 Tolerance evaluation × × × × √ × √ √
17 Series/parallel assembly Series/parallel Series Series Series/paralle Series/parallel Series/parallel Series/parallel Series
18 Application CATIA.3D FDT/ CATIA.3D FDT/ CETOL/Sigmund. × × × GSAS1.0 ×
FROOM FROOM
Int J Adv Manuf Technol
Int J Adv Manuf Technol

Linear/non-linear
Explicit/implicit
Does not matter
zero; skin model shape may consider an unconstrained

Not required
objective function for assembly simulations.
9.

GLP/GP
Material modifier refers to bonus tolerance and contains

NT-net

High
MMC and LMC, which describes the maximum or min-
imum material condition in the size boundary. The T-
Map and deviation domain may take into account the
MMC principle and create the maximum hypothetical
Can use any distribution
Monte Carlo simulation
space and domain space. GapSpace calculates the
MMCS and LMCS in its tolerance stack-up function.

Linear/non-linear
Explicit/implicit
Does not matter
Other models need to be extended to consider material

Not required
Very High
modifiers.
10. Stack-up function can be divided into linear stack-up func-
tions or networks (non-linear) of stack-up functions.
Different objective functions can choose different analysis
methods based on Table 16. It is worth noting that the
Taguchi’s method
Normal assumed

matrix model is changed for non-linear function analysis,

Explicit/implicit

and therefore, all the models can deal with both linear
Not required
Non-linear

functions and networks, except the skin model shapes

due to the fact that no stack-up function exists at all.
High

11. Tolerance interaction indicates more than one tolerance

1

applied to the same feature. Models without the capabil-

ity of representing this interaction are the vector loop and
Estimated mean shift

GapSpace. The Jacobian–torsor model has been modi-

Normal assumed

fied to consider the variations and constraints for a fea-

ture specified by more than one tolerance [139]. The
Non-linear

Moderate
required
Explicit

modification of small displacement variations in six de-

grees of freedom can be applied to matrix and TTRS
1

models.
12. Rigid/flexible, most of the models established based on
rigid body assumptions, can only deal with small dis-
Root sum square
Normal assumed
Linearized 3D

placement deviations. Deviation domain has shown the

Moderate

ability to represent the rigid as well as elastic or flexible

Required
Explicit
Linear

parts for extending the models to flexible joints [122,

158]; a similar method called polytopes has been applied
to flexible assemblies and can be easily calculated using
available online software politopix. Skin model shape is
Not required

Not required

a discrete representation which suitable for both rigid

Worst case

Explicit

and flexible components.

Linear
Comparison of the tolerance analysis methods

Less

13. Conformance to standards, all the models currently are

1

not completely conform to ISO or ASME standards for

the limitation of some applications prescribed in the ISO
Comparison of the tolerance analysis methods

Linear/non-linear

and ASME standards, i.e., envelope and independent

Explicit/implicit

principles. Skin model shape is a core concept of

GeoSpelling and conforms to GPS standard.
Number of computation/simulation

14. Tolerance synthesis, regarded as tolerance optimization,

is an iterative process of tolerance analysis, tolerance
allocation, and adjustment of tolerance values. All the
eight models except matrix have achieved tolerance
Assembly function

synthesis.
Partial derivative
Dimensionality

15. Tolerance transfer, thought as tolerance analysis and

Distribution

synthesis in process planning. TTRS can be used as tol-

Table 16

Aspects

erance transfer technique to succeed in processing plane

specifications and manufacturing tolerancing synthesis
 Int J Adv Manuf Technol

[23, 96]; T-Map was developed for transfer datum in
manufacturing process [10, 116]; Jacobian–torsor model
realized the error propagation in manufacturing process-
es [135]; manufacturing dispersions were taken into ac-
count for assembly in deviation domain model [159].
GapSpace considers manufacturing dimensioning
scheme imposed by the manufacturing process [38],
and skin model generation in observation stage con-
siders the stochastic manufacturing process [149].
These models achieve tolerance transfer that bridges
the gap between design and manufacturing.
16. Tolerance evaluation refers to evaluate the deviations of a
part using the measured data obtained from CMMs or
other systems. Skin model shapes built in the observation
stage realize the statistical analysis of observed geometric
deviations and guide to optimize inspection planning [17],
deviation domain decides the relations between the devi-
ation parameters that measured to inspect the specification
[117], and GapSpace assesses manufacturing dimensions
according to an inspection scheme [38].
17. Series/parallel assembly, some models are not limit to
the connections in series like TTRS [1], T-Map [115],
deviation domain [124], and Jacobian–torsor model;
however, the research of parallel assembly is not suffi-
cient, for example, Jacobian–torsor model just take par-
tial parallel structure into account and concerns only on
plane and cylinder features [16, 136].
18. Application, some of the eight models have been devel-
oped and applied successfully in CAD systems for in-
dustrial environment, such as TTRS model and matrix
model have been applied to CATIA.3D FDT in CATIA,
CETOL uses vector loop model, and GSAS1.0 integrat-
ed in Solidworks adopts GapSpace model. A conclusion
on CAT systems can be seen in Table 17. Software pack-
ages, including CETOL 6 Sigma, eM-TolMate, VSA,
3DCS, MECAmaster, Mechanical Advantage, and
Sigmund, normally predict the amount of variation with-
in the assembly, perform sensitivity analysis to deter-
mine the contributors or the “source” of variation, and
reduce costs with a well-optimized tolerance definition
keeping a full-controlled quality on geometrical require-
ments. Functional dimensioning and tolerancing
(CATIA.3D FDT) and functional tolerancing and anno-
tation (FT&A) for different versions of CATIA provide a
syntactic and semantic tolerance checking of the anno-
tations on the active product or part with respect to
tolerancing standards. Analytix can be used for full ki-
nematic, inverse dynamic, and force analysis. It should
be noted that Mechanical Advantage and Analytix are
dimension-driven models which still have difficulty in
analysis of complex geometric tolerances, especially for
situations where 3D models are used.
As for the user interface, since most of the abovementioned
packages are built-in tools of mainstream CAD systems, they
typically share the same user interface with the CAD system.
While Analytix and PolitoCAT are standalone packages with
their own GUI. Currently, most of the CAD packages can deal
with assemblies of varied complexities, among which CETOL

Table 17 Conclusions for the current CAT systems

Tool Providers CAD systems Models Analysis methods References

CETOL 6 Sigma Sigmetrix Creo/Solidworks/CATIA V5/NX Vector Loop WC/RSS/Monte Carlo [87, 160–163]
(TI/TOL)
eM-TolMate Tecnomatix/UGS CATIA/NX/ Creo /UG/SDRC/ Variation model Monte Carlo [164]
CADDS5
VSA Tecnomatix Creo /I-deas /CATIA/ UG Variation model Monte Carlo [87, 160–163]
3DCS Dimensional Control CATIA V5/NX/Creo/CATIA V6 Variation model WC/RSS/Monte Carlo/ [87, 160–163]
System 3DEXPERIENCE High-Low-Medium/
GeoFactor
CATIA.3D FDT Dassault System CATIA V4 TTRS/Matrix WC [87, 160–163]
FT&A Dassault System CATIA V5/V6 TTRS Semantic Analysis [55]
MECAmaster MECAmaster SARL CATIA V5/V6/Euclids3 Torsor WC/RSS [165]
Mechanical Cognition Mechanical Advantage CAD Dimension-driven WC/RSS/Monte Carlo [166]
Advantage
Analytix Saltire Software Microsoft Windows Dimension-driven WC/RSS [166]
FROOM Salomons CATIA TTRS/Torsor WC/GA [26]
CLIC Anselmetti Excel Software Positioning Tables WC/RSS [163, 167]
Sigmund Varatech Solidworks/Solid Edge/Creo Vector loop Worst case, RSS, MRSS, [168]
PCRSS, and Monte Carlo
PolitoCAT Teissandier Microsoft Windows Polytope Worst case [126]
/Politopix
Int J Adv Manuf Technol
6 Sigma and Sigmund are able to consider part/assembly var-
iation and kinematic motion for kinematic mechanisms due to
the adoption of vector loop model.
5 Conclusions
The paper focuses on eight tolerance analysis models. The
related research on these models as well as the comparisons
between them is discussed in detail. Each of these tolerance
analysis models has its own strengths and weaknesses, and
guidelines are presented for selecting the most proper one
based on the specified requirements.
None of the models proposed in the literature that is avail-
able handle all the requirements included in the tolerancing
standards [84], and many problems still exist in the tolerance
analysis process. These limitations are considered to be sig-
nificant future research projects, which are challenging but
promising. Some of these issues are referred to in the paper
[2]; in addition, several aspects should be extended or supple-
mented further.
1. All of the following problems have been referred to in
some models more or less, but they still lack a universal
method, which can completely and perfectly solve them:
the problems of applications of related requirements or an
independence principle to assemblies, the representation
of all the possible types of part couplings that include
clearance, the definition of the interaction of geometric
deviations with dimension deviations, and the choice for
the selection of datum precedences when a feature con-
fronts various datums.
2. Tolerance analysis conducted for assembly mainly focus-
es on static analysis, but a rotating mechanism, i.e., a disk
cam or a slider mechanism, keeps a continuous movement
under working conditions. The simulation of kinematic
behavior and the ability to specify motion tolerances are
growing necessities. The related research on assembly
sequences and relative positioning for motion tolerancing
is still deficient.
3. Research on tolerance analysis combines the processes of
tolerance allocation, tolerance cost, and tolerance optimiza-
tion design. A simple application of the statistical analysis
has some limitations. The interaction between tolerance
analysis, tolerance allocation, and tolerance cost aggravates
the difficulty of the analysis process. The sensitivity and
percentage contribution of tolerances are general objects
for tolerance analysis which are still difficult to calculate
in some models, such as the TTRS and matrix models. And
even the T-Map and deviation domain models, the analyses
in these two aspects are not developed in depth.
4. Most of the models at present adopt the Monte Carlo
method (except the TTRS model) to deal with network
(non-linear) constraints or the stack-up functions, and
they maintain good results. However, this method re-
quires a large amount of calculation with low efficiency.
In response, a method called NT-net [68] can provide a
better convergence rate over the MC method with im-
proved accuracy. The random values generated by the
MC and NT-net are based on the theory of probability
and statistics, which may result presumably in irrational-
ity in many practical engineering problems due to uncer-
tain factors or gradient. Therefore, a non-probability dis-
tribution or fuzzy method is needed to represent the fuzzy
or unknown-but-bounded variables.
5. Skin model shape paradigm that is based on non-ideal
geometries and includes the consideration of form defects
enables the simulation of geometric deviations that are
expected, predicted, or already observed in real
manufacturing processes. However, the complexity of
simulation and measurement of functional requirement
restricts its use to simple assembly. The shortage in toler-
ance propagation for this model can be possibly made up
by combining with models that beneficial to tolerance
propagation, i.e., Jacobian model and polytopes. As a
consequence, the combined model will substantially facil-
itate tolerance representation and tolerance propagation at
the same time.
6. Along with the application of updated information tech-
nologies in industry and manufacturing, the big data-
driven manufacturing era is coming [169]. A more realis-
tic virtual model is needed to serve as a digital twin of the
physical product in life cycle. The application of skin
model shapes has been proposed [170], but still requires
ongoing research.
7. Addictive manufacturing (AM) is a promising technology
with a capability for complex customized part construc-
tion. Dimensional and geometric tolerance analysis has a
great impact on AM in production and industry. A model
is necessary to represent the geometric variability and to
support statistical analysis and compensation in addictive
manufacturing. The skin model shape has potential to deal
with its shape deviations, yet further study is still needed
[171].
Acknowledgments This research was supported by the National Natural
Science Foundation of China (Nos. 51575484 and U1501248) and
Science Fund for Creative Research Groups of National Natural
Science Foundation of China (No. 51521064).
References
1. Ameta G, Samper S, Giordano M (2011) Comparison of spatial
math models for tolerance analysis: tolerance-maps, deviation do-
main, and TTRS. J Comp Inf Sci Eng 11(2):255–267

2. Chen H, Jin S, Li Z, Lai X (2014) A comprehensive study of three
dimensional tolerance analysis methods. Comput Aided Des 53:
1–13
3. Walter M, Breitsprecher T, Gruber G, Wartzack S Simulation
based generation of an initial design taking into account geometric
deviations and deformations. In: DS 68-10: Proceedings of the
18th International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED
11), Impacting Society through Engineering Design, Vol. 10:
Design Methods and Tools pt. 2, Lyngby/Copenhagen,
Denmark, 15.-19.08. 2011, 2011
4. Stuppy J, Meerkamm H Tolerance analysis of mechanisms taking
into account joints with clearance and elastic deformations. In: DS
58-5: Proceedings of ICED 09, the 17th International Conference
on Engineering Design, Vol. 5, Design Methods and Tools (pt. 1),
Palo Alto, CA, USA, 24.-27.08. 2009, 2009
5. Walter M, Sprügel T, Wartzack S (2013) Tolerance analysis of
systems in motion taking into account interactions between devi-
ations. Proc Inst Mech Eng B J Eng Manuf 227(5):709–719
6. Schleich B, Wartzack S (2015) Tolerance analysis of rotating
mechanism based on skin model shapes in discrete geometry.
Procedia CIRP 27:10–15
7. Corrado A, Polini W (2017) Manufacturing digi in variational and
vector-loop models for tolerance analysis of rigid parts. Int J Adv
Manuf Technol 88(5–8):2153–2161
8. Liu Y, Gao S, Wu Z, Yang J (2003) Hierarchical representation
model and its realization of tolerance based on feature. Jixie
Gongcheng Xuebao(Chinese Journal of Mechanical
Engineering)(China) 39(3):1–7
9. You X (2008) GapSpace multi-dimensional assembly analysis.
Dissertations & Theses - Gradworks
10. Jiang K, Davidson JK, Shah JJ, Liu J Using tolerance-maps to
transfer datum plane from design tolerancing to machining
tolerancing. In: ASME 2013 International Design Engineering
Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in
Engineering Conference, 2013. American Society of Mechanical
Engineers, pp V004T005A023-V004T005A023
11. Adragna PA, Samper S, Favreliere H (2010) How form errors
impact on 2D precision assembly with clearance? Ifip Adv Inf
Comm Technol 315:50–59
12. Arroyave-Tobón S, Teissandier D, Delos V (2017) Applying
screw theory for summing sets of constraints in geometric
tolerancing. Mech Mach Theory 112:255–271. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.mechmachtheory.2017.02.004
13. Teissandier D, Couétard Y, Gérard A (1999) A computer aided
tolerancing model: proportioned assembly clearance volume.
Comput Aided Des 31(13):805–817
14. Li H, Zhu H, Zhou X, Li P, Yu Z (2016) A new computer-aided
tolerance analysis and optimization framework for assembling
processes using DP-SDT theory. International Journal of
Advanced Manufacturing Technology:1–12
15. Corrado A, Polini W (2017) Manufacturing signature in Jacobian
and torsor models for tolerance analysis of rigid parts. Robot
Comput Integr Manuf 46:15–24
16. Zeng W, Rao Y, Wang P, Yi W (2017) A solution of worst-case
tolerance analysis for partial parallel chains based on the unified
Jacobian-Torsor model. Precis Eng 47:276–291
17. Schleich B, Anwer N, Mathieu L, Wartzack S (2014) Skin model
shapes: a new paradigm shift for geometric variations modelling in
mechanical engineering. Comput Aided Des 50(3):1–15
18. Boyer M, Stewart NF (2010) Modeling spaces for toleranced ob-
jects. Int J Robot Res 10(5):570–582
19. Gupta S, Turner JU (1993) Variational solid modeling for toler-
ance analysis. Comp Graphics Appl, IEEE 13(3):64–74
20. Dantan JY, Mathieu L, Ballu A, Martin P (2005) Tolerance syn-
thesis: quantifier notion and virtual boundary. Comput Aided Des
37(2):231–240
Int J Adv Manuf Technol
21. Jayaraman R, Srinivasan V (1989) Geometric tolerancing: I.
Virtual boundary requirements. IBM J Res Dev 33(2):90–104
22. Saiki EM, Biringen S (1996) Numerical simulation of a cylinder in
uniform flow: application of a virtual boundary method. J Comput
Phys 123(2):450–465
23. Desrochers A (2003) A CAD/CAM representation model applied
to tolerance transfer methods. J Mech Des 125(1):14
24. Desrochers A, Clément A (1994) A dimensioning and tolerancing
assistance model for CAD/CAM systems. Int J Adv Manuf
Technol 9(9):352–361
25. Desrochers A, Rivière A (1997) A matrix approach to the repre-
sentation of tolerance zones and clearances. Int J Adv Manuf
Technol 13(9):630–636
26. Salomons OW, Haalboom FJ, Poerink HJJ, Slooten FV, Houten
FJAMV, Kals HJJ (1996) A computer aided tolerancing tool II:
tolerance analysis. Comput Ind 31(2):175–186
27. Thimm G, Britton GA (2002) A matrix method for calculating
working dimensions and offsets for tolerance charting. Int J Adv
Manuf Technol 20(6):448–453
28. Whitney DE, Gilbert OL Representation of geometric variations
using matrix transforms for statistical tolerance analysis in assem-
blies. In: Robotics and Automation, 1993. Proceedings., 1993 I.E.
International Conference on, 1993. pp 314–321 vol.312
29. Chase KW Tolerance analysis of 2-D and 3-D assemblies (auto-
mated method)
30. Chase KW, Gao J, Magleby SP (1995) General 2-D tolerance
analysis of mechanical assemblies with small kinematic adjust-
ments. J Design Manuf 5:263–274
31. Gao J (1993) Nonlinear tolerance analysis of mechanical
assemblies
32. Gao J, Chase KW, Magleby SP (1998) Generalized 3-D tolerance
analysis of mechanical assemblies with small kinematic adjust-
ments. IIE Trans 30(4):367–377
33. Wang Y (2006) Semantic tolerance modeling—an overview. Proc
of Ierc’
34. Wang Y Semantic tolerance modeling. In: ASME 2006 interna-
tional design engineering technical conferences and computers
and information in engineering conference, 2006. pp 261–273
35. Wang Y (2008) Semantic tolerance modeling with generalized
intervals. J Mech Des 130(81701):1–7
36. Wang Y (2008) Closed-loop analysis in semantic tolerance model-
ing. J Mech Des 130(6):876–877
37. Wang Y (2008) Semantic tolerance modeling based on modal
interval analysis. Proceedings of the International Workshop on
Reliable Engineering Computing Rec’:46–59
38. Zou Z, Morse E (2003) Statistical tolerance analysis using
GapSpace. In: Geometric product specification and verification:
integration of functionality. Springer, pp 105–114
39. Zou Z, Morse EP (2004) A gap-based approach to capture fitting
conditions for mechanical assembly. Comput Aided Des 36(8):
691–700
40. Davidson JK, Mujezinović A, Shah JJ (2002) A new mathematical
model for geometric tolerances as applied to round faces. J Mech
Des 124(4):609–622
41. Davidson JK, Shah JJ (2002) Geometric tolerances: a new appli-
cation for line geometry and screws. ARCHIVE Proc Insti Mech
Eng Part C J Mech Eng Sci 1989–1996 (vols 203–210) 216(1):
95–103
42. Bhide S, Davidson JK, Shah JJ A new mathematical model for
geometric tolerances as applied to axes. In: ASME 2003 interna-
tional design engineering technical conferences and computers
and information in engineering conference, 2003
43. Mujezinović A, Davidson JK, Shah JJ (2004) A new mathematical
model for geometric tolerances as applied to polygonal faces. J
Mech Des 126(3):504–518
Int J Adv Manuf Technol
44. Clement A Theory and pratice of 3D tolerancing for assembly. In:
Proc. Of 2nd CIRP seminar on computer aided Tolerancing, 1991
45. Bourdet P, Mathieu L, Lartigue C, Ballu A (1996) The concept of
the small displacement torsor in metrology. Series on advances in
mathematics for. Appl Sci 40:110–122
46. Lafond P, Laperriere L Jacobian-based modeling of dispersions
affecting pre-defined functional requirements of mechanical as-
semblies. In: Assembly and Task Planning, 1999 (ISATP '99)
Proceedings of the 1999 I.E. International Symposium on, 1999.
pp 20–25
47. Laperrière L, Lafond P Modeling tolerances and dispersions of
mechanical assemblies using virtual joints. In: Proceedings of
ASME design engineering technical conferences, 1999. pp 12–15
48. Adragna PA, Samper S, Pillet M, Favreliere H (2006) Analysis of
shape deviations of measured geometries with a modal basis.
Journal of Machine Engineering : Manufacturing Accuracy
Increasing Problems - Optimization
49. Formosa F, Samper S (2007) Modal expression of form defects.
Springer Netherlands, Modal Expression of Form Defects,
50. Samper S, Adragna PA, Favreliere H, Pillet M (2010) Modeling of
2D and 3D Assemblies Taking Into Account Form Errors of Plane
Surfaces. J Comp Inf Sci Eng 9(4):790–792
51. Mathieu L, Ballu A (2007) A model for a coherent and complete
tolerancing process. Springer Netherlands, A Model for a
Coherent and Complete Tolerancing Process,
52. Mathieu L, Ballu A (2007) A model for a coherent and complete
tolerancing process. In: Models for computer aided Tolerancing in
design and manufacturing. Springer, pp 35–44
53. Schleich B, Walter M, Wartzack S, Anwer N, Mathieu L A com-
prehensive framework for skin model simulation. In: ASME 2012
11th biennial conference on engineering systems design and anal-
ysis, 2012. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, pp 567–
576
54. Zhang M, Anwer N, Mathieu L, Zhao H A discrete geometry
framework for geometrical product specifications. In:
Proceedings of the 21st CIRP Design Conference, Kaist, MK
Thompson, ed., Paper, 2011. vol 20
55. Anwer N, Schleich B, Mathieu L, Wartzack S (2014) From solid
modelling to skin model shapes: shifting paradigms in computer-
aided tolerancing. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol 63(1):137–140
56. Schleich B, Anwer N, Mathieu L, Wartzack S Skin model shapes:
offering new potentials for modelling product shape variability. In:
ASME 2015 International Design Engineering Technical
Conferences & Computers and information in engineering confer-
ence (IDETC/CIE 2015), 2015
57. Ghie W, Laperrière L, Desrochers A (2003) A unified Jacobian-
torsor model for analysis in computer aided Tolerancing. Springer
Netherlands, A Unified Jacobian-Torsor Model for Analysis in
Computer Aided Tolerancing,
58. Laperrière L, Ghie W, Desrochers A (2002) Statistical and deter-
ministic tolerance analysis and synthesis using a unified Jacobian-
Torsor model. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol 51(1):417–420
59. Khodaygan S, Movahhedy MR, Fomani MS (2010) Tolerance
analysis of mechanical assemblies based on modal interval and
small degrees of freedom (MI-SDOF) concepts. Int J Adv
Manuf Technol 50(9–12):1041–1061
60. Chase KW, Greenwood WH, Chase KW, Greenwood WH (2000)
Design issues in mechanical tolerance analysis. Manufacturing
Review
61. Seo HS, Kwak BM (2002) Efficient statistical tolerance analysis
for general distribution using three-point information. Int J Prod
Res 40(4):931–944
62. Skowronski VJ (1998) Calculating derivatives in statistical toler-
ance analysis. Comput Aided Des 30(5):367–375
63. Ilumoka A, Spence R (1982) A sensitivity-based approach to tol-
erance assignment. Iee Proceedings G 129(4):139–149
64. Liu SG (2007) Convolution method in statistical tolerance analy-
sis. Mechanical Research & Application
65. Evans DH (1974) Statistical tolerancing: the state of the art.
Journal of Quality Technology
66. Lin EE, Zhang HC (2001) Theoretical tolerance stack-up analysis
based on tolerance zone analysis. Int J Adv Manuf Technol
17(17):257–262
67. Shan A, Roth RN, Wilson RJ (1999) A new approach to statistical
geometrical tolerance analysis. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 15(3):
222–230
68. Huang W (2013) Sample size determination in NT-net quasi-
Monte Carlo simulation. J Comput Inf Sci Eng 13(3):034501
69. Huang W, Ceglarek D, Zhou Z (2003) Tolerance analysis for de-
sign of multistage manufacturing processes using number-
theoretical net method (NT-net). Int J Flex Manuf Syst 16(1):65–
90
70. Khodaygan S, Movahhedy M, Foumani MS (2011) Fuzzy-small
degrees of freedom representation of linear and angular variations
in mechanical assemblies for tolerance analysis and allocation.
Mech Mach Theory 46(4):558–573
71. Wu W, Rao SS (2006) Fuzzy analysis of geometric tolerances
using interval method. ARCHIVE Proc Instit Mech Eng Part C J
Mech Eng Sci 1989–1996 (vols 203–210) 220(4):489–497
72. Sun W, Dong R, Xu H (2009) A novel non-probabilistic approach
using interval analysis for robust design optimization. J Mech Sci
Technol 23(12):3199–3208
73. Zhu H, Zhou X, Li H (2015) A novel tolerance analysis for me-
chanical assemblies based on convex method and non-
probabilistic set theory. Int J Adv Manuf Technol:1–9
74. Panagopoulos I, Gorunova L, Bjerkehagen B, Boye K, Heim S
(2014) A comparative study on tolerance analysis approaches.
Oncol Rep 32(1):40–44
75. Schleich B, Wartzack S (2016) A quantitative comparison of tol-
erance analysis approaches for rigid mechanical assemblies.
Procedia CIRP 43:172–177
76. Shah JJ, Ameta G, Shen Z, Davidson J (2007) Navigating the
tolerance analysis maze. Comp-Aided Design Appl 4(5):705–718
77. Mansuy M, Giordano M, Davidson JK (2013) Comparison of two
similar mathematical models for tolerance analysis: T-map and
deviation domain. J Mech Des 135(10):101008
78. Marziale M, Polini W (2009) A review of two models for toler-
ance analysis of an assembly: vector loop and matrix. Int J Adv
Manuf Technol 43(11–12):1106–1123
79. Marziale M, Polini W (2011) A review of two models for toler-
ance analysis of an assembly: Jacobian and torsor. Int J Comput
Integr Manuf 24(1):74–86
80. Marziale M, Polini W (2011) Review of variational models for
tolerance analysis of an assembly. Proc Instit Mech Eng Part B J
Eng Manuf 225(B3):305–318
81. Bo C, Yang Z, Wang L, Chen H (2013) A comparison of tolerance
analysis models for assembly. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 68(1–4):
739–754
82. Pasupathy TMK, Morse EP, Wilhelm RG (2003) A survey of
mathematical methods for the construction of geometric tolerance
zones. Journal of Computing & Information Science in
Engineering 3(1):64–75
83. Polini W (2011) Geometric tolerance analysis. Springer London,
Geometric Tolerance Analysis,
84. Shen Z, Ameta G, Shah JJ, Davidson JK (2005) A comparative
study of tolerance analysis methods. J Comp Inf Sci Eng 5(3):
471–482
85. Nigam SD, Turner JU (1995) Review of statistical approaches to
tolerance analysis. Comput Aided Des 27(1):6–15
86. Nejad MK, Vignat F, Villeneuve F (2009) Tolerance analysis in
machining using the model of manufactured part (MMP)—

comparison and evaluation of three different approaches. Int J
Comput Integr Manuf 25(2):136–149
87. Prisco U, Giorleo G (2002) Overview of current CAT systems.
Integr Comp-Aided Eng 9(4):373–387
88. Salomons OW, van Houten FJ, Kals HJ (1998) Current status of
CAT systems. In. Theories, standards and applications. Springer,
Geometric design tolerancing, pp 438–452
89. Hong YS, Chang TC (2002) A comprehensive review of
tolerancing research. Int J Prod Res 40(11):2425–2459
90. Polini W (2012) Taxonomy of models for tolerance analysis in
assembling. Int J Prod Res 50(7):2014–2029
91. Desrochers A, Maranzana R (1996) Constrained dimensioning
and tolerancing assistance for mechanisms. Springer, Netherlands
92. Clément A (1998) The TTRSs: 13 constraints for dimensioning
and Tolerancing. Springer US,
93. Desrochers A, Verheul S (1999) A three dimensional tolerance
transfer methodology. Springer, Netherlands
94. Salomons OW, Begelinger RE, Post E, Houten FJAMV (1999)
Application of TTRS method in industrial practice tolerance spec-
ification for industrial cooling water pumps. Springer, Netherlands
95. Liu J, Wilhelm RG (2003) Genetic algorithms for TTRS tolerance
analysis. In. Integration of Functionality. Springer, Geometric
Product Specification and Verification, pp 73–82
96. Jaballi K, Bellacicco A, Louati J, Riviere A, Haddar M (2011)
Rational method for 3D manufacturing tolerancing synthesis
based on the TTRS approach R3DMTSyn. Comput Ind 62(5):
541–554
97. Salomons O, Jonge Poerink H (1995) Slooten Fv, Houten F. A
computer aided tolerancing tool based on kinematic analogies,
Kals H
98. Hua C (2016) A new approach of constraints establishment and
optimization for matrix tolerance model. J Mech Eng 52
99. Chase KW, Gao J, Magleby SP, Sorensen CD (2000) Including
geometric feature variations in tolerance analysis of mechanical
assemblies. IIE Trans 28(10):795–807
100. Yan H, Cao Y, Yang J (2016) Statistical tolerance analysis based
on good point set and homogeneous transform matrix. Procedia
Cirp 43:178–183
101. Gao J, Chase KW, Magleby SP (1996) A new Monte Carlo sim-
ulation method for tolerance analysis of kinematically constrained
assemblies. Mechanical Engineering Department, Brigham Young
University
102. Gao J, Chase KW, Magleby SP (1999) Comparison of assembly
tolerance analysis by the direct linearization and modified Monte
Carlo simulation methods. Adcatsetbyuedu
103. Glancy CG, Chase KW, Glancy CG, Chase KW A Second-order
method for assembly tolerance analysis. In: Asme design automa-
tion conference, 1999. pp 891–899
104. Cao Y, Yan H, Liu T, Yang J (2016) Application of quasi-Monte
Carlo method based on good point set in tolerance analysis. J
Comp Inf Sc Eng 16(2):021008
105. Gao J, Chase KW, Magleby SP Global coordinate method for
determining sensitivity in assembly tolerance analysis. In:
Proceedings of the ASME international mechanical engineering
conference and exposition, Anaheim, California, 1998
106. Chase KW (1999) Minimum cost tolerance allocation.
Department of Mech Engg, Bringham Young University,
ADCATS Report (99–5)
107. Ameta G, Davidson JK, Shah JJ The effects of different specifi-
cations on the tolerance-maps for an angled face. In: Int Design
Eng Tech Conf, 2004. pp 303–311
108. Ameta G, Davidson JK, Shah JJ tolerance-maps applied to a point-
line cluster of features. In: ASME 2005 international design engi-
neering technical conferences and computers and information in
engineering conference, 2005. pp 497–507
Int J Adv Manuf Technol
109. He Y (2013) Generation of tolerance maps for line profile by
primitive T-map elements. Arizona State University,
110. Clasen PJ, Davidson JK, Shah JJ Modeling of geometric varia-
tions within a tolerance-zone for circular runout. In: ASME 2009
Int Design Eng Tech Conf Comp Inf Eng Conf 2009:597–604
111. Ameta G, Davidson JK, Shah JJ (2007) Using tolerance-maps to
generate frequency distributions of clearance and allocate toler-
ances for pin-hole assemblies. J Comput Inf Sci Eng 7(4):347–359
112. Ameta G, Davidson JK, Shah JJ (2010) Statistical tolerance allo-
cation for tab-slot assemblies utilizing tolerance-maps. J Comp Inf
Sci Eng 10(1):237–256
113. Ameta G (2006) Statistical tolerance analysis and allocation for
assemblies using Tolerance-Maps, vol 67. vol 11
114. Khan NS, Shah JJ, Davidson JK probability tolerance maps: a new
statistical model for non-linear tolerance analysis applied to rect-
angular faces. In: ASME 2010 international design engineering
technical conferences and computers and information in engineer-
ing conference, 2010. pp 529–548
115. Jaishankar LN, Davidson JK, Shah JJ, Jaishankar LN, Davidson
JK, Shah JJ (2013) Tolerance analysis of parallel assemblies using
tolerance-maps® and a functional map derived from induced de-
formations. American Society of Mechanical Engineers:
V03BT03A008
116. Jiang K, Davidson JK, Liu J, Shah JJ (2014) Using tolerance maps
to validate machining tolerances for transfer of cylindrical datum
in manufacturing process. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 73(1–4):465–
478
117. Giordano M, Samper S, Petit JP (2007) Tolerance analysis and
synthesis by means of deviation domains, axi-symmetric cases.
Springer Netherlands
118. Mansuy M, Giordano M, Hernandez P (2011) A new calculation
method for the worst case tolerance analysis and synthesis in
stack-type assemblies. Comput Aided Des 43(9):1118–1125
119. Germain F, Denimal D, Giordano M (2008) A method for three
dimensional tolerance analysis and synthesis applied to complex
and precise assemblies. Springer US
120. Ziegler P, Wartzack S (2015) A statistical method to identify main
contributing tolerances in assemblability studies based on convex
hull techniques. J Zhejiang Univ - Sci A: Appl Physics Eng 16(5):
361–370
121. Ziegler P, Wartzack S (2015) Sensitivity analysis of features in
tolerancing based on constraint function level sets. Reliability
Eng [?] System Safety 134:324–333
122. Samper S, Petit JP, Giordano M (2007) Elastic clearance domain
and use rate concept applications to ball bearing and gears.
Springer Netherlands
123. Fukuda K, Petit J-P, d’Annecy ESDI, Annecy F Optimal
tolerancing in mechanical design using polyhedral computation
tools. In: 19th European workshop of Comput Geom, 2003. pp
24–26
124. Mansuy M, Giordano M, Hernandez P (2013) A generic method
for the worst case and statistical tridimensional Tolerancing anal-
ysis. Procedia Cirp 10:276–282
125. Homri L, Teissandier D, Ballu A (2013) Tolerancing analysis by
operations on polytopes.597–604. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/
978-3-642-37143-1_71
126. Homri L, Teissandier D, Ballu A (2015) Tolerance analysis by
polytopes: taking into account degrees of freedom with cap half-
spaces. Comput Aided Des 62:112–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cad.2014.11.005
127. Gouyou D, Ledoux Y, Teissandier D, Delos V (2017) Tolerance
analysis of overconstrained and flexible assemblies by polytopes
and finite element computations: application to a flange. Res Eng
Des 29:55–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-017-0256-5
128. Gouyou D, Teissandier D, Delos V (2016) Tolerance analysis by
polytopes: application to assembly interferences diagnosis.
Int J Adv Manuf Technol
Procedia CIRP 43:52–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2016.
02.019
129. Laperrière L, Lafond P (1999) Tolerance analysis and synthesis
using virtual joints
130. Desrochers A, Laperrière L, Ghie W (2003) Application of a uni-
fied Jacobian—torsor model for tolerance analysis. J Compu Inf
Sci Eng 3(1):2–14
131. Ghie W (2009) Statistical analysis tolerance using jacobian torsor
model based on uncertainty propagation method. Int J
Multiphysics 3(1):11–30
132. Ghie W, Laperrière L, Desrochers A (2009) Statistical tolerance
analysis using the unified Jacobian–torsor model. Int J Prod Res
48(15):4609–4630
133. Ni W, Yao Z (2013) Integrating cylindricity error into tolerance
analysis of precision rotary assemblies using Jacobian–Torsor
model. Proc Instit Mech Engi Part C J Mech Eng Sci 227(11):
2517–2530
134. Desrochers A (2007) Geometrical variations management in a
multi-disciplinary environment with the Jacobian-torsor model.
Springer, Netherlands
135. Zuo XY, Li B, Yang J, Jiang X (2013) Application of the
Jacobian–torsor theory into error propagation analysis for machin-
ing processes. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 69(5–8):1557–1568
136. Hua C, Sun J, Li Z, Lai X (2015) A solution of partial parallel
connections for the unified Jacobian–torsor model. Mech Mach
Theory 91:39–49
137. Jin S, Chen H, Li Z, Lai X (2015) A small displacement torsor
model for 3D tolerance analysis of conical structures. Proc Inst
Mech Eng C J Mech Eng Sci 229(14):2514–2523
138. Shen W, Pang K, Liu C, Ge M, Zhang Y, Wang X (2015) The
quality control method for remanufacturing assembly based on the
Jacobian-torsor model. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 81(1):1–9
139. Chen H, Jin S, Li Z, Lai X (2015) A modified method of the
unified Jacobian-Torsor model for tolerance analysis and alloca-
tion. Int J Prec Eng Manuf 16(8):1789–1800
140. Morse EP (2000) Models, representations, and analyses of
toleranced one-dimensional assemblies. Cornell University, Jan.
141. Morse EP (2005) Implementation of GapSpace analysis. Am Soc
Mech Eng:329–333
142. Zou Z, Morse EP (2003) Applications of the gapspace model for
multidimensional mechanical assemblies. J Comput Inf Sci Eng
3(1):22–30
143. Zhang M (2011) Discrete shape modeling for geometrical product
specification: contributions and applications to skin model simu-
lation. Cachan Ecole Normale Supérieure
144. Zhang M, Anwer N, Stockinger A, Mathieu L, Wartzack S (2013)
Discrete shape modeling for skin model representation. Proc Inst
Mech Eng B J Eng Manuf 227(5):672–680
145. Anwer N, Ballu A, Mathieu L (2013) The skin model, a compre-
hensive geometric model for engineering design. CIRP Ann
Manuf Technol 62(1):143–146
146. Schleich B, Wartzack S (1991) Evaluation of geometric tolerances
and generation of variational part representatives for tolerance
analysis. Nagoya. Math J 123(9):1–12
147. Samper S, Adragna PA, Favreliere H, Pillet M (2010) Modeling of
2D and 3D assemblies taking into account form errors of plane
surfaces. Computer. Science 9(4):790–792
148. Yan X, Ballu A (2017) Generation of consistent skin model shape
based on FEA method. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 92(1–4):789–
802
149. Schleich B, Wartzack S (2012) Generation of deviated geometry
based on manufacturing process simulations Weimarer Stochastik-
und Optimierungstage WOST 9
150. Schleich B, Anwer N, Mathieu L, Wartzack S (2015) Contact and
mobility simulation for mechanical assemblies based on skin mod-
el shapes. J Comp Inf Sci Eng 15(2):979–985
151. Garaizar OR, Qiao L, Anwer N, Mathieu L (2016) Integration of
thermal effects into Tolerancing using skin model shapes. Procedia
CIRP 43:196–201
152. Homri L, Goka E, Levasseur G, Dantan J-Y (2017) Tolerance
analysis—form defects modeling and simulation by modal de-
composition and optimization. Comput Aided Des 91:46–59.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cad.2017.04.007
153. Schleich B, Wartzack S (2015) Approaches for the assembly sim-
ulation of skin model shapes. Comput Aided Des 65:18–33
154. Chiabert P, Orlando M (2004) About a CAT model consistent with
ISO/TC 213 last issues. J Mater Process Technol 157–158(51):61–
66
155. Adragna PA, Samper S, Favreliere H (2010) How form errors
impact on 2D precision assembly with clearance? In: Int
Precision Assembly Seminar:50–59
156. Dumas A, Dantan JY, Gayton N, Bles T, Loebl R (2015) An
iterative statistical tolerance analysis procedure to deal with line-
arized behavior models. J Zhejiang Univ - Sci A: Appl Physics
Eng 16(5):353–360
157. Ghie W, Laperrière L, Desrochers A (1970) Re-design of mechan-
ical assemblies using the unified Jacobian-torsor model for toler-
ance analysis. Springer Netherlands,
158. Jaishankar LN, Davidson JK, Shah JJ, Jaishankar LN, Davidson
JK, Shah JJ Tolerance analysis of parallel assemblies using toler-
ance-maps® and a functional map derived from induced deforma-
tions. In: ASME 2013 International Design Engineering Technical
Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering
Conference, 2013. p V03BT03A008
159. Giordano M, Adragna PA, Germain F (2006) Taking manufactur-
ing dispersions into account for assembly: modelling and simula-
tion. Journal of machine engineering : manufacturing accuracy
increasing problems - Optimization 6
160. Schleich B, Anwer N, Zhu Z, Qiao L, Mathieu L, Wartzack S
(2014) A comparative study on tolerance analysis approaches.
International Symposium on Robust Design – Isord
161. Amajd W (2013) Tolerance and Stack Analysis Manual and
Advance approach
162. Salomons OW, Kappert JH, Slooten FV, Houten FJAMV Kals
HJJ computer support in the (re) design of mechanical products.
In: Ifip Tc5/wg53/ifac Int Working Conf Knowledge Based
Hybrid Syst Eng Manuf 1993:91–103
163. Anselmetti B, Chavanne R, Yang JX, Anwer N (2010) Quick
GPS: a new CAT system for single-part tolerancing. Comput
Aided Des 42(9):768–780
164. Chiesi F, Governi L (2003) Tolerance analysis with eM-TolMate. J
Comp Inf Sci Eng 3(1):100–105
165. Corrado A, Polini W (2016) Computer-aided techniques for ge-
ometry assurance. In: Computer-aided technologies-applications
in engineering and medicine. InTech
166. Islam MN (2004) Functional dimensioning and tolerancing soft-
ware for concurrent engineering applications. Comput Ind 54(2):
169–190
167. Anselmetti B (2006) Generation of functional tolerancing based
on positioning features. Comput Aided Des 38(8):902–919
168. Barbero BR, Aragón AC, Pedrosa CM (2015) Validation of a
tolerance analysis simulation procedure in assemblies. Int J Adv
Manuf Technol 76(5–8):1297–1310
169. Tao F, Cheng J, Qi Q, Zhang M, Zhang H, Sui F (2017) Digital
twin-driven product design, manufacturing and service with big
data. Int J Adv Manuf Technol:1–14
170. Schleich B, Anwer N, Mathieu L, Wartzack S (2017) Shaping the
digital twin for design and production engineering. CIRP Ann
66(1):141–144
171. Zhu Z, Anwer N, Mathieu L (2017) Deviation modeling and shape
transformation in design for additive manufacturing. Procedia
CIRP 60:211–216