Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
DOI 10.1007/s00170-013-4795-2
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Received: 18 July 2012 / Accepted: 24 January 2013 / Published online: 13 March 2013
# Springer-Verlag London 2013
Abstract Mechanical products are usually made by assembling many parts. The dimensional and geometrical variations of each part have to be limited by tolerances so that it
can ensure both a standardized production and a certain
level of quality defined to satisfy functional requirements.
The appropriate allocation of tolerances among the different
parts is the fundamental tool to ensure that assemblies work
correctly at lower costs. Therefore, to ensure their functionality, assembly designers have to apply tolerance analysis. A
model based on either worst case or statistical type analysis
may be used. Actually, there are some different models used
or proposed by the literature to make the tolerance analysis
of an assembly constituted by rigid parts, but none of them
is completely and univocally accepted. None of them has
done an objective and complete comparison for analyzing
the advantages and the weaknesses and furnishing a criterion for the choice and application. This paper briefly introduces three of the main models for tolerance analysis, the
Jacobian, the vector loop, and the torsor. These models are
briefly described and then compared to show their analogies
and differences. Some guidelines are provided as well, with
the purpose of developing a novel approach which is aimed
at overcoming some of the limitations of these models.
Keywords Tolerance analysis . Jacobian model . Vector loop
model . Torsor model
1 Introduction
Increasing competition in industry leads to the adoption of
cost-cutting programs in the design, manufacturing, and
assembly of products. Producing high-precision assemblies
at lower costs is necessary. Tolerancing decisions can profoundly impact the quality and cost of products[1]. The aim
of the tolerance analysis is to study the accumulation of
dimensional and/or geometric variations resulting from a
stack of dimensions and tolerances. The results of the analysis are meaningfully conditioned by the mathematical
model adopted.
Some models proposed by the literature carry out the
tolerance analysis of an assembly constituted by rigid
parts. Requicha introduced the mathematical definition
of the tolerances semantic and proposed a solid offset
approach initially [2, 3]. Since then, numerous models
are proposed by the literature: the vector loop uses
vectors to represent relevant dimensions; the variational
model uses homogeneous transformation matrix to represent the variation of an assembly [4]; the matrix uses
displacement matrix to describe the roto-translational
variation of a feature [5]; the feature-based approach
uses modal interval arithmetic and small degrees of
freedom to describe the tolerance specifications[6]; the
Jacobian uses kinematic chains to formulate the displacement matrices; and the torsor uses screw parameters to model three-dimensional tolerance zones;
Franciosa proposed a method for tolerance analysis to
simulate different assembly sequences[7]. But they still
appear not adequate under many aspects: the schematization of the form deviations, the schematization of the
joints with clearance between the parts, the solution of
complex stack-up functions due to the network joints
among the components, and so on. Moreover, it is
difficult to find literatures in which the different
approaches are compared systematically with the help
740
Major authors
Articles
Jacobian
Vector loop
Torsor
2
where !
s is the vector of the three small translations of the
considered point, expressed in the DRF of the first feature R0;
~
a is the vector of the three small rotations of the considered
Definition
Functional
element (FE)
Functional
requirement
(FR)
Kinematic pair
(KP)
Internal pair (IP)
741
i1
!
z 0 d0n d0i1
i1
!
z0
#
3
while for small translational virtual joints, there is no contribution to small rotational displacements of the point of
interest, and the ith column of the Jacobian matrix Ji is
computed simply as:
"
Ji
i1
!
z0
!
0
#
4
!i1
!i1
i1
where !
z 0 is the third column of T 0 ; and d 0 is the last
!i1
!6n
column of T 0 ; d0n is the last column of the T 0 .
The main steps of the approach are described below[16, 17]:
1. Identify the functional elements pairs.
2. Define the DRF for each functional element and the
virtual joints.
3. Create the chain and obtain the overall Jacobian matrix.
742
dg C dx D du G da
10
kjSxik txk j
11
ljSail tal j
14
3 Model comparison
3.1 First numerical example
hX
2
kSxik txk
2
lSail ta
i1=2
12
743
are:5:99741:4629
1:5586 mm for the case considering dimensional
tolerances only and 5:99741:5592
1:7348 mm for the case considering both dimensional and geometrical tolerances.
x1 x4 sin x6
x3 x2 x1 x4 sin x6 tan x6
x1 x8
x5q
cos
x6 x3 x2 x1 x4 sin x6 tan x6
x7 x8 2 x8 x4 sin x6 x5 sin x6 2
15
There are five functional elements pairs (see Fig. 3): the
points G and O, O1 and O2, O3 and H are three internal
pairs, while O and O1, O2, and O3 are external pairs. The
required functional requirement g is correspondent to the
744
h
i
J J1 . . . J6 FE1 . . . J25 . . . J30 FE5
2
0
6
0
6
6
1
6
6
0
6
6
0
6
6
h x9
6
6
0
6
6
0
6
6
1
6
6
0
6
6
0
6
6 h x3 x9
6
6 tan x6 x1 x2 x4 sin x6
6
0
6
6
6
0
6
6
1
6
6
0
6
6
0
6
6
6 h x x x sin x
3
9
5
6
6
6 tan x x x x sin x
6 1
2
4
6
6
6
0
6
6
0
6
6
1
6
6
0
6
6
0
6
6
6 h x m x x cos x
6
3
9
5
6
6 tan x x x x sin x
6
6 1
2
4
6
6
0
6
6
0
6
6
1
6
6
0
6
4
0
0
0
1
0
x1 x8
h x9
0
0
1
0
x4 sin x6 x8
h x3 x9 tan x6 x1 x2 x4 sin x6
1
0
0
0
0
x1 x8
1
0
0
0
0
x4 sin x6 x8
0
1
0
x4 sin x6 x8 x5 sin x6
h x3 x9 x5 sin x6
tan x6 x1 x2 x4 sin x6
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1 0
0
0
1
0
0
h x3 m x9 x5 cos x6
tan x6 x1 x2 x4 sin x6
x4 sin x6 x8
x5 sin x6
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0 1
0
0
0
0
0 1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0 1
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
Once calculated, the Jacobian matrix of the functional requirement pair, the stack-up function may be
formalized considering that the requirement g is evaluated as the translation of point H along the -Z0 axis
(Fig. 3). According to Eqs. (2) and (16), its
0
0
0
0
0
1
3
0 T
07
7
07
7
17
7
07
7
07
7
07
7
07
7
07
7
17
7
07
7
7
07
7
7
07
7
07
7
07
7
17
7
07
7
7
7
07
7
7
07
7
07
7
07
7
17
7
7
07
7
7
07
7
7
07
7
07
7
07
7
17
7
05
0
16
18
g z30 z0 5 x1 x8 z6
11 x4 sin x6 x8 z12
17 x4 sin x6 x8 x5 sin x6
z18 z24
17
q
m x7 x8 2 x8 x4 sin x6 x5 sin x6 2
cos
x6 x3 x2 x1 x4 sin x6 tan x6
h x5 q
x7 x8 2 x8 x4 sin x6 x5 sin x6 2
745
z0 x9
z6 x3 x2 x1 x4 sin x6 tan x6
0:3057x1 0:3057x2 x3 0:0894x4
g
9
P
j si j t i
i1
12:6883x6
z12 xq
x6 0:9563x5 16:0804x6
5 cos
19
746
i1
23
24
where dx=[dx1 dx2 dx3 dx5 dx6 dx7 dx8]T, du=[du1 du2
du3 d1 d2 d3]T, and
2
3
0:3058 0:3058 1 0:8669 17:0736 1:0457 0
6 0:3058 0:3058 1 1:4725 10:8427 1:2262 1:0857 7
6
7
6 1:0457 1:0457 0 0:3058 10:0082 0:3058 0
7
u
7
S 6
60
7
0
0
0
1
0
0
6
7
40
0 0
0:0281
0:8355 0:0205 0:0825 5
0
0 0 0:0281 1:8355
0:0205 0:0825
25
9
P
jsi j ti
i1
26
For statistic case approach:
v
u 9
uX
si ti2 0:6830mm
g sc t
27
i1
747
8
1:0457
>
>
>
>
0:6433
>
>
<
0:3058
a
S
0
>
>
>
>
0:0166
>
>
:
0:00166
0
1:6847
0
0
0:0408
0:0408
0
1:3764
0
0
0:0567
0:0567
9
0
>
>
>
1:3764 >
>
>
=
0
0
>
>
>
0:0567 >
>
>
;
0:0567
30
Fig. 8 Datum path of vector loop 3
g
13
P
j si j t i
i1
28
31
29
where :dx=[dx1 dx2 dx3 dx5 dx6 dx7 dx8]T, du=[du1 du2
du3 d1 d2 d3]T, d=[d1 d2 d3 d4]T, Su is same
to the previous one, and
Loop 2
Loop 3
Nr.
Nr.
Nr.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0
90
90+x6
90
180
-1
90
180
x2
x3
u3
x5
x7
u1
x1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0
90
90+x6
90
2
180
3
90
90
180
x2
x3
u3
x5
x7
x8
x8
u2
x1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0
90
90
90
0
90
90
90
x1
u2
x8
x8
gap
x1 +x8
x9
Loop 2
Loop 3
Nr.
Nr.
Nr.
1
2
3
0
90
90+x6
x2
x3
u3
1
2
3
0
90
90+x6
x2
x3
u3
1
2
3
0
90
90
x1
u2
4
4
5
6
7
8
9
90
0
180
-1
90
180
1
x5
x7
u1
x1
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
90
0
2
0
0
180
0
3
0
0
90
90
180
1
x5
x7
2
3
3
x8
x8
3
4
u2
x1
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
0
0
90
0
0
90
90
90
3
x8
x8
3
gap
x1 +x8
x9
748
torsor of the link between part 1 and part 3. The functional requirement g can be expressed by the translation along the global z axis.
The next step is to evaluate the components of the
torsors (indeed it is enough to evaluate the third components due to translation). For the T1,6 torsor, with reference to Fig. 12 and considering that the case study is a 2D
problem on xz plane (i.e., =0, =0, v=0), it is:
8
9
=
<
b
T1:6
34
: 1:6
;
w
M
1:6
R1:6
M
32
i1
where M is the median point of the feature 1.6. considering the point of interest is H.
9
8
9 8
9 2
3 8
0
b1:6
>
>
< 5 >
=
< uH >
= >
< >
=
7
6
0
4
vH
0 5
>
>
>
>
>
:
;
:
; >
:
;
5:9974
wH
wM 1:6
b1:6 0
9
8
>
=
< 5:9974b 1:6 >
>
>
;
:
wM 1:6 b1:6
T1:6
8
<
b
: 1:6
H
9
5:9974b 1:6 =
;
wM 1:6 5b 1:6 R1:6
35
36
749
5b
M 1:6
1:6
R
H
41
The first term (T1/2) is the torsor of the link between part 1
and part 2.
8
>
>
>
<
T1=2
0
>
>
>
:
H
9
>
>
>
=
>
>
>
;
R
42
The second term (T2/3) is the torsor of the link between part
1part 2 and part 3.
8
>
>
>
<
T2=3
0
>
>
>
:
H
9
>
>
>
=
>
>
>
;
R
43
where t1.3 is the thickness of the tolerance zone of S1,3;and t1,
, t8 are the tolerances on the dimensions x1,,x8. Therefore,
the functional requirement is:
g 0:3057t1 0:3057t2 t3 0:3955t4
1:2624t5 36:6591t6 1:4479t7 2:4949t8 t9 t1:6 =2
Fig. 11 Torsor model: simplified surface graph of the case study
44
750
45
751
The stack-up function may be formalized by considering that the requirement $g is evaluated as the translation of
point O0 along the Z0 axis. According to Eqs. (2) and (46),
its
4g z18 z0 z6 z12
ta tc tc
47
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
10 0 1
10 0 0 0
0
0 0 0
1
0 0 0
0
1 0 0
0
0 1 0
0
1
0
0
0
0
48
49
4g 0:35mm
0 0 5 0
0 5 0 0
1 0 0 0
0 1 0 0
0 0 1 0
0 0 0 1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
50
For the worst-case approach, g=0.45 mm
p
g 0:152 2 0:052 2 0:12
0:207mm
3.2.2 Vector loop model
Once the dimensions of the assembly were indicated as x1, x2,
x3 (see Fig. 13), the assembly graph of Fig. 15 has been built.
According to Fig. 15, there are two joints of planar kind and
only one loop that define the gap.
Then, we can resume the elements of the R and T matrices of the loops in Table 5. Once the vector loop is defined,
the relative equations have been generated.
1. Dimensional tolerances only
According to Eq. (7),
g x1 x2 x3
3
0
07
7
07
7
07
7
05
1
46
51
52
752
Nr
Nr
1
2
3
4
5
0
180
0
0
180
x1
x2
x3
gap
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0
0
180
0
0
0
0
180
x1
1
x2
2
x3
3
gap
54
55
8
9
<0
=
:
;
t2 t3:2 =2; t2 t3:2 =2 R
H
53
a1:1
0
:
;
:
;
wG1:1 R H t1:1 =2; t1:1 =2 R
H
8
9
<0
=
T1=2 T1=3 T3=2
:
;
t1 t1:2 =2; t1 t1:2 =2 R
H
56
59
where t1, t2, t3 are the tolerances on the dimensions x1, x2, x3;
and t1.1, t1.2, t2.2, t3.2 are the thicknesses of the tolerance
zones of S1.1, S1.2, S2.2, S3.2. Therefore, the functional requirement is:
g t1 t2 t3 t1:1 t1:2 t2:2 t3:2 =2
57
8
9
< a uH =
b vH
:
;
g
g R
H
T2:2
8
9
<0
=
0
:
;
t3 t2:2 =2; t3 t2:2 =2 R
H
58
60
61
62
753
Case
Approach
Analysis methods
Exact solution
Jacobian
Vector loop
Torsor
Case 1
Only dim.
Worst case
Statistical
Worst case
Statistical
Worst case
Statistical
Worst case
Statistical
+1.46291.5586
+1.59921.7348
0.35
1.8065
0.7220
1.8065
0.7220
0.35
0.206
0.45
0.207
1.64595
0.6830
1.81075
0.6902
0.35
0.206
0.50
0.208
2.1580
2.1580
0.35
0.45
Dim.+geom.
Case 2
Only dim.
Dim.+geom.
3.3 Comparisons
Table 6 shows the results due to the application of the three
considered models to the two cases. The results of vector
loop model are closer to the exact result than the other two
models, but it is more complex and will cost us more time
than the other two models if there are many dimensional and
geometrical tolerances. The Jacobian model is appropriate
for the 3D assembly and it's more efficient if there are many
dimensional tolerances. The torsor model is fit for the extreme limits of 3D tolerance zones resulting from a feature's
small displacements. Table 7 shows the comparison of the
three models on various aspects.
If both the dimensional tolerances and the geometrical
tolerances are applied, the result of Jacobian model is same
or close to the result of Jacobian model only the dimensional
tolerances are applied. To solve the stack-up function, it is
needed to relate the virtual joints displacements to the
tolerances assigned on the components. However, in the
Jacobian model, the features are considered with nominal
shape, and it cant handle the form tolerance. Besides, it
cant explain well how to handle dependencies of FE to
Table 7 Comparison of three
models
4 Conclusions
This paper makes a brief comparison of three models of
tolerance analysis for rigid-parts assembly, the Jacobian,
vector loop, and the torsor, in order to point out the
Analysis methods
Jacobian
Vector loop
Torsor
Analysis method
Worst case
Statistical
a
a
a
a
a
b
Tolerance type
Dimensional
Form
Position
a
b
a
b
b
a
b
a
a
a
a
d
c
a
a
a
b
b
a
a
a
b
a
a
c
c
a
b
a
b
b
a
b
a
a
a
a
c
d
Tolerance parameterization
Envelop and independence
Stack-up function type
Possible
Not possible
Easy
Difficult
0.26
Linear
Network
With points
With features
754
References
1. Ghie W (2010) Tolerance analysis using Jacobian-torsor model:
statistical and deterministic applications. In: Cakaj S (ed)
Modeling simulation and optimizationtolerance and optimal
control. InTech, India, pp 147160
2. Requicha A (1983) Toward a theory of geometric tolerancing. Int J
Robot Res 2(4):4560
3. Requicha A (1993) Mathematical definitions of tolerance specifications. Manuf Rev 6(4):269274
4. Gupta S, Turner JU (1993) Variational solid modeling for tolerance
analysis. IEEE Comput Gr Appl 13(3):6474
5. Salomons OW, Haalboom FJ, Poerink HJJ, Slooten F, Houten
FJAM, Kals HJJ (1996) A computer aided tolerancing tool II:
tolerance analysis. Comput Ind 31(2):175186
6. Khodaygan S, Movahhedy MR, Saadat FM (2010) Tolerance analysis of
mechanical assemblies based on modal interval and small degrees of
freedom (MI-SDOF). Int J Adv Manuf Technol 50(9):10411061
7. Franciosa P, Gerbino S, Patalano S (2010) Variational modeling
and assembly constraints in tolerance analysis of rigid part assemblies: planar and cylindrical features. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 49
(1):239251
8. Hong YS, Chang TC (2002) A comprehensive review of tolerancing research. Int J Prod Res 40(11):24252459