0 Voturi pozitive0 Voturi negative

9 (de) vizualizări16 paginitolerance analysis

Apr 30, 2015

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT sau citiți online pe Scribd

tolerance analysis

© All Rights Reserved

9 (de) vizualizări

tolerance analysis

© All Rights Reserved

- 13 Robotics Script
- Chapter 3 a Forward and Inverse Kinematis
- OOPS As
- Business Travel Market Metrics a Global Analysis of Business 3710
- List of Programs for Practical Class XII
- 2D or 2 Dimensional Arrays
- 1179153[1]
- btechgeo
- Quality Function Deployment1
- CAMS M8 Man in Seaway
- Bearing Tolerances and Precision Levels
- Shafts
- Lecture1 Jen RigidBodies
- F - Physically Based Modeling, Principles and Practice - Constrained Dynamics
- scee-271-12-sec-9
- 1 Dimension and Unit
- TCS Placement Paper 1.doc
- Article_ Tolerances to ISO 9445 for Cold Rolled Narrow and Wide Strip, Plate_sheet and Cut Lengths
- QR 07 Standard Tolerance Sheet Modified
- Mat Lab intro

Sunteți pe pagina 1din 16

DOI 10.1007/s00170-013-4795-2

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Chaowang Bo & Zhihong Yang & Linbo Wang &

Hongqian Chen

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

Key Laboratory of High Efficiency and Clean Mechanical

Manufacture at Shandong University, Ministry of Education,

Jinan, China

Z. Yang (*)

School of Mechanical Engineering, Shandong University,

Jinan 250061, China

e-mail: yangzhihong@sdu.edu.cn

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

Models

Major authors

Articles

Jacobian

mechanical assemblies [15]

Tolerance analysis and synthesis using virtual joints [24]

General 2-D tolerance analysis of mechanical assemblies with small kinematic adjustments [25]

Including geometric feature variations in tolerance analysis of mechanical assemblies [26]

Generalized 3-D tolerance analysis of mechanical assemblies with small kinematic adjustments [27]

Modeling three dimensional tolerance zones using screw parameters [28]

Geometrical tolerancing in process planning: a tridimensional approach [29]

Vector loop

Torsor

Chase et al. [25]

Chase et al. [26]

Chase et al. [27]

Desrochers [28]

Legoff et al. [29]

advantages and disadvantages. In the literature, some

studies compare the models for tolerance analysis by

dealing with their general features [8, 9]. Other studies

compare the main computer-aided tolerancing softwares

that implement some of the models of the tolerance

analysis, but these studies focus the attention on the

general features [10, 11]. A complete comparison of

the models proposed to solve the tolerance analysis does

not exist in the literature and, therefore, no guidelines

exist to select the method more appropriate to the specific aims.

The purpose of this paper is to analyze three of the most

significant models for the tolerance analysis: Jacobian, vector loop, and torsor. It gives a comprehensive comparison of

the three models by means of two numerical examples. It

offers some guidelines for the choice too.

The initial articles and authors about the Jacobian model,

the vector loop model, and the torsor model are listed in

Table 1.

2.1 Jacobian model

The definitions of different parameters used in the Jacobian

model are presented in Table 2.Two types of FE pairs in a

tolerance stack can be distinguished: internal pairs and kinematic pairs [12].

Based on small displacements modeling of points using

transformation matrices of open kinematic chains in robotics, a generic dispersion in a pair of functional elements can

be expressed by a set of six virtual joints and coordinate

frames (see Fig. 1)[13]. The first three z axis of the first

three frames account for three orthogonal translations, and

the last three z axis of the last three frames account for

three orthogonal rotations [14].

and symbolic formulation of the relative position and orientation

of any FE in the chain with respect to the base FE, simply

involves the multiplication of the transformations on consecutive

FE pairs:

6n

T06n T06 T612 . . . T6n6

and kinematical) involved in the tolerance stack. The global

deviation of the FR, expressed in datum reference frame

(DRF) of the first feature R0, can be expressed as [15]:

2!

3

FEi

! h

i 6

s

7

7

J1 J2 . . . J6 FEi . . . J6n5 J6n4 . . . J6n FEn 6

4 5

!

a

!

FEn

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

Parameter

Definition

Functional

element (FE)

the assembly. A FE can be real, for example

the plane surface of a block, or constructed

such as the axis of a cylinder or a median

plane

An important condition to be satisfied between

two FEs on different parts, for example a

fitting condition

Two FEs on different parts make up a kinematic

pair if there is a physical or potential contact

between them

Two FEs each on the same part form an internal

pair if they both participate in a contact relation

with some other parts

Functional

requirement

(FR)

Kinematic pair

(KP)

Internal pair (IP)

741

it may be solved by the usual methods for the worst case

or statistical approaches.

5. Finally, it is necessary to observe that this model is

based on the TTRS criterion and the positional tolerancing criterion.

2.2 Vector loop model

J6]FEi is the 66 Jacobian matrix associated with the FE of the

ith FE pair (internal or kinematical) to which the tolerances are

~

applied, with i=1 to n; FEi

is the six-vector of small

dispersions associated with the FE of the ith FE pair (internal

or kinematical) to which the tolerances are applied, expressed

in the local DRF, with i=1 to n.

For small rotational virtual joints, the ith column of the

Jacobian matrix Ji is computed as:

"

Ji

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.

dimensions in an assembly [18, 19]. The vectors are

arranged in chains or loops representing those dimensions that stack together to determine the resultant assembly dimensions. There are 6 common joints in 2-D

assemblies and 12 common joints in 3-D assemblies; at

each kinematical joint, a local DRF has to be defined.

These joints are used to describe the relative motions

among mating parts. The tolerances are specified only

for the constrained degrees of freedom (dof). Geometric

tolerances are considered by adding micro-dof to the

joints just described.

To understand this method better, the basic steps to build

a vector loop scheme and to carry out a tolerance analysis

are given below [20, 21]:

1. Create assembly graph. The assembly graph is a

simplified diagram of the assembly representing the

parts, the mating conditions, and the measures to

perform.

2. Locate the DRFs for each part. These DRFs are used to

locate features on each part.

3. Locate kinematical joints and create datum paths.

4. Create vector loopsusing the assembly graph and

the datum paths, vector loops are created. Each

vector loop is created by connecting the datum

paths of the datum traverse by the loops. A vector

loop may be called open or closed if it is related to

a measure or not.

5. Derive the equationsthe assembly constraints within

vector-loop-based models may be expressed as a concatenation of homogeneous rigid body transformation

matrices:

R1 T1 . . . Ri Ti . . . Rn Tn Rf H

the x-axis and the first vector; Ri is the rotational transformation matrix between the vectors at node i; Ti is the

translational matrix of vector i; Rf is the final closure rotation with the x-axis; and H is the resultant matrix. If the

assembly is described by a closed loop of constraints, H is

equal to the identity matrix; otherwise, H is equal to the g

742

lead to the final gap or clearance and its orientation when

applied to a DRF.

6. Tolerance analysiswe consider an assembly constituted by p-parts. Each part is characterized by the

x-vector of the dimensions and by the -vector of

the geometrical variables that are known. When

these parts are assembled together, the resultant

product is characterized by the u-vector of the assembly variables and by the g vector of the measures required on the assembly. It is possible to get

L=JP+1 closed loops, where J is the number of

the ties among the parts that looks like:

Hx; u; a 0

like:

g Kx; u; a

closed loop assembly equations can be written in matrix form:

dH A dx B du F da 0

dg C dx D du G da

Dij =Hi/uj,Gij =Hi/j.

dg Sx dx Sa du

10

It is possible to calculate the solution in the worst-case

scenario as:

gwc

kjSxik txk j

11

ljSail tal j

The torsor model uses screw parameters to model threedimensional tolerance zones [21, 22]. Each actual surface of a

part is modeled by a substitute surface. For each of the seven

types of tolerance zone, there are the correspondent screw

parameters obtained by annulling the ones that leave the surface

invariant in its local frame. Considering a generic feature, if uA,

vA, wA are the translation parameters of the point A, and , ,

are the rotation angles (considered small) as regards to the

nominal position, the torsor of point A is given by:

8

9

< a uA =

T

b vA

13

:

;

g

w

A

A

R

where R is the DRF where the screw parameters are evaluated.

Once known the torsor of point A, the torsor of point B may be

evaluated.

Therefore, a union of the set of Small Displacement

Torsors that are involved at the joints is used in order to

obtain the global behavior of the mechanism. This may be

done by considering that, with the worst-case approach, the

cumulative effect of a simple chain of n-elements is simply

expressed by adding the single components of the torsors:

T0=n T0=1 T1=2 . . . Tn1=n

14

1. Identify the elements of the parts and the relations

among them.

2. Define the parameters of the mechanisma deviation

torsor has to be associated to each surface of the parts.

3. Compute the cumulative effect of the torsors involved in each stack in order to evaluate the functional requirements.

3 Model comparison

3.1 First numerical example

gsc

hX

2

kSxik txk

2

lSail ta

i1=2

12

rapid, but it is approximated too [22]. When an approximated solution is unacceptable, it is possible to use a numerical

simulation by means of a Monte Carlo technique to improve

the exact solution [18, 23].

numerical example shown in Fig. 2 has been used. The

assembly is made of three parts. Part 3 is a cylinder. The

gap g, between the top of the cylinder and part 1, is the

critical assembly feature we wish to control. The case study

has been solved through both the worst case and the statistical approaches. The case study contains all the characteristics and the critical aspects of the problem, but at the same

time it is simple to calculate the exact geometric worst-case

value of the required range g in order to compare the

results of the models. The exact geometric worst-case results

743

dimensional and geometrical

tolerances [25]

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.

H. It is possible for each FE to locate the virtual joints and

the reference frames and to evaluate the transformation

matrices T10 T30

0 .The matrix of the total transformation

is shown in Eq. (16).

1. Dimensional tolerances only

The Jacobian model of the case study is made under the

simplified hypothesis to consider as fixed at 90 the orientation of the adjacent sides of part 1 except the inclined one.

This simplification is needed to avoid the network in the

assembly. The functional requirement g has to be measured

between the top of the cylinder and part 1 (see Fig. 2). Once

indicated with x1 to x9 the dimensions of the parts and with

u1, u2, u3, u4 the assembly variables (see Fig. 3), the

simplification adopted makes it possible to directly solve

the assembly problem as:

u1

u2

u3

u4

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

case study

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

angles) due to the need to avoid network, 5 = 11 =

17 = 0, then

g z0 z6 z12 z18 z24

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

20,24,25,26) is the translation along the ith axis and

i (i = 3, 4, 5, 9,10, 11, 15, 16, 17, 21, 22,

23,27,28,29) is the rotation around the ith axis.

requirement pairs, Eq. (15), and considering the nominal

dimensions:

Where

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

tolerances only)

z0 x9

z6 x3 x2 x1 x4 sin x6 tan x6

0:3057x1 0:3057x2 x3 0:0894x4

g

0:3061x4 0:3061x5 40:0513x6

1:4479x7 2:4949x8

z24 x8

9

P

j si j t i

i1

12:6883x6

z12 xq

x6 0:9563x5 16:0804x6

5 cos

Once the required stack-up function is obtained, it can be

solved with the usual methods. For the worst-case approach:

19

0:2167 0:10 1:2624 0:30 11:2826 pi=180

1:4479 0:20 3:4949 0:10 0:30

1:8065 mm

21

g z0 z6 z12 z18 z24

0:3507x1 0:3507x2 x3 0:2167x4

1:2624x5 11:2826x6 1:4479x7

3:4949x8 x9

20

746

v

u

2

9

uX

t

gsc

si ti 0:722mm

du B1 A dx Su dx

22

i1

If the considered case study includes the dimensional

and the geometrical tolerances, nothing changes as

regards to the previous case since it has adopted the

simplification of angles in order to avoid the network.

The form tolerances (the planeness) do not produce any

effect because in the Jacobian model the features are

considered with nominal shape; the position tolerance

can't produce any orientation deviation since the angles

of part 1 are considered fixed.

Therefore, the results are the same as the previous

case where only dimensional tolerances are considered.

Moreover, the application of the Envelope Principle or

the Independence Principle does not produce any effect

for the Jacobian model. The application of TTRS does

not explain well how to handle dependencies of the FE

to multiple datums with tolerance specification.

3.1.2 Vector loop model

1. Dimensional tolerances only

Once the dimensions of the assembly were indicated

as x1x9, and the assembly variables as u1, u2, u3 (see

Fig. 4), the assembly graph of Fig. 5 has been built. It

shows one joint of cylinder slider kind between part 1

and part 3 at joint 4, respectively, one joint of parallel

cylinder kind between part 2 and part 3 at joint 3, one

joint of planar kind at joint 1 and one joint of edge slider

kind at joint 2 between the part 1 and part 2, and the

measure to perform (g).

A DRF has been assigned to each part; it is centered

in the point O of Fig. 4 for part 1 and O1 for part 2, O3

for part 3. The DRF of part 1 is also considered as the

global DRF of the assembly. Then, the datum paths

have been created; they are shown in Figs. 6, 7, and 8.

According to Fig. 5, there are L=JP+1=43+1=2

closed loops and one open loop. The first closed loop

joints part 1 and part 2 by linking joint 1 and joint 2; the

second closed loop joints the subassembly part 1part 2

and part 3 by linking joint 1, joint 3, and joint 4; the

open loop joints define the gap.

Then, we can resume the elements of the R and T

matrices of the loops in Table 3. Once the vector loops

are defined, the relative equations have been generated.

From Eq. (7) and Table 3

g x 9 u2 x 8

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

dg dx9 du2 dx8

dx9 0:3058dx1 0:3058dx2 dx3 1:4725dx5

10:8427dx6 1:2262dx7 1:0857dx8 dx8

25

10:8427dx6 1:2262dx7 2:0857dx8 dx9

dimension xi.

It is possible to calculate the solution in the worst

case as:

g

9

P

jsi j ti

i1

10:8427dx6 1:2262dx7 2:0857dx8 dx9

0:3058 0:1 0:3058 0:1 1:0000 0:2 1:4725 0:3

10:8427 pi=180 1:2262 0:2 2:0857 0:1 0:3

1:64595mm

26

For statistic case approach:

v

u 9

uX

si ti2 0:6830mm

g sc t

27

i1

Once the dimensions of the assembly are indicated as

x1 ,, x9, the assembly variables as u1, u2, u3, and the

gap between the top side of part 1 and the circle that is

the assembly measure as g, the case study appears as

shown in Fig. 2. The DRFs and the datum paths are the

same as the previous case.

The vector loops have no change, but they have to

take into consideration the geometrical tolerances. The

geometrical tolerances have to be translated into the xvector: the planeness on part 21 =00.03 mm; the

circular degree on part 22 =00.05 mm; the circular

degree on part 23 =00.02 mm; the perpendicularity

on part 14 =00.01 mm.

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

dg dx9 du2 dx8 da3

0:3058dx1 0:3058dx2 dx3 1:4725dx5

10:8427dx6 1:2262dx7 2:0857dx8 dx9

0:6433da1 1:6847da2 2:3764da3 1:3764da4

30

Fig. 8 Datum path of vector loop 3

case as:

Then, we can resume the elements of the R and T

matrices of the loops in Table 4. From Eq. (7) and

Table 3, we can get:

g x 9 u2 x 8 a 3

g

13

P

j si j t i

i1

10:8427dx6 1:2262dx7 2:0857dx8 dx9

0:6433 da1 1:6847 da2 2:3764 da3 1:3764 da4

1:81075mm

28

31

du B1 Adx B1 Fda Su dx Sa da

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

tolerances only)

Loop 1

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

geometrical tolerances)

Loop 1

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

and parts of the case study

v

u 13

uX

g sc t

si ti 2 0:6902mm

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

1. Dimensional tolerances only

The simplification to consider the fixed angles of part

1 (except the inclined side) has been used in order to

avoid the network. This simplification may solve the

assembly problem.

The first step of the method is to identify the elements of the parts (see Fig. 9) and the relations among

them; these information are reported in the surfaces

graph of the case study (see Fig. 10). Considering that

the angles of part 1 are fixed, the network can be solved,

and the surfaces graph is simplified as shown in Fig. 11.

The cumulative torsor G is expressed as:

8

9

<a u =

GH T1:6 T1=3 T3:1

b

v

33

:

;

g

g

R

H

where T1,6 is the torsor of feature 1 of part 1; T3,1 is the

torsor of feature 1 of part 3 (the circle); and T1/3 is the

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

angles of part 1, 1.6 =0 and therefore:

8

9

0 =

<

0

38

T1:6

:

;

w

M

1:6

H

R

Considering the extreme points remain into the tolerance

zone, it results:

8

<

0

T1:6

39

:

t1:6 t 9 =2; t1:6 t 9 =2 R

H

where t1.6 is the thickness of the tolerance zone of S1.6, and

t9 is the dimensional tolerance of the dimension x9. Note that

this torsor shows the admissible range of variations of the

small displacements associated to the feature. In the same way,

the torsor T3.1 of feature 1 of part 3 may be computed as:

8

9

< t8 =2; t8 =2 =

40

T3:1 0

:

;

t8 =2; t8 =2

where t8 is the dimensional tolerance of the dimension x8.

The evaluation of the torsor linking part 1 and part 3 (T1/3)

is very difficult because it needs the solution of the networks

among the components of the assembly. By adopting the

simplification that the angles of part 1 are fixed, it is possible

to solve this problem as the sum of two terms:

T1=3 T1=2 T2=3

Fig. 10 Torsor model: surface graph of the case study

respectively; therefore, the correspondent translation needs

to be inverted. It is:

8

9

5:9974b 1:6

<

=

T1:6

b1:6

37

:

;

w

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

t1 0:2924t4 14:3446t6 t1:3 =2

0:3057t1 0:3057t2 t3 0:0894t4 12:6883t6 =2;

0:3057t1 0:3057t2 t3 0:0894t4 12:6883t6 =2

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

0:2924t4 14:3446t6 t8 =2

0:3061t4 1:2624t5 23:9708t6 1:4479t7 2:4949t8 ;

0:3061t4 1:2624t5 23:9708t6 1:4479t7 2:4949t8

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

tolerance zones of the case

study

zone assigned to each feature to the tolerances required on the

components. This is another critical step of the torsor model.

However, under the simplified hypothesis adopted (i.e., fixed

angles of the part 1) and by considering only dimensional

tolerances, it may have:

t1:6 0mm; t1 0:20mm; t2 0:20mm;

t3 0:40mm; t4 0:20mm; t5 0:60mm;

t6 0:03489; t7 0:40mm; t8 0:20mm;

t9 0:60mm

The functional requirement in the worst-case approach is:

$g 0:3057 0:2 0:3057 0:2 0:4 0:3955 0:2

1:2624 0:6 36:6591 0:03489 1:4479 0:4

2:4949 0:2 0:6=2

2:1580mm

Fig. 13 a Part 1. b Part 2. c

Part 3. d Definition of the

assembly and functional

requirement for statistical case

approach

45

evaluate the results due to a statistical approach since the

torsors components are considered the extreme possible intervals of the small displacements, and this is not compatible

with the statistical approach where a probability density function is to each parameter.

2. Dimensional and geometrical tolerances

If the considered case study both included the dimensional and the geometrical tolerances, Eq. (34) is still valid

(under the hypothesis of fixed angles of part 1), and it is

always needed to relate the thickness of the tolerance

zones to the tolerances required on the components.

Moreover, by using the simplification to consider the

fixed angles of part 1, there's no change compared to the

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

along the ith axis.

For the worst-case approach:

Fig. 14 Kinematic chains identification

Therefore, the simplification to consider the fixed angles

of part 1 causes the geometrical tolerances has no effect

on the results of the case study. Moreover, the application

of the Envelope Principle or the Independence Principle

does not produce any effect on the torsor model too.

used to compare the three models. This assembly contains

three parts. The functional requirement is the gap shown on

the leftmost side of the assembly (see Fig. 13). Some key

tolerances from ta to td are labeled. The relevant parameters

are as follows: x110 mm, x25 mm, x3 4 mm, ta0.15 mm,

tb0.1 mm, tc0.1 mm, td0.1 mm. The exact geometric

results are: 10.35 mm for the worst case considering dimensional tolerances only and 10.26 mm for the case considering both dimensional and geometrical tolerances by 3DCS.

3.2.1 Jacobian model

1. Dimensional tolerances only

Kinematic chains in this case are shown in Fig. 14.

There are six virtual joints and five FE pairs. O0 and O1,

O2 and O3, O4, and O5 are internal pairs; O1 and O2, O3,

and O4 are external pairs. The [J1J2J6]FE2, [J1J2J6]FE4,

~

~

FE2

and FE4

can be eliminated because O1 and O2, O3,

and O4 have the same position and orientation, respectively, the contacts between them are assumed perfect. The

form tolerances are not considered here because the real

features are considered as coincident with their substitute

ones in this model. So, the Jacobian matrix is equal to:

1

60

6

60

J 6

60

6

40

0

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

p

4g 0:152 0:12 0:12 0:206mm

49

According to Eqs. (2) and (46), the functional requirement is equal to

4g z18 z0 z6 z12

ta tb tc td tc ta tb 2tc td

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

Dimensional tolerances only

tolerances

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

4g 0:206mm

torsor of feature 2 of part 2; and T1/2 is the torsor of

the link between part 1 and part 2. The functional

requirement g can be expressed by the translation

along the global z axis.

The components of the torsors are evaluated:

8

9

8

9

< a1:1 =

<0

=

T1:1

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

4g 0:35mm

According to Eq. (7),

g x1 x2 x3 a 1 a 2 a 3

joints due to the geometrical tolerances, parallelism on

part 11 =0tb/2, parallelism on part 32 =0td/2,

planeness on part 2 3 =0td/2..

For the worst-case approach:

4g 0:5mm

56

p

4g 0:152 3 0:05 2 0:012

0:28mm

3.2.3 Torsor model

The first step is to identify the elements of the parts and the

relations among them; these information are reported in the

surfaces graph (see Fig. 16). The cumulative torsor G is

expressed as:

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

have:

t1 0:3mm; t2 0:2mm; t3 0:2mm;

t1:1 t1:2 t2:2 t3:2 0

gwc 0:35mm

61

it may have:

t1 0:3mm; t2 0:2mm; t3 0:2mm; t1:1 0;

t1:2 0:1mm; t2:2 0; t3:2 0:1mm

gwc 0:45mm

62

Table 6 Results of the comparison among the models applied

to the two cases

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

application of TTRS.

The three considered models have three common limits.

The first deals with the assembly cycle: the three models are

not able to correctly represent the coupling with clearance

between two parts and consider the functional requirements

in the network. The second deals with the representation of

the tolerances applied to the assemblys components: the

three models do not give a complete correspondence among

the model variables and the parts tolerances. Moreover, the

translation of the parts tolerances into model variables does

not satisfy the standards (ASME or ISO). The third deals

with the independence principle: the three models do not

allow us to apply the independence and/or the envelope rule

to different tolerances of the same parts.

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

Tolerance zones interaction

Functional requirement schematization

Not possible

Easy

Difficult

0.26

Computation of the functional requirements

Linear

Network

With points

With features

754

model based on the experimental results and the information

available from the literature.

Further researches include the definition of a new and more

efficient model able to overcome the limits that have been

highlighted in this work and consider the functional requirements in the network. The model can be the unification of the

previous models that can make up for each other, such as the

unified Jacobiantorsor model. Also, this model should reduce the uncertainty of transforming the functional requirement to the geometrical principle, considering the tolerance of

complex features. It should allow simulating different assembly sequences and can handle under, fully, and overconstrained assemblies. A dimensional tolerance assigned to the

distance between two features of a part or of an assembly may

be required with the application of the envelope rule or the

independence principle. To model the form tolerance, it is

possible to introduce a virtual transformation that is assigned

to points of the surface to which a form tolerance is assigned.

The subjects of further research are to consider dimensional

tolerance with the application of both the envelope principle

and the independence principle, to take into account the real

features and the interaction of the tolerance zones, to consider

joints with clearance among the assembly components, and to

adopt both the worst-case and the statistical approaches to

solve the stack-up functions.

Acknowledgments This work is supported by Independent Innovation Foundation of Shandong University (grant 2010TS087) and the

National High Technology Research and Development Program of

China(No.2012AA040910).

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

9. Salomons OW, Houten FJAM, Kals HJJ (1998) Current status of CAT

systems. In: ElMaraghy HA (ed) Geometric design tolerancing: theories, standards and applications. Chapman & Hall, London, pp 438452

10. Prisco U, Giorleo G (2002) Overview of current CAT systems.

Integr Comput Aided Eng 9(4):373387

11. ASME Standard (1994) Dimensioning and tolerancing, ASME

Y14.5 M-1994. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York

12. Laperriere L, ElMaraghy HA (2000) Tolerance analysis and synthesis using Jacobian transforms. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol

49(1):359362

13. Laperriere L, Ghie W, Desrochers A (2002) Statistical and deterministic tolerance analysis and synthesis using a unified Jacobiantorsor. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol 51(1):417420

14. Ghie W, Laperriere L, Desrochers A (2010) Statistical tolerance

analysis using the unified Jacobian-torsor model. Int J Prod Res

48(15):46094630

15. Lafond P, Laperriere L (1999) Jacobian-based modeling of dispersions affecting pre-defined functional requirements of mechanical

assemblies. Proceedings of IEEE international symposium on assembly and task planning, pp. 2025, Porto, Portugal, July

16. Polini W (2010) Geometric tolerance analysis. In: Colosimo BM,

Senin N (eds) Geometric tolerance: impact on product design,

quality inspection and statistical process monitoring. Springer,

London, pp 3968

17. Clement A, Riviere A, Serre P (1998) The TTRSs:13 constraints

for dimensioning and tolerancing. In: EIMaraghy HA (ed)

Geometric design tolerancing: theories, standards and applications.

Chapman & Hall, London, pp 122131

18. Chase KW (1999) Tolerance Analysis of 2-D and 3-D Assemblies.

IOP Publishing Adcats. http://adcats.et.byu.edu/Publication/99-4/

MultiDimTolAssem.pdf. Accessed Apr 1999

19. Chase KW, Gao J, Magleby SP (1995) General 2-D tolerance

analysis of mechanical assemblies with small kinematic adjustments. J Des Manuf 5(4):263274

20. Chase KW, Magleby SP, Gao J (1996)Tolerance analysis of 2-D

and 3-D mechanical assemblies with small kinematic adjustment.

IOP Publishing Adcats.http://adcats.et.byu.edu/Publication/97-5/

Adv_tol_chap-6_11a_96.html. Accessed May 1997

21. Marziale M, Polini W (2009) A review of two models for tolerance

analysis of an assembly vector loop and matrix. Int J Adv Manuf

Technol 43(11):11061123

22. Glancy CG, Chase KW (1999) A second order method for assembly tolerance analysis. Proceedings of the 1999 ASME Design

Engineering Technical Conference, September 1215, 1999, Las

Vegas, Nevada. DETC99/DAC-8707

23. Nigam SD, Turner JU (1995) Review of statistical approaches to

tolerance analysis. Comput Aided Des 27(1):615

24. Laperriere L, Lafond P (1999) Tolerance analysis and synthesis using

virtual joints. Proceedings of the 6th CIRP Seminar on Computer

Aided Tolerancing, pp. 452458, Enschede, Netherlands

25. Chase KW, Gao J, Magleby SP (1995) General 2-D tolerance

analysis of mechanical assemblies with small kinematic adjustments. J Des Manuf 5(4):263274

26. Chase KW, Gao J, Magleby SP (1996) Including geometric feature

variations in tolerance analysis of mechanical assemblies. IIE

Trans 28(10):795807

27. Chase KW, Gao J, Magleby SP (1998) Generalized 3-D tolerance

analysis of mechanical assemblies with small kinematic adjustments. IIE Trans 30(4):367377

28. Desrochers A (1999) Modeling three dimensional tolerance zones using

screw parameters. Proceedings of the DETC 25th Design Automation

Conference, September 1215, Las Vegas. DETC99-DAC-8587

29. Legoff O, Villeneuve F, Bourdet P (1999) Geometrical tolerancing

in process planning: a tridimensional approach. Proceedings of the

Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B. J Engineering

Manufacture 213(6):635640

- 13 Robotics ScriptÎncărcat deMohamed Asy
- Chapter 3 a Forward and Inverse KinematisÎncărcat deCharlton S.Inao
- OOPS AsÎncărcat deYogesh Kushwaha
- Business Travel Market Metrics a Global Analysis of Business 3710Încărcat deAbhishek Seth
- List of Programs for Practical Class XIIÎncărcat dekishan_pant4645
- 2D or 2 Dimensional ArraysÎncărcat deSampada Mahajan
- 1179153[1]Încărcat desanthoshns
- btechgeoÎncărcat deSuryas Siva
- Quality Function Deployment1Încărcat deGitanshu Soni
- CAMS M8 Man in SeawayÎncărcat deIsaac Kuma Yeboah
- Bearing Tolerances and Precision LevelsÎncărcat deAbdul Junaedi
- ShaftsÎncărcat delindanora
- Lecture1 Jen RigidBodiesÎncărcat deJulian Aleuy Santana
- F - Physically Based Modeling, Principles and Practice - Constrained DynamicsÎncărcat deFelipe Soares Maia
- scee-271-12-sec-9Încărcat deabdsu75
- 1 Dimension and UnitÎncărcat deGaluh Ayu P
- TCS Placement Paper 1.docÎncărcat derohit sharma
- Article_ Tolerances to ISO 9445 for Cold Rolled Narrow and Wide Strip, Plate_sheet and Cut LengthsÎncărcat deJMPCalcao
- QR 07 Standard Tolerance Sheet ModifiedÎncărcat deMuhammad Fitransyah Syamsuar Putra
- Mat Lab introÎncărcat deDipika
- Report Lab 5Încărcat deAbdullah Helmi
- 03 Literature ReviewÎncărcat deeshwari
- MATLAB Session 1Încărcat dePratyush Gupta
- 162 notes.pdfÎncărcat deRyan Miller
- 1-s2.0-0278612592900239-mainÎncărcat deAmandeep Singh Thukral
- Modelo 4 Ruedas OmnidireccionalÎncărcat deEdison Sasig
- bba_syllabus_240715.pdfÎncărcat deJyoti Singh
- Enginnering DrawingÎncărcat deElsa Uribe
- EN-10051.pdfÎncărcat deSrikanth Reddy
- 32AÎncărcat deAjay Malik

- Drill Press Text BookÎncărcat deEng_2014
- 1. IntroductionÎncărcat deakjeevanantham79
- Mechanism of Chip FormationÎncărcat deakjeevanantham79
- ManufacturingÎncărcat deHari Haran
- Partial Differential Equation with MatlabÎncărcat deJuan Manuel Olivo
- DrillingÎncărcat deakjeevanantham79
- A Review of Two Models for Tolerance Analysis of an Assembly - Vector Loop and MatrixÎncărcat deakjeevanantham79
- Experiment 15Încărcat deakjeevanantham79
- 09-ReamerÎncărcat deakjeevanantham79
- How to Deal With New MaterialsÎncărcat deakjeevanantham79
- A Matrix Approach to the Representation of Tolerance Zones AndÎncărcat deakjeevanantham79
- A Comprehensive Study of Three Dimensional Tolerance Analysis MethodsÎncărcat deakjeevanantham79
- New Product Design and Development a Generic ModelÎncărcat dehjcpinto
- Optimisation Strategies for Metal Forming ProcessesÎncărcat deakjeevanantham79
- Straightness and Flatness Evaluation Using Data Envelopment AnalysisÎncărcat deakjeevanantham79
- Vectorial Method of Minimum Zone Tolerance for Flatness, Straightness, And Their Uncertainty EstimationÎncărcat deakjeevanantham79
- A Scatter Search Algorithm for the Single Row Facility Layout ProblemÎncărcat deakjeevanantham79
- Design for Manufacturing- A Book ChapterÎncărcat deakjeevanantham79
- Design for Manufacturing by Harry PeckÎncărcat deakjeevanantham79
- Introduction to QFDÎncărcat deakjeevanantham79
- On the Effect of the Orientation of Sheet Rolling Direction in Shot Peen FormingÎncărcat deakjeevanantham79
- Difference Between Capstan Lathe and Turret LatheÎncărcat deakjeevanantham79
- A High Efficiency Ku-Band Printed Monopulse ArrayÎncărcat deakjeevanantham79
- A Broadband Planar Monopulse Antenna Array of C-BandÎncărcat deakjeevanantham79
- A Practical X10 Protocol Implementation Over a Cellular Network Using SMSÎncărcat deakjeevanantham79
- 1-s2.0-S1359835X97827066-mainÎncărcat deacanerk

- Abs BucklingÎncărcat deAnubhav Tandon
- Relevanssi ‹ Our Italian Table — WordPressÎncărcat deJoseph Becci
- PRMG 010 - IntroductionÎncărcat deMena Amir Khairy
- Blade ProfileÎncărcat deHarmeet Singh
- Ray TracingÎncărcat deSpoll1927
- EN 15085- 1 & 2Încărcat de0502ravi
- Balancing of Rotating MassesÎncărcat deKiran Varma
- Syllabus M.tech (PE &ED)Încărcat dehariprasad_ambati3742
- BassDriver-OM2Încărcat dehugosaldano
- Intrinsic PorosityÎncărcat dedownbuliao
- LockLizard_Secure_PDF_Viewer_v26.pdfÎncărcat debroakin1311
- temp0778dfca0576a04e88b7757b46d53f5cÎncărcat deFBFDN
- 2014 DENSO Fuel Pump and Fuel Injector Catalog.pdfÎncărcat deAnonymous AdzlVctFQ
- 3GPP TS 24.605 V14.0.0 (2016-06)Încărcat detiagobilly_1212
- 2018-07-04 15.58.14 DESKTOP-V2U7R9J B65895 Desync GameUserEventssadasdÎncărcat deMike Ma
- ThesisÎncărcat deJames Psr
- b12cn presostatÎncărcat deSandu Visanescu
- Electric Wiring SymbolsÎncărcat deMohd Anip
- 23 Service Manual - Packard Bell -Easynote b3Încărcat deSoporte Tecnico Buenos Aires
- Bulk DensityÎncărcat decatalin
- QHDM DrainageÎncărcat deAnonymous 94TBTBRks
- 1343284681625 Network ArchitectureÎncărcat deShoaib Mansoori
- Chapter 11Încărcat dePravin K. Kushwaha
- E-Class Operator’s ManualÎncărcat derider432c
- Catalizadores de Cobalto en la síntesis de fischer tropschÎncărcat deNorberto Vera
- Construction Contract - Designing Buildings WikiÎncărcat demarx0506
- SCH4C Percentage YieldÎncărcat deSteve M Hall
- C1008 vs ASTM A1008.pdfÎncărcat demtcengineering
- 55D Tr Mast PL F-389-0804 03-15-2005Încărcat deingemex
- Reviewer (11)Încărcat deAriel Mark Pilotin

## Mult mai mult decât documente.

Descoperiți tot ce are Scribd de oferit, inclusiv cărți și cărți audio de la editori majori.

Anulați oricând.