Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Computer-Aided Design
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cad
Review
Shanghai Key Laboratory of Digital Manufacture for Thin-walled Structures, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China
State Key Laboratory of Mechanical System and Vibration, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China
highlights
article
info
Article history:
Received 29 October 2013
Accepted 27 February 2014
Keywords:
3D tolerance analysis
T-Map
Matrix
Unified JacobianTorsor
Direct linearization method
Comparison
abstract
Three dimensional (3D) tolerance analysis is an innovative method which represents and transfers
tolerance in 3D space. The advantage of 3D method is taking both dimensional and geometric tolerances
into consideration, compared with traditional 1/2D tolerance methods considering dimensional
tolerances only. This paper reviews four major methods of 3D tolerance analysis and compares them based
on the literature published over the last three decades or so. The methods studied are Tolerance-Map
(T-Map), matrix model, unified JacobianTorsor model and direct linearization method (DLM). Each
of them has its advantages and disadvantages. The T-Map method can model all of tolerances and
their interaction while the mathematic theory and operation may be challenging for users. The matrix
model based on the homogeneous matrix which is classical and concise has been the foundation of
some successful computer aided tolerancing software (CATs), but the solution of constraint relations
composed of inequalities is complicated. The unified JacobianTorsor model combines the advantages
of the torsor model which is suitable for tolerance representation and the Jacobian matrix which is
suitable for tolerance propagation. It is computationally efficient, but the constraint relations between
components of torsor need to be considered to improve its accuracy and validity. The DLM is based on the
first order Taylors series expansion of vector-loop-based assembly models which use vectors to represent
either component dimensions or assembly dimensions. Geometric tolerances are operated as dimensional
tolerances in DLM, which is not fully consistent with tolerancing standards. The results of four models
with respect to an example are also listed to make a comparison. Finally, a perspective overview of the
future research about 3D tolerance analysis is presented.
2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Contents
1.
2.
Introduction........................................................................................................................................................................................................................
3D tolerance analysis models ............................................................................................................................................................................................
2.1.
T-Map (Tolerance-Map) model .............................................................................................................................................................................
2
3
3
Corresponding author at: Shanghai Key Laboratory of Digital Manufacture for Thin-walled Structures, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China. Tel.: +86 021
34206306; fax: +86 021 34206306.
E-mail address: jinsun@sjtu.edu.cn (S. Jin).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cad.2014.02.014
0010-4485/ 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
3.
4.
2.2.
Matrix model..........................................................................................................................................................................................................
2.3.
Unified JacobianTorsor model.............................................................................................................................................................................
2.4.
DLM method...........................................................................................................................................................................................................
Discussion and comparison ...............................................................................................................................................................................................
Conclusion ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Acknowledgments .............................................................................................................................................................................................................
References...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................
1. Introduction
The objective of tolerance analysis is to check the feasibility
and quality of assemblies or parts for a given GD&T scheme. The
results of tolerance analysis include worst case variations and
statistical distribution of functional requirement, acceptance rates,
contributors and their percent contributions, and the sensitivity
coefficients with respect to each contributor. Tolerance analysis is
an essential part for mechanical design and manufacturing because
it affects not only the performance of products but also the cost.
Tolerance analysis, including tolerance representation and tolerance propagation (tolerance transfer), can be classified into
many categories based on the analysis objective and analysis approach, as shown in Fig. 1. According to dimensionality, there
are one dimensional (1D), two dimensional (2D) and three dimensional (3D) tolerance analyses. Three approaches are applied
for 1/2/3D tolerance analysis, i.e., worst case (deterministic case),
statistical case and Monte Carlo simulation. Rigid and flexible tolerance analysis are two different models in the light of analysis objective. The former is surface-based and needs shape closure only,
such as engines tolerance analysis; the latter is point-based and
needs shape and force closure simultaneously, such as auto-bodies
tolerance analysis where the finite element method (FEM) is used
to take the deformation into consideration [14]. The division into
part level and assembly level is another classification. The stackup effect of assembly can be described by virtue of assembly function explicitly or implicitly, depending on the assembly method
and sequence, as well as the property of components [5]. Tolerance analysis runs through the whole process of the product, including design, process planning, manufacturing, inspection, but
the objective may be different in each phase. For example, the tolerance scheme, i.e., conventional (parametric) and geometric tolerance will be selected and specified, and then tolerance analysis for
functional requirement will be carried out in design phase. Meanwhile, besides manual analysis, computer aided tolerancing softR
R
R
ware (CATs), such as VisVSA
, 3DCS
and CETOL
are applied to
tolerance analysis successfully [69]. To be sure, the classification
of tolerance analysis will be more and more complicated with the
development of mechanical design and manufacturing.
Over the last thirty years, a large amount of fundamental research efforts has been given to explore the mathematical basis
for tolerance analysis. For tolerance representation, the models or
concepts include variational geometry [1012], variational class
[13,14], virtual boundary [15,16], feasibility space [17,18], vectorial approach [19], virtual joints [20], degree of freedom (DOF)
[2123], Tolerance-Map (T-Map) [24,25], topologically and technologically related surfaces (TTRS) [26], infinitesimal matrix [27],
matrix [2830], small displacement torsor (SDT) [31,32], and proportioned assembly clearance volume (PACV) [33,34]. Similarly,
for tolerance propagation, the approaches or methods consist of
the linearization method [35], system moments [36,37], quadrature [3840], reliability index [41,42], the Taguchi method [43,44],
Monte Carlo simulations [45,46], network of zones and datums
[47], kinematic formulation [48], the direct linearization method
(DLM) [49,50], Jacobian matrix [51,52], state space [53,54], and the
variational method [55]. It is worth noting that the partition of two
categories mentioned above is approximate and based mainly on
5
7
9
10
11
12
12
their strong suits, because there is no boundary between the tolerance representation and propagation for these models, such as the
TTRS [56].
As new generations of tolerancing standards, i.e., ASME Y14.52009 [57] and ISO 1101 [58] were released and popularized, geometric tolerances are generally accepted as industry practices.
The traditional 1/2D tolerance analysis models are insufficient to
meet the ever-tightening and increasingly complex requirements
of tolerance analysis in various fields [59]. More specifically, variations of a feature caused by geometric tolerances are three dimensional, which cannot be considered by 1/2D methods. Researchers
and engineers need a new method that can analyze how those geometric tolerances are represented and propagated in three dimensional space urgently. It is the 3D tolerance analysis method. Let
us take a combustion engine as an example, as shown in Fig. 2.
The translational and rotational variations of piston accumulated
by geometric and dimensional tolerances of crank-link parts have a
significant impact on the compression ratio. In addition, tolerances
of parts affect not only the dimensional quality of assembly, but
also other qualities such as frictional work [60,61] and sealing.
Finding out the mapping relationship of tolerance between parts
and functional requirements and performance indexes is important to engine design. 3D tolerance analysis methods will offer a
significant clue for understanding the role of every tolerance of
parts in the variation stream (gray boxes in Fig. 2).
The 3D tolerance analysis is an innovative method which represents and transfers tolerance in 3D space. Geometric tolerances and
dimensional tolerances, as well as the interaction between them
in the tolerance zone can be taken into consideration by 3D tolerance analysis methods. Moreover, abundant results, i.e., the translational and rotational variations of target feature are obtained in
these methods. Many models have been developed for 3D tolerance representation and propagation since 1990s. Portman [27]
introduces a spatial dimensional chain where the individual
error is represented as an infinitesimal matrix to model the tolerance propagation. Fleming [47] illustrates the geometric relationships by a network of zones and datums connected by arcs to
which constraints are assigned. The effects of these constraints are
calculated through the network between nodes. Rivest et al. [48]
propose a kinematic formulation which exploits the kinematic
character of a toleranced feature relative to its datum. These three
methods are preliminary explorations of 3D methods. Laperrire
and Lafond [20,51] use virtual joints for tolerance representation and the Jacobian matrix for tolerance propagation. Davidson
et al. [24] present a T-Map representing all possible variations of
size, position, form, and orientation for a target feature. Desrochers
and Rivire [29] represent the variations of a feature with a displacement matrix and transfer them with a homogeneous matrix.
An SDT model introduced by Clment et al. [31] uses six small displacement vectors to represent the position and orientation of an
ideal surface in relation to another ideal surface in a kinematic way.
Desrochers et al. [62] put forward a unified JacobianTorsor model
which combines the advantages of the torsor model and the Jacobian matrix. Chase et al. [50] introduce a DLM based on the first
order Taylors series expansion of vector-loop-based assembly
models which use vectors to represent either component dimensions or assembly dimensions. Some models mentioned above
have been applied extensively by virtue of CATs.
= 1 1 + 2 2 + 3 3
(1)
Fig. 3. Modeling process of the T-Map for a round bar with a size tolerance.
Fig. 5. (a) A half section of the T-Map for a round bar with a form tolerance and a
size tolerance. (b) A half section of the T-Map for a round bar with an orientation
tolerance and a size tolerance.
parallel to the x axis, pass through point C , and lie in the tolerance
zone between 2 and 3 .
The three dimensional tolerance zone at the end of the round
bar is obtained by a full sweeping operation around z axis with the
rectangle ABCD in Fig. 3(a). Therefore, the three dimensional T-Map
is modeled by revolving the triangle in Fig. 3(b) a full turn around
the line 1 2 , it is a right-circular dicone shown in Fig. 3(c). It
should be mentioned that the areal coordinates can also be used to
identify points in three dimensional space where four basis points
are non-coplanar. The points 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 in Fig. 3(c) are selected
to establish a tetrahedron of reference
for three dimensional area
coordinates in the T-Map. Setting
i = 1, any end plane of the
round bar that satisfies the size tolerance will be represented by
the linear equation:
= 1 1 + 2 2 + 3 3 + 4 4 .
(2)
The transformation from T-Map in Fig. 3(c) to Cartesian coordinates in Fig. 3(a) is worth mentioning. Presuming a plane in the
Cartesian coordinates, as shown in Fig. 4, its position can be described by the equation px + qy + rz + s = 0. p, q, r are the direction cosines in which r is approximately equal to 1 because the
rotation displacement of the plane shown in Fig. 3(a) around the
z axis is smaller than other two rotation displacements in the tolerance zone, and s is the absolute distance from the plane to the
origin of coordinates. Therefore, the planes in the tolerance zone
are distinguished by the coordinates p, q and s only. q in Fig. 3(b) is
obtained by assigning dimension or length on q in Fig. 3(a) because
q is dimensionless. The lateral dimension t of q axis in Fig. 3(b) is
t = d(t /d) = d tan() = dq = q . p is obtained in the same way
as q . Consequently, the transformation of any plane in the tolerance zone of Fig. 3(a) from areal coordinates to Cartesian coordinates is:
p
0
q 0
r = 1
s
t /2
0
0
1
t /2
0
t /d
1
0
t /d
1
0 2
.
1 3
4
0
(3)
Fig. 7. (a) q -s sections of the accumulation and functional requirement T-Maps for
the assembly when b = 0. (b) q -s section of two operand dicones for the assembly
when b = 0.
only seven elementary surface types, as shown in Table 1. The combinations of surfaces are called TTRS when two surfaces belong to
the same part or Pseudo-TTRS when two surfaces belong to two different parts [80]. The reference elements are classified by the concept of minimum geometric datum element (MGDE) [81]. Thirteen
relative positioning constrains of basic components of the MGDE,
i.e., point, line and plane are defined, as shown in Table 1. The concept of functional requirements is also declared in the wake of the
TTRS [82].
The 4 4 homogeneous matrix D including a 3 3 rotational
matrix and a 3 1 translational matrix is chosen here to represent
the relative displacement of a feature within tolerance zone:
C C
S C
S
0
S C + C S S
C C + S SS
C S
S S + C SC
C S + S S C
CC
0
v
w
(4)
S
C
0
0
C S
S S
C
0
u
0
.
0
1
(5)
with
uB
uC
uD
=D
CB
CC
(6)
CD
= PR1 Ri MM R
i
1
= PRRi M R [M]Ri
i
1
PR
Ri
(Di I ) [M]Ri .
(7)
Line + plane
Point + line
(Point + line) or
(Line + plane)
Line
Plane
Ty,z
Rx,y,z
Tx,y,z
Ry,z
Tx,y,z
Rx
Ty,z
Ry,z
Tx
Ry,z
Tx,y,z
Prismatic
Revolution
Helical
Cylindrical
Planar
Spherical
Ci/Cj
General
TTRS
Ci/Cj
Ci/Cj
Prismatic
Ci/Cj
Ci/Cj
Ci/Cj
Ci/Cj
Ci/Cj
Ci/Cj
Ci/Cj
Revolution Helical
Ci/Cj
Ci/Cj
Ci/Cj
C11/C12/C13
Ci/Cj
Cylindrical
Ci/Cj
Ci/Cj
Ci/Cj
C6/C7
C8/C9/C10
Ci/Cj
Planar
Ci/Cj
Ci/Cj
Ci/Cj
Ci/Cj
C1/C2
C3
C4/C5
Spherical
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
C C
S C
S
C C
S C
S
C C
S C
S
0
C C
S C
S
0
0
1
0
0
0
u
v
w
S
C
0
0
S
C
0
0
S
C
0
0
C S
S S
C
0
C S
S S
C
0
C S
S S
C
0
C S
S S
C
0
u
0
0
1
v
w
p
2
S S + C SC
C S + S S C
CC
S S + C SC
C S + S S C
CC
v
u =
w
v
w
S
C
S C + C S S
C C + S SS
C S
C C
S C
S
S C + C S S
C C + S SS
C S
C C
S C
S
v
w
v
w
Notice:
1. T and R represent the translation and rotation respectively, the subscripts of x, y, z represent the orientation.
2. C is the abbreviation of cos( ) and S is the abbreviation of sin( ).
3. u, v, w are three translational displacements along the x, y, z axes respectively.
4. C(onstraints)1: pointpoint, coincidence; C2: pointpoint, distance; C3: pointplane, distance; C4: pointline, coincidence; C5: pointline, distance; C6: planeplane, parallel, distance; C7: planeplane, angle; C8: planeline,
perpendicularity;
C9: planeline, parallel, distance; C10: planeline, angle; C11: lineline, coincidence;
Point
General
MGDE
Tx,y,z
Rx,y,z
Table 1
Constraints of TTRS and matrices.
Surface
Non invariant
displacements
6
H. Chen et al. / Computer-Aided Design 53 (2014) 113
Ri
x tSU
(8)
Fig. 9. The assembly of two round bars for the matrix model.
(9)
(10)
t
t1
u1 d1 sin(1 )/2
1
u1 (d1 cos(1 ) sin(1 ))/2
2
2
u1 + d1 sin(1 )/2
d1 cos(1 ) sin(1 )
t11
t11 .
d1 sin(1 )
(11)
(12)
t
t2
u2 d2 sin(2 )/2
2
2
2
u2 + d2 sin(2 )/2
(13)
T = 1/0
1/0
v
w
(14)
where 1/0 is the rotational vector around the axis including three
specific vectors, i.e., , and indicate the vectors around the
axes x, y and z in the local reference system respectively; likewise,
1/0 is the translational vector and u, v, w are three specific vectors
along the axes x, y and z respectively.
The relative translation between two surfaces at any point M in
Euclidean space can be obtained by a linearization rule in terms of
u
y + z
dM = 1/0 + 1/0 OM = v + x z .
w
x + y
(15)
(16)
u
1
x
v +
1
y
w
1
z
u
y + z
= v + x z .
w
x + y
dM =
(17)
[J ]FEi
i
[R0 ]33 [RPti ]33
[0]33
..
.
..
.
..
.
(18)
i
([R0 ]33 [RPti ]33 )
Win 33
dzin
0
dxni
dyni
dxni
(19)
where dzin = dzn dzi , dyni = dyn dyi , dxni = dxn dxi .
The SDT model is suitable for tolerance representation while the
Jacobian matrix is suitable for tolerance propagation. The unified
JacobianTorsor model combines the advantages of both methods,
u, u
v, v
w, w
FR
u, u
v, v
w, w
FE1
..
= [J]FE1 [J]FEn
u, u
v, v
w, w
(20)
FEn
(u, u)
(v, v)
(w, w)
(, )
(, )
( , )
FR
0
0
l2
0
0
l2
(0 , 0 )
(0 , 0 )
(0 , 0 )
FE1 .
(0 , 0 )
(0 , 0 )
FE1
FE2
(21)
FE2
Fig. 14. The effects of flatness tolerance t at the kinematic joint b of Fig. 13.
(22)
where Ri is the rotational transformation matrix between the vectors at node i; Ti is the translational matrix of vector i; Rf is the
R1 T1 R2 T2 Rig Tig Ri Ti Rn Tn Rf = H
(23)
1H C = A 1X + B 1U + F 1 = [0] .
(24)
1H O = C 1X + D 1U + G 1
(25)
10
1U = B1 A 1X B1 F 1
(26)
(27)
From Eqs. (25) to (27), we can obtain the 1U in the open loop
as:
1U = (C D B1 A) 1X + (G D B1 F ) 1
1 T
1U = C D BT B
B A 1X
T 1 T
+ GD B B
B F 1.
(28)
(29)
|Sijd | Tijd +
j =1
|Sij | Tij
(30)
j =1
2
2
m
n
|Sijd | Tijd +
|Sij | Tij
TS =
j =1
(31)
j =1
11
Table 2
Comparisons of four models.
T-Map
Matrix
Unified JacobianTorsor
DLM
Worst case
Statistical case
Sensitivity and
percent contribution
Geometric tolerance
Form
Orientation
Position
Objective
Application (CATs)
Table 3
Comparisons of the results of four models with a worst case.
Results
T-Map
Matrix
Unified JacobianTorsor
DLM
t1
t1
t1
t1
12
13