Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A computer-aided tolerance specification method based on multiple attributes decision-making

  • ORIGINAL ARTICLE
  • Published:
The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In the mechanical product design, tolerance specification is a crucial process to select tolerance types to control the geometrical variation of the features on a workpiece. Tolerance specification is a kind of decision-making process which needs to consider many influential factors of the manufacturing cost and quality requirement of a workpiece. In this context, those factors are classified into two categories, that of static factors from the rules and standards, and that of dynamic factors based on the manufacturing site’s information. This paper presents a novel method for computer-aided tolerance specification to evaluate both types of factors while the traditional methods only take the static factors into considerations. Those factors are assessed by the developed MADM (multiple attributes decision-making) algorithm, assisted with the rule-based algorithm and axiomatic design algorithm. A case study is undertaken, and its result shows the effect of dynamic factors on the output of tolerance specification. The results adhere to the ISO standard.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Find the latest articles, discoveries, and news in related topics.

References

  1. Goetz S, Schleich B, Wartzack S (2018) A new approach to first tolerance evaluations in the conceptual design stage based on tolerance graphs. Procedia CIRP 75:167–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2018.04.030

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Cao Y, Liu T, Yang J (2018) A comprehensive review of tolerance analysis models. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 97(5–8):3055–3085. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-018-1920-2

  3. Hong YS, Chang TC (2002) A comprehensive review of tolerancing research. Int J Prod Res 40(11):2425–2459. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207540210128242

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Hallmann M, Schleich B, Wartzack S (2020) Form tolerance allocation to tolerance-cost optimisation: a comprehensive literature review. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 107:4859–4912. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-020-05254-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bianca MC, Senin N (2011) Geometric tolerances. Springer, London

    Google Scholar 

  6. Wang T (2013) The foundation and application of GD&T. China Machine Press, Beijing

    Google Scholar 

  7. Dantan J, Mathieu L, Ballu A, Martin P (2005) Tolerance synthesis: quantifier notion and virtual boundary. Comput Aided Des 37(2):231–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cad.2004.06.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Desrochers A, Clément A (1994) A dimensioning and tolerancing assistance model for CAD/CAM systems. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 9:352–361. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01748479

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Clement A, Riviere A, Serre P, Valade C. (1997). The TTRS: 13 constraints for dimensioning and tolerancing. Proceedings of the 5th CIRP International Seminar on Computer-Aided Tolerancing. pp 73–82

  10. Salomons OW, Poerink HJJ, Haalboom FJ, van Slooten F, van Houten FJAM, Kals HJJ (1996) A computer aided tolerancing tool I: tolerance specification. Comput Ind 31(2):161–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/0166-3615(96)00046-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Gaunet D (2003) 3D functional tolerancing & annotation: CATIA tools for geometrical product specification. Geometric product specification and verification: integration of functionality. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 25–33

    Book  Google Scholar 

  12. Hu J, Xiong G, Wu Z (2004) A variational geometric constraints network for a tolerance types specification. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 24(3):214–222. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-003-1572-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Zhang Y, Li Z, Gao J, Hong J (2011) New reasoning algorithm for assembly tolerance specifications and corresponding tolerance zone types. Comput Aided Des 43(12):1606–1628. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cad.2011.06.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Zhong Y, Qin Y, Huang M, Lu W, Gao W, Du Y (2013) Automatically generating assembly tolerance types with an ontology-based approach. Comput Aided Des 45(11):1253–1275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cad.2013.06.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Qin Y, Zhong Y, Huang M, Liu F (2014) An assembly tolerance representation model based on spatial relations for generating assembly tolerance types. Proc Inst Mech Eng C J Mech Eng Sci 228(6):1005–1020. https://doi.org/10.1177/0954406213495501

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Qie Y, Qiao L, Cui Y, & Anwer N (2017). A domain ontology for assembly tolerance design. Proc. ASME. IMECE2017, vol 2: advanced manufacturing, V002T02A112, November 3–9, 2017

  17. Anselmetti B, Mawussi K (2003) Computer aided tolerancing using positioning features. J Comput Inf Sci Eng 3(1):15–21. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.1565074

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Anselmetti B (2006) Generation of functional tolerancing based on positioning features. Computer Aided Design 38(8):902–919. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cad.2006.05.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Anselmetti B, Chavanne R, Yang J, Anwer N (2010) Quick GPS: a new CAT system for single-part tolerancing. Comput Aided Des 42(9):768–780. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cad.2010.04.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Cao Y, Zhang H, Li B, Wu Z, Yang J (2013) Study on functional specification scheme on interface based on positioning features. Proc Inst Mech Eng B J Eng Manuf 227(5):745–753. https://doi.org/10.1177/0954405413479112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Qin Y, Lu W, Qi Q, Liu X, Huang M, Scott PJ, Jiang X (2018) Towards a tolerance representation model for generating tolerance specification schemes and corresponding tolerance zones. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 97(5):1801–1821. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-018-1977-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Haghighi P, Mohan P, Kalish N, Vemulapalli P, Shah JJ, Davidson JK (2015) Toward automatic tolerancing of mechanical assemblies: first-order GD&T schema fevelopment and tolerance allocation. J Comput Inf Sci Eng 15(4):041003–041003-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Armillotta A (2013) A method for computer-aided specification of geometric tolerances. Comput Aided Des 45:1604–1616

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Cao Y, Zhao Q, Liu T, Ren L, Yang J (2018) The strategy of datum reference frame selection based on statistical learning. J Comput Inf Sci Eng 18(2):021002–021002-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Qin Y, Lu W, Qi Q, Liu X, Huang M, Scott PJ, Jiang X (2018) Towards an ontology-supported case-based reasoning approach for computer-aided tolerance specification. Knowl-Based Syst 141:129–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2017.11.013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. ISO 1101:2017 (2017) Geneva: International Organization for Standardization

  27. ASME Y14.5 2018 (2018) Dimensioning and tolerancing. ASME, New York

  28. Kong C, Wang J, Li T (2019) A survey of engineering education of geometrical product specifications and verification in China. (To be published in ICAC)

  29. Hwang CL, Yoon K (2012) Multiple attribute decision making: methods and applications: a state-of-the-art survey. Springer Science & Business Media, London

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  30. Li C, Zhang X, Geng H, Yan J (2017) Robustness analysis model for MADM methods based on cloud model. Procedia Comput Sci 107:84–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2017.03.061

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Kashfi MA, Javadi M (2015) A model for selecting suitable dispatching rule in FMS based on fuzzy multi attribute group decision-making. Prod Eng Res Dev 9:237–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Zhang H, Yu L (2012) MADM method based on cross-entropy and extended TOPSIS with interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Knowl-Based Syst 30:115–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Farhadinia B (2016) Determination of entropy measures for the ordinal scale-based linguistic models. Inf Sci 369:63–79

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  34. Suh NP (1978) Optimisation of manufacturing systems through axiomatics. CIRP Ann 27(1):383–388

    Google Scholar 

  35. Bahadir MC, Satoglu SI (2014) A novel robot arm selection methodology based on axiomatic design principles. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 71:2043–2057

  36. Lee SJ, Park GJ (2014) A novel method of reverse engineering using axiomatic design. J Mech Sci Technol 28(2):595–604

  37. Zhao Q, Cao Y, Liu T, Ren L, Yang J (2018) Tolerance specification of the plane feature based on the axiomatic design. Proc Inst Mech Eng C J Mech Eng Sci 233:1481–1492. https://doi.org/10.1177/0954406218772001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. ISO 14253-2:2017 (2017) International Organization for Standardization. Geneva

  39. ISO 286-2 (2017) International Organization for Standardization. Geneva

  40. Li G, He S, Ju Y, Du K (2014) Long-distance precision inspection method for bridge cracks with image processing. Autom Constr 41:83–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2013.10.021

  41. Dornfeld D, Lee DE (2008) Machine design for precision manufacturing. Springer, New York

  42. Wu Z, Yang J (1999) Computer aided tolerance optimised design. Zhejiang University Press, Hangzhou

    Google Scholar 

  43. Armillotta A (2020) Selection of parameters in cost-tolerance functions: review and approach. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 108:167–182. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-020-05400-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Zhao Q, Ren L (2017) A survey for the production condition of the Shaoxing Advance Gearbox Co., Ltd. (unpublished, in Chinese)

  45. Segal S, Gurfil P (2009) Effect of kinematic rotation-translation coupling on relative spacecraft translational dynamics. J Guid Control Dyn 32(3):1045–1050. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.39320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Xiangqian J (2007) Theory and applications of new generation geometrical product specifications. Higher Education Press, Beijing

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This research was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 51575484 and U1501248) and Science Fund for Creative Research Groups of the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 51521064). The authors also received supports from the EPSRC Future Advanced Metrology Hub (Ref. EP/P006930/1).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Mechanical Manufacturing Technology, China Academy of Engineering Physics, Mianyang, 621900, China

    Qijian Zhao

  2. EPSRC Future Advanced Metrology Hub, Centre for Precision Technologies, School of Computing and Engineering, University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield, HD1 3DH, UK

    Tukun Li & Xiangqian Jiang

  3. Key Laboratory of Advanced Manufacturing Technology of Zhejiang Province, College of Mechanical Engineering, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, 310027, China

    Yanlong Cao & Jiangxin Yang

Authors
  1. Qijian Zhao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tukun Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yanlong Cao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jiangxin Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Xiangqian Jiang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Qijian Zhao.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Decomposition operation for a feature

The variation of a feature is considered as a combination of one/several types of variations in tolerance specification. In this context, decomposition refers to an operation to separate those variations into the variations of translation, rotation and form. In this paper, the decomposition is developed based on the kinematics [45] and the geometrical characteristics of the feature. An example of this operation is illustrated in Fig. 12. The tolerances can control variations decoupling by this decomposition method. According to the definition of each geometric tolerance, a positioning tolerance controls three variations; an orientation tolerance controls rotation variation and form variation [46]; a form tolerance only controls form variation (see Fig. 12). In this case, a plane could be decomposed to one, two or three variations and noted as sp1, sp2 and sp3 respectively.

Fig. 12
figure 12

Decomposition operation on a plane, viewed from the direction paralleled to the plane

Full size image

Some features consist of a derive feature with an integral feature, which the decomposition has more than one results. Rule 1 and Rule 2 is supplied in order to provide unambiguous results.

  • Rule 1: If a feature has derived feature(s), then (1) the rotation and translation variation of a feature are controlled through its derived feature first and (2) the form variation of a feature is controlled through its integral feature.

For example, the variations of a cylinder are decomposed to the positioning variation of its axis, the rotation variation of its axis, the form variation of its axis, the axial variation of integral feature and the radial variation of an integral feature. It means that the number of variations of a cylinder could be 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5.

  • Rule 2: If a feature is a primary datum, its rotation and translation variation are not considered; if a feature is a secondary datum, its positioning variation is not considered.

A decomposition scheme is a result of the decomposition, e.g. “decompose to kinematic and form variation”. A candidate schemes set S is a group of the decomposition schemes of a feature. The candidate tolerances, geometric type of feature and position relationship with DRF are applied to generate the S.

Appendix 2: The tables of DPs, candidate tolerances, candidate schemes set and estimation of attributes

Table 7 DPs for all geometric tolerances (adopt from [26])
Full size table
Table 8 The candidate tolerances for different features
Full size table
Table 9 The candidate schemes set for each type of feature
Full size table
Table 10 The description and estimation of the attributes
Full size table
Table 11 Determination of the length parameter of a feature
Full size table

Appendix 3: The parameters in the case study

Table 12 The parameters for estimation of attributes [44]
Full size table
Table 13 The information value of each DP [37, 44]
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhao, Q., Li, T., Cao, Y. et al. A computer-aided tolerance specification method based on multiple attributes decision-making. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 111, 1735–1750 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-020-06137-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-020-06137-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation