Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-02T21:04:56.615Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Implementation of Parameterized Work Piece Deviations and Measurement Uncertainties into Performant Meta-models for an Improved Tolerance Specification

Part of: Robust Design

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 July 2019

Andreas Michael Müller ,
Thomas Oberleiter ,
Kai Willner  and
Tino Hausotte
Andreas Michael Müller*
Affiliation:
Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Institute of Manufacturing Metrology;
Thomas Oberleiter
Affiliation:
Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Chair of Applied Mechanics
Kai Willner
Affiliation:
Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Chair of Applied Mechanics
Tino Hausotte
Affiliation:
Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Institute of Manufacturing Metrology;
*
Contact: Müller, Andreas Michael, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg Institute of Manufacturing Metrology, Germany, [email protected]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Geometrical work piece deviations are unavoidable and directly affect the function and quality of technological products. Tolerance management is regarded as a crucial subtask of the development of technological products, because it ensures the function as well as a sufficient product quality while maintaining reasonable production costs. That means, that geometric tolerances as an essential part of the product description greatly affect the functional capability, manufacturability, mountability, verifiability and the costs of the final product. The research group FOR 2271 was founded to enable the computer-aided specification of tolerances, which meet the requirements of production, assembly, verification and function by close cooperation between the departments responsible for product design, assembly and metrology. The aim of this contribution is to determine the manufacturing process scatter as well as the measurement uncertainty and establish ways and means to include that information into efficient meta-models, ultimately enabling improved and accurate tolerance analyses.

Keywords

Tolerance representation and managementUncertaintyProduct modelling / models
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , July 2019 , pp. 3501 - 3510
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2019

References

3D Systems, I. (1989), StereoLithography Interface Specification.Google Scholar
Besl, P.J. and McKay, N.D. (1992), “A Method for Registration of 3-D Shapes”, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 239–256.Google Scholar
Brinkmann, B. (2012), International vocbulary of metrology: Basic and general concepts and associated terms(VIM) German-English version ISO/IEC Guide 99:2007, Corrected version 2012, Beuth Wissen, 4., Aufl., Beuth, Berlin.Google Scholar
Ceglarek, D., Huang, W., Zhou, S., Ding, Y., Kumar, R. and Zhou, Y. (2004), “Time-Based Competition in Multistage Manufacturing: Stream-of-Variation Analysis (SOVA) Methodology—Review”, International Journal of Flexible Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 11–44.Google Scholar
Chakravorty, D. (2018), Standard Tessellation Language. STL File Format (3D Printing) – Simply Explained, Available at: https://all3dp.com/what-is-stl-file-format-extension-3d-printing/ (accessed 21 November 2018).Google Scholar
Chen, Y. and Medioni, G. (1991), “Object modeling by registration of multiple range images”, Proceedings - IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Vol. 3, pp. 2724–2729.Google Scholar
Fleßner, M., Müller, A.M., Götz, D., Helmecke, E. and Hausotte, T. (2016), Assessment of the single point uncertainty of dimensional CT measurements, Available at: https://www.ndt.net/article/ctc2016/papers/ICT2016_paper_id48.pdf.Google Scholar
Forrester, A.I.J., Sóbester, A. and Keane, A.J. (2008), Engineering design via surrogate modelling: A practical guide, 1st ed., Wiley, Chichester.Google Scholar
German Research Foundation DFG (2016), FOR 2271. Prozessorientiertes Toleranzmanagement mit virtuellen Absicherungsmethoden, Available at: http://gepris.dfg.de/gepris/projekt/260682773 (accessed 7 November 2018).Google Scholar
Heling, B., Oberleiter, T., Rohrmoser, A., Kiener, C., Schleich, B., Hagenah, H., Merklein, M., Willner, K. and Wartzack, S. (2019), “A concept for process-oriented interdisciplinary tolerance management considering production-specific deviations. submitted contribution”, Proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering Design, ICED.Google Scholar
Heling, B., Oberleiter, T., Schleich, B., Willner, K. and Wartzack, S. (2017), “Comparison of Different Sensitivity Analysis Methods in the Context of Dimensional Management”, in Volume 2: Advanced Manufacturing 3, V002T02A102.Google Scholar
International Organization for Standardization (2008), (JCGM/WG1/100): Uncertainty of measurement -- Part 3: Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement (GUM:1995), 17.020 Metrology and measurement in general No. ISO/IEC Guide 98-3:2008 (accessed 21 November 2018).Google Scholar
International Organization for Standardization (2018), Cylindrical gears – ISO system of flank tolerance classification – Part 1: Definitions and allowable values of deviations relevant to flanks of gear teeth (ISO 1328-1:2013), ICS 21.200 No. ISO 1328-1:2013 (accessed 20 November 2018).Google Scholar
Müller, A.M. and Hausotte, T. (2018), “Data fusion of surface data sets of X-ray computed tomography measurements using locally determined surface quality values”, Journal of Sensors and Sensor Systems, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 551–557.Google Scholar
Müller, A.M. and Hausotte, T. (2019a), “Comparison of different measures for the single point uncertainty in industrial X-ray computed tomography”, 9th Conference on Industrial Computed Tomography, e-Journal of Nondestructive Testing.Google Scholar
Müller, A.M. and Hausotte, T. (2019b), “Utilization of single point uncertainties for geometry element regression analysis in dimensional X-ray computed tomography”, 9th Conference on Industrial Computed Tomography, e-Journal of Nondestructive Testing.Google Scholar
Müller, A.M., Wohlgemuth, F. and Hausotte, T. (2018), “Simulation-based correction of systematic errors for CT measurements”, 8th Conference on Industrial Computed Tomography, e-Journal of Nondestructive Testing.Google Scholar
Myers, R.H., Montgomery, D.C. and Anderson-Cook, C.M. (2016), Response surface methodology: Process and product optimization using designed experiments, Wiley series in probability and statistics, 4 edition, Wiley, Hoboken.Google Scholar
Oberleiter, T., Heling, B., Schleich, B., Willner, K. and Wartzack, S. (2019), “Fuzzy Sensitivity Analysis in the Context of Dimensional Management”, ASCE-ASME J. Risk and Uncert. in Engrg. Sys., Part B: Mech. Engrg., Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 011008–011008-7.Google Scholar
Ross, T.J. (2017), Fuzzy logic with engineering applications, Engineering professional collection, 4 edition, John Wiley & Sons Inc, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
Sacks, J., Welch, W.J., Mitchell, T.J. and Wynn, H.P. (1989), “Design and Analysis of Computer Experiments”, Statistical Science, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 409–423.Google Scholar
The MathWorks Inc (2018a), Filtering and Smoothing Data. Local Regression Smoothing, Available at: https://www.mathworks.com/help/curvefit/smoothing-data.html (accessed 20 November 2018).Google Scholar
The MathWorks Inc (2018b), Interpolation Methods. About Interpolation Methods, Available at: https://www.mathworks.com/help/curvefit/interpolation-methods.html (accessed 20 November 2018).Google Scholar
The MathWorks Inc (2018c), Polynomial Models. Defining Polynomial Terms for Polynomial Surface Fits, Available at: https://www.mathworks.com/help/curvefit/polynomial.html (accessed 20 November 2018).Google Scholar
VDI/VDE (2011), Computed tomography in dimensional measurement: Guideline for the application of DIN EN ISO 10360 for coordinate measuring machines with CT sensors, ICS 17.040.30, 19.100, 35.240.80 No. VDI/VDE 2630 Part 1.3, Beuth Verlag GmbH, 10772 Berlin.Google Scholar
VDI/VDE (2015), Computed tomography in dimensional measurement: Determination of the uncertainty of measurement and the test process suitability of coordinate measurement systems with CT sensors, ICS 17.040.20, 19.100, 35.240.80 No. VDI/VDE 2630 Part 2.1, Beuth Verlag GmbH, 10772 Berlin.Google Scholar
Volume Graphics GmbH (2018), VGSTUDIO MAX - Produkte - volumegraphics.com.Google Scholar
Wohlgemuth, F., Müller, A.M. and Hausotte, T. (2018), “Development of a virtual metrological CT for numerical measurement uncertainty determination using aRTist 2”, Tm-Technisches Messen, Vol. 85, pp. 728–737.Google Scholar
Zadeh, L.A. (1965), “Fuzzy sets”, Information and Control, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 338–353.Google Scholar