Tolerancing Informatics: Towards Automatic Tolerancing Information Processing in Geometrical Variations Management

Schleich, Benjamin; Anwer, Nabil

doi:10.3390/app11010198

Cited by 9 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 36 publications

(43 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, the one-way approach requires a fixed concept so that interactions between concept design decisions and tolerance specification only become apparent in the case of extensive concept iterations. Finally, the automatic acquisition of the information relevant for tolerance specification (Armillotta 2013) and its representation is also challenging in automated tolerance specification (Schleich & Anwer 2021).…”

Section: Tolerance Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrated approach enabling robust and tolerance design in product concept development

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Along with the ever-increasing customer demands, early consideration of variation in terms of robust design is important to avoid expensive iterations in the product development. However, existing methods are detached from the development process and can therefore only be applied at a late stage or only with comprehensive expert knowledge. Especially in the concept stage, where the geometry of a product is not yet defined and the optimisation potential is high, effective solution proposals for systematic consideration of variation are lacking. Therefore, this paper describes a new integrated approach facilitating robust and tolerance design in the concept stage. The novelty of the approach using ontologies and graph-based visualisation is the close linkage of product development and tolerance knowledge, which allows automation and helps to avoid time- and cost-intensive iteration loops. As a result, a robust and tolerance-compliant concept design, an initial qualitative tolerance specification and instructions for the further tolerancing process are already available at the end of the concept stage. The applicability and the benefits of the approach are illustrated by representative case studies and a user study allowing a critical comparison between the conventional, mostly subjective procedure and the presented approach.

show abstract

Section: Tolerance Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrated approach enabling robust and tolerance design in product concept development

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is underlined in [12] that geometrical variation management strongly relies on the gathering, processing, sharing and disseminating of tolerancing information that still requires many manual efforts and interventions. This paper aims to enable a complete understanding of what constraints are set when the CZ modifier is specified for a particular tolerance indicator and give recommendations for indications that secure univocal specifications.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Geometrical Tolerances—Separate, Combined or Simultaneous?

Humienny

2023

Applied Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The 14 geometrical tolerances defined in ISO 1101 are supplemented by the alphanumerical symbols defined in this standard and some other standards. The symbols CZ (combined zone), SZ (separate zones) and SIM (simultaneous requirement), which are crucial for the development of robust measuring programs for coordinate measuring machines, were introduced at different times or in different standards. It is shown that the symbol definitions are not always complete. Sometimes there are no univocal rules for their use, which, in some cases, leads to ambiguity in the specifications given by a designer. It is also pointed out that certain functional requirements can be controlled by different symbols, and it is not always clear if the indications are equivalent. This makes it difficult to understand and interpret a drawing by a metrologist and, thus, may lead to uncertainty in the assessment of product conformity regarding specifications. The identified ambiguities and problems in the specification of functional requirements are shown in several figures. Corrections and additions to current standards are proposed.

show abstract

“…The role of tolerance information sharing through a product life cycle was carefully analysed in [19], with good remarks on the capability of computer-aided design tools. Particularly, it was stated that currently available CAD systems only partly support rulebased tolerance specifications and processing of tolerancing information is performed with many manual interventions.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Particularly, it was stated that currently available CAD systems only partly support rulebased tolerance specifications and processing of tolerancing information is performed with many manual interventions. Most advanced CAD systems allow for checking, taking into account the particular tolerance system [19]. Currently, a user can select the ISO GPS system or ASME Y14.5 standard, but switching from one tolerance system to another will not update specified tolerance indications according to the selected system.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Can ISO GPS and ASME Tolerancing Systems Define the Same Functional Requirements?

Humienny

2021

Applied Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Geometrical tolerances are defined in the ISO Geometrical Product Specification system that is used worldwide, but on the other hand, the ASME Y14.5 standard is used in American companies to define how far actual parts may be away from their nominal geometry. This paper aimed to investigate whether specifications defining acceptable geometrical deviations in one system can be transformed to specifications in the other system. Twelve selected cases are discussed in the paper. Particularly, two cases of size tolerance, three cases of form tolerances, one case of orientation tolerance, four cases of position tolerance (including position tolerance with MMR for the pattern of five holes) and, finally, two cases of surface profile tolerance (unequally disposed tolerance zone and dynamic profile tolerance). The issue is not only in the several different symbols and a set of different defaults, but also in the different meanings and different application contexts of some symbols that have the same graphical form. The answer to the question raised in the paper title is yes for the majority of indications specified according to ASME Y14.5 when new tools from the 2017 edition of ISO 1101 are applied.

show abstract

Tolerancing Informatics: Towards Automatic Tolerancing Information Processing in Geometrical Variations Management

Cited by 9 publications

References 36 publications

Integrated approach enabling robust and tolerance design in product concept development

Integrated approach enabling robust and tolerance design in product concept development

Geometrical Tolerances—Separate, Combined or Simultaneous?

Can ISO GPS and ASME Tolerancing Systems Define the Same Functional Requirements?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About