musa rami adnan
Post on 30-May-2018
219 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/14/2019 Musa Rami Adnan
1/83
UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI
_____________ , 20 _____
I,______________________________________________,
hereby submit this as part of the requirements for the
degree of:
________________________________________________
in:
________________________________________________
It is entitled:
________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________
Approved by:
________________________________________________
________________________
________________________
________________________
August 30th 03
Rami A. Musa
Master's of Science
Industrial Engineering
Simulation-Based Tolerance Stackup
Analysis for Machining
Dr. Samuel Huang (Chair)
Dr. Richard Shell
Dr. Sam Anand
-
8/14/2019 Musa Rami Adnan
2/83
Simulation-Based Tolerance Stackup Analysis in Machining
A thesis draft submitted to the
Division of Research and Advanced Studies
of the University of Cincinnati
in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
In Industrial Engineering
in the department of Mechanical, Industrial and Nuclear Engineering
of the College of Engineering
August, 2003
by
Rami A. Musa
Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering
Jordan University of Science and Technology, 1999
Committee Chair: Dr. Samuel H. Huang
-
8/14/2019 Musa Rami Adnan
3/83
I
Abstract
Dimensional and geometric tolerance can result from either process variation and/or process
stackup tolerance. Tolerance stackup (accumulation) is an important topic in machining that
is interrelated with tolerance control, tolerance allocation and setup planning. During
machining operations of a part, tolerance stackup is inevitable most of the time. Therefore,
tolerance stackup must be studied accurately and efficiently. In spite of this, traditional
methods for analyzing stackup (statistical and worst-case methods) have some drawbacks that
reduce their accuracies. These drawbacks are discussed in details. This study presents a novel
method for analyzing tolerance stackup in three dimensional-space by simulating machining
and inspection process using Monte Carlo simulation along with major manufacturing errors.
It overcomes the argued drawbacks in the traditional methods. Further, it is proved that both
the statistical and worst-case methods are conservative compared to the proposed one.
Therefore, simulation-based tolerance stackup analysis is more cost-effective as it gives more
chances to accept process plans that are usually precluded using the traditional ones. Three
illustrative examples are presented to compare the results of the simulation with the
traditional methods.
-
8/14/2019 Musa Rami Adnan
4/83
II
-
8/14/2019 Musa Rami Adnan
5/83
III
Acknowledgments
First of all, I wish to offer my sincerest gratitude to my advisor; Dr. Samuel Huang who was
an outstanding advisor in all measures during my work with him. His professionalism,
knowledge and keenness inspired and taught me a lot.
True thanks to Dr. Sam Anand and Dr. Richard Shell for serving as committee members in
my thesis defense, words of encouragement and appraising my effort. Also, I would love to
thank and recognize my friends: Mohammad Hamdan, Mohammad Younis and Zain Dewaik,
who introduced and encouraged me all the way to go for my graduate study. Also, I would
like to extend my thanks to my colleague and friend Anshum Jain who contributed
significantly in conducting the experiment. Most prominently, my deepest gratefulness is to
my family for their encouragement and support. I always felt I am the luckiest person in the
world to have such a family; my late father, my loving mother and my brothers: Naji and
Husam.
This work has been gratefully sponsored by the National Science Foundation and thankfully
collaborated with Delphi Automotive Systems in Dayton, Ohio.
-
8/14/2019 Musa Rami Adnan
6/83
1
Contents
1. INTRODUCTION 6
1.1BACKGROUND AND MOTIVATION 6
1.2OBJECTIVES OF THE RESEARCH 12
1.3THESIS ORGANIZATION 13
2. LITERATURE REVIEW 14
2.1BASIC CONCEPTS 14
2.2TOLERANCE STACKUP;DEFINITION AND APPLICATIONS 18
2.3TRADITIONAL ANALYTICAL TOLERANCE STACKUP ANALYSES 20
2.3.1WORST-CASE ANALYSIS 22
2.3.2STATISTICAL ANALYSIS 22
2.4TOLERANCE CHART 23
3. SIMULATION-BASED TOLERANCE STACKUP ANALYSIS 25
3.1SIMULATION ARCHITECTURE 25
3.1.1MONTE CARLO SIMULATION 29
3.1.3MANUFACTURING ERRORS 30
3.1.3.1ERRORCATEGORIES 30
3.1.3.2MACHINING ERROR(CUTTING TOOL DEVIATION) 34
3.1.3.3LOCATING/CLAMPING DEVIATION (FIXTURE UNIT ERROR) 35
3.1.3.4RAW PART ERROR 35
3.1.5ERRORSYNTHESIS (AGGREGATION) 35
3.2VIRTUAL INSPECTION 36
-
8/14/2019 Musa Rami Adnan
7/83
2
3.2.1DATUM EVALUATION 36
3.2.2EVALUATION ALGORITHMS FORGD&T 41
3.3SAMPLE PLAN 43
3.4STOPPING (TERMINATING)CRITERIA 45
4. MANUFACTURING ERROR EVALUATION 48
4.1MACHINING ERROREVALUATION 48
4.2LOCATING/CLAMPING ERROR(FIXTURE UNIT ERROR)EVALUATION 51
4.3RAW PART ERROREVALUATION ALGORITHM 54
5. ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES 58
5.1.EXAMPLE 1:TWO MACHINING OPERATIONS (WITHIN ONE SETUP) 58
5.2.EXAMPLE 2:FOURMACHINING OPERATIONS (IN THREE SETUPS) 60
5.3.EXAMPLE 3:ABS PART 61
6. CONCLUDING REMARKS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 68
6.1SUMMARY 68
6.2RECOMMENDATIONS FORFUTURE WORKS 69
BIBLIOGRAPHY 71
-
8/14/2019 Musa Rami Adnan
8/83
3
List of Figures
Figure 1-1: One way clutch mechanism [Chase, Gao and Magleby (1994)].............................8
Figure 1-2: One way clutch mechanism vector loop [Chase, Gao and Magleby (1994)] .........8
Figure 1-3: 1-D assembly mechanism [Law (1995)] ...............................................................10
Figure 1-4: 2-D Closed vector loop for one way clutch mechanism [Chase, Gao and Magleby
(1991)]..............................................................................................................................10
Figure 1-5: 3-D Closed vector loop for crank slider mechanism [Chase, Gao and Magleby
(1991)]..............................................................................................................................10
Figure 1-6: Ideal process condition..........................................................................................13
Figure 2-1: With Cp=1, only 2700 part per million (PPM) defects are expected ....................17
Figure 2-2: Mean drift in processes .........................................................................................17
Figure 2-3: Typical setup planning approach ..........................................................................20
Figure 2-4: Dimension Chain of c, 2 links, 1D........................................................................21
Figure 2-5: Dimension Chain of c, 4 links, 1D........................................................................21
Figure 2-6: Example of tolerance chart [Xue and Ji (2002)] ...................................................24
Figure 3-1: Part representation by sample points ....................................................................26
Figure 3-2: System Architecture ..............................................................................................26
Figure 3-3: Monte Carlo Simulation (source:
http://www.ymp.gov/documents/ser_b/figures/chap4_2/f04-174.htm)...........................30
Figure 3-4: Error models used in this study.............................................................................33
Figure 3-5: Setup Error ............................................................................................................34
Figure 3-6: Combined effects of setup and machining errors..................................................34
Figure 3-7: Translated least-squares approach ........................................................................37
Figure 3-8: Candidate datum set approach ..............................................................................39
Figure 3-9: 2-D projection of the convex hull [Wilhelm (1998)]............................................40
-
8/14/2019 Musa Rami Adnan
9/83
4
Figure 3-10: Non-rejected datum [Wilhelm (1998)] ...............................................................40
Figure 3-11: Sample points located in a square feature using different approaches ...............45
Figure 3-12: Sample point locations using random and low-discrepancy methods [Davis and
Martin (1998)]..................................................................................................................45
Figure 3-13: Benchmarked results at 1 billion iterations [Cvetko, Chase and Magleby (1998)]
..........................................................................................................................................47
Figure 4-1: Dial Indicator measuring machined surface..........................................................50
Figure 4-2: Fixture Unit with the workpiece ...........................................................................52
Figure 4-3: Part Surfaces .........................................................................................................53
Figure 4-4: Coordinate measuring machine (CMM)...............................................................56
Figure 4-5: Fixture unit with CMM probe...............................................................................56
Figure 5-1: Example 1 (design requirements and the machining sequence) ...........................58
Figure 5-2: Example 1 results ..................................................................................................60
Figure 5-3: Example 2 (design requirements...........................................................................61
Figure 5-4: Example 2 output (The simulation output for the distributions of the distances
between surfaces).............................................................................................................61
Figure 5-5: Example 3; ABS (Antiblock System) housing, Bosch (Source:
http://www.wzl.rwth-aachen.de/WM/SIMON/deliverables/DA0/DA0_02D.htm).........62
Figure 5-6: ABS dimensional requirements ............................................................................62
Figure 5-7: ABS part setup plan ..............................................................................................64
Figure 5-8: Tolerance Chart of ABS part ................................................................................65
Figure 5-9: Dimensions histogram using simulation...............................................................66
Figure 5-10: Progress of results with sample size increase .....................................................66
Figure 5-11: Rejection areas comparison when allocating concluding links tolerance using
worst case, statistical and simulation methods ................................................................67
-
8/14/2019 Musa Rami Adnan
10/83
5
List of Tables
Table 2-1: Geometric Tolerances (ASME Y14.5M-1994)......................................................16
Table 3-1: Manufacturing Error Classification........................................................................31
Table 3-2: Manufacturing Error Models..................................................................................32
Table 3-3: Recommended sample size for different geometries [Henzold (1995)].................44
Table 4-1: Data Collection.......................................................................................................49
Table 4-2: Machining Error Data.............................................................................................50
Table 4-3: Data Collection.......................................................................................................54
Table 4-4: Variance comparison between simulation and experiment for smooth part ..........57
Table 4-5: Variance comparison between simulation and experiment for a rough part..........57
Table 5-1: Tolerance stackup evaluation comparison for example 1 ......................................60
Table 5-2: Tolerance analysis results for example 2 ...............................................................61
Table 5-3: Simulation results at 100,000 iterations .................................................................63
Table 5-4: Tolerance evaluation using the three approaches...................................................64
Table 5-5: Part per million (PPM) rejections comparison when allocating tolerance using
worst case, statistical and simulation methods ................................................................67
-
8/14/2019 Musa Rami Adnan
11/83
6
1.Introduction
1.1 Background and Motivation
Tolerance is a common arguing point between design and manufacturing. Design engineer
tends to tighten the tolerance to meet functional requirements whereas production engineer
tends to loosen (relax) it to satisfy resource availability. Nevertheless, the most important
factor to be considered is the cost. Cost increases hysterically by tightening the tolerance.
However, since tolerance is inevitable as it is impossible to have perfectly accurate
machining, raw part, fixture unit and measurement machine, it has to be compromised by
different departments in the companies. Obviously, tolerance problem is kind of promoter for
concurrent engineering work among organization departments; namely: design,
manufacturing, customer service and management.
One serious problem in process planning is that some good plans (plans that lead to design
requirement satisfaction) could be rejected and some bad plans could be accepted due to
inaccurate traditional methods of evaluating tolerance stackup. Tolerance stackup can be
defined as the accumulation (or stackup) of errors when machining a part using different
operational datum than the ones specified in the blueprints. The two traditional methods used
nowadays to analyze tolerance stackup in machining are: worst-case and statistical methods.
These methods are believed to have major drawbacks that reduce the accuracy of tolerance
stackup evaluation. These drawbacks are:
1. Worst-case is exaggeratedly pessimistic in calculating tolerance stackup.2. Statistical analysis assumes independency between dimensions. Further, statistical
analysis assumes that the contributing links are normally distributed.
-
8/14/2019 Musa Rami Adnan
12/83
7
3. Tolerance stack between features is preformed in one dimension; which does notrepresent the actual three-dimensional features of interest. 3-D simulation must be the
driving force behind the entire dimensional management process [Craig (1996)].
4. Manufacturing errors are not taken into account.5. Geometric tolerance stackup cannot be estimated. The stackup of geometric tolerance
was usually ignored [Lin and Zhang (2002)].
Additionally, we found that both of the traditional methods evaluate tolerance stackup
conservatively. In this work we developed a more accurate method for evaluating tolerance
stackup in machining that can lead to more cost-effective (less conservative) and/or less
tighter plans. Our method overcomes the above-mentioned drawbacks by simulating
machining and inspection processes along with major manufacturing errors using Monte
Carlo simulation. It will be shown in chapter 5 (illustrative example 3) that using our method
for stackup evaluation will result in much less rejects expectations per million parts compared
to the traditional methods using the same resources.
Machining Tolerance Stackup vs. Assembly Tolerance Stackup
Some research works have been done in assembly tolerance stackup using Monte Carlo
simulation in the literature. Although this seems quite close to our work here in tolerance
stackup for machining, there are exclusive differences between the two problems, their
formulations and applications. Component (part) and assembly designs are the two major
tasks in any design department. Component design provides a single component drawing that
include dimensions; and dimensional and geometric tolerances. Some examples of
components are: shaft, gear, pulley, etc. However, it is unlikely to have a component
functioning alone as there is a need to assemble it with other components. Assembly design
-
8/14/2019 Musa Rami Adnan
13/83
8
studies the suitability of two or more components to meet machine functions. When
assembling parts together, there should be some manufacturing variation in the part that will
cause assembly tolerance stackup. Figures 1-1 and 1-2 show an example of an assembled one
way-clutch mechanism. The mechanism consists of: four rollers, a hub, four springs and an
outer ring. The objective of the tolerance analysis here is to study the effect of manufacturing
errors in component dimensions (a, e, c) on assembly dependent dimensions ( b,1 ).
Figure 1-1: One way clutch mechanism
[Chase, Gao and Magleby (1994)]
Figure 1-2: One way clutch
mechanism vector loop [Chase, Gao
and Magleby (1994)]
This problem has been studied extensively by Chase, Magleby and Gao in Brigham Young
University. They developed computer software (CATS) that applies their methods in
assembly tolerance analysis. Another system has been developed by Variation System
Analysis (VSA).
The first step in evaluating assembly tolerance stackup in the literature is to find an explicit
function of the dimension (tolerance) to be controlled in terms of the other components using
-
8/14/2019 Musa Rami Adnan
14/83
9
trigonometric functions. The following are the explicit functions of the assembly dimensions
for the mechanism shown in figure 1-2 [Gao, Chase and Magleby (1997)]:
)(cos1
1ceca
+= (1.1)
22 )()( caceb ++= (1.2)
Some assembly tolerance stackup methods in the literature that assumes the availability of
explicit assembly functions are [Gao, Chase and Magleby (1997)]:
1. Linearization of the assembly function using Taylor series expansion,
2. Method of system moments,
3. Quadrature,
4. Monte Carlo simulation,
5. Reliability index,
6. Taguchi method.
Normally, it is very hard or even impossible to get explicit assembly equations for a typical
assembly mechanism. Vector-loop-based assembly models use vectors to represent the
dimensions in an assembly that can be used to find a set ofimplicit assembly equations.
Figures 1-3, 1-5 and 1-6 show examples of closed vector loops for 1-D, 2-D and 3-D
mechanisms.
-
8/14/2019 Musa Rami Adnan
15/83
10
Figure 1-3: 1-D assembly
mechanism [Law (1995)]
Figure 1-4: 2-D Closed vector
loop for one way clutch
mechanism [Chase, Gao and
Magleby (1991)]
Figure 1-5: 3-D Closed vector
loop for crank slider mechanism
[Chase, Gao and Magleby (1991)]
The following are the governing assembly equations for the closed loop one-way-clutch
shown in figure 1-2 [Gao, Chase and Magleby (1997)]:
2121
11
11
901809090900
)cos()cos(0
)sin()sin(0
+=+++==
++==
+==
h
eccah
ecbh
y
x
(1.3)
From the third equation in the previous set of equations (1.3), it can be seen that == 21 .
This reduces the equations into two as follows [Gao, Chase and Magleby (1997)]:
)cos()cos(0
)sin()sin(0
++==
+==
eccah
ecbh
y
x(1.4)
It is apparent that it is very difficult to convert these equations into explicit form. The main
two methods available in the literature to solve this problem for implicit assembly functions
are:Direct Linearization Method(DLM) and Monte Carlo Simulation. First order Taylor
-
8/14/2019 Musa Rami Adnan
16/83
11
series linearizes the assembly constraints in DLM to have a set of linear simultaneous
equations and then linear algebra is used to solve them. Afterwards, assembly tolerance
stackup are estimated using statistical or worst case methods. Monte Carlo simulation method
includes the following steps: (1) generate random variates for each variable in the assembly
constraints (2) Select appropriate nonlinear solvers to solve the constraints (3) fit the output
numbers with a distribution and get its parameters (first four moments: mean, variance,
skewness and kurtosis.) Chase, Gao and Magleby use Crystal Ballsoftware to solve the
problem. Crystal Ball is spreadsheet Monte Carlo Simulation software that can solve implicit
nonlinear simultaneous equations.
Gao, Chase and Magleby (1995) made a comparison between the two methods. It turned out
that the concern regarding the DLM is the accuracy and the concern regarding the Monte
Carlo simulation is the huge number of iterations needed to solve the problem.
Noteworthy, the following are the differences between using Monte Carlo simulation for
machining tolerance stackup analysis [Musa and Huang (2003)] and assembly tolerance
stackup analysis [Chase, Gao and Magleby]:
(1)Method. Machining tolerance stackup analysis simulates manufacturing variationswhereas assembly tolerance analysis simulates component variations because of
manufacturing variations. The two analyses are close in the sense that we are trying to
maintain a tolerance for a critical componentin the case of assembly tolerance
analysis and a concluding linkin the case of Part tolerance analysis.
(2)Objective. The objective of assembly tolerance analysis is to assign tolerances for allthe assembly components to maintain a specific tolerance for a critical component
whereas the objective of machining tolerance stackup analysis is to evaluate the
-
8/14/2019 Musa Rami Adnan
17/83
12
goodness of a process plan and/or assign proper contributing link tolerances
(increasing and decreasing links) to maintain concluding link tolerance.
(3)Sequence. Assembly tolerance analysis comes after machining tolerance stackupanalysis.
(4)Independence. It is safe to say that mechanical components variations areindependent which is not the case for machined features in machining.
1.2 Objectives of the Research
Improving quality and reducing cycle time and cost are the main objectives for competitive
manufacturing these days. In other words, achieving minimum tolerance possible using the
available resources, reducing trial and error procedures and taking economical issues into
consideration can lead to the ideal process which all industries aim at (figure 1-6). These
objectives can be achieved partially by effectively controlling the tolerance in manufacturing.
Tolerance control involves controlling the tolerance stackup via proper choices of processes,
process sequence, and locating datums.
The objective of this study is to present a novel, less conservative and more accurate
evaluation method of tolerance stackup compared to the existed analytical ones (worst case
and statistical methods) in the literature. This method is based on simulating machining and
inspection process using Monte Carlo simulation along with major manufacturing errors.
-
8/14/2019 Musa Rami Adnan
18/83
13
IDEAL PROCESS
TIGHTEST
TOLERANCE
POSSIBLE
ITERATIVE
DESIGN/
MANUFACTURE
AVOIDANCE
ECONOMICALLY
FEASIBLE
Figure 1-6: Ideal process condition
1.3 Thesis Organization
The thesis is divided into six chapters. It starts in chapter 1 with the introduction that explores
background of the problem, motivation and objectives of the work. Then, chapter 2 reviews
some basic concepts and terms that are commonly used in later chapters and discusses the
problem of tolerance stackup by defining it, presents the traditional analytical methods
available in the literature and discusses tolerance chart method. Monte Carlo simulation
based tolerance stackup method is described in chapter 3; in which simulation architecture,
manufacturing error categories and models, sample plan and stopping criteria for the
simulation are illustrated. Afterwards, experiment procedures, requirements and algorithms
for evaluating: machining, fixture unit and raw part errors are outlined in chapter 4. In
chapter 5, three illustrative examples are demonstrated and solved using the proposed method
and comparisons are made between the traditional methods and the proposed one. Finally,
concluding remarks and future work comments are addressed in chapter 6.
-
8/14/2019 Musa Rami Adnan
19/83
14
2.Literature Review2.1 Basic Concepts
The following are some commonly-used terms and concepts in this thesis:
Feature: Any surface in the machined part (e.g. hole, slot, boss, tab).
Datum: It is a reference feature for machining and measurement.
Dimension: Dimension is the representation of feature size or its location.
Tolerance: The permissible amount of variability in geometry.Limit of size andplus-minus
tolerances are two methods used to specify tolerances. Limit of size means that an upper and
lower limit are given for a specific dimension. As for plus-minus tolerance, a nominal (target
value) followed by a plus-minus expression of a tolerance [Krolikowski (1998)].
Setup: The state of locating and clamping workpiece to be machined.
Fixture unit: A unit that is used to constrain the workpiece from movement during machining.
Size tolerancing (coordinate dimensioning and tolerancing) used to be the only approach for
dimensioning and tolerancing. In this approach, the dimension and its tolerance are
represented by the distance and its variation between two features or points. Although this
approach was found to be successful for many design cases, there were major shortcomings.
These shortcomings showed up because of the increased demand and need for high quality
products. The three main shortcomings are [Krolikowski (1998)]:
1. Coordinate dimensioning does not provide a clear relation between design,manufacturing and inspection, which could result in different interpretation in
manufacturing and inspecting a part.
2. It does not represent the tolerance zones properly in some cases. An example is thatfor a cylindrical feature, the tolerance zone is rectangular.
-
8/14/2019 Musa Rami Adnan
20/83
15
3. The functional requirements (e.g. assembly) in manufacturing the part are not valid.This is because that the tolerance zone is fixed in size.
In order to remedy these shortcomings when using coordinate tolerancing, long written
comments have to be provided in the design drawings. More practically, Geometric
Dimensioning and Tolerancing(GD&T; ASME Y14.5M-1994) can be used and can solve all
the shortcomings efficiently by:
1. Obtaining clear instructions for inspection and manufacturing (by using the datumconcept).
2. Tolerance zone geometries can be rectangular, circular or cylindrical.3. Providing clear functional requirements of manufacturing a part by using material
condition modifiers (Maximum Material Condition (MMC), Least Material Condition
(LMC), and Regardless of Feature Size (RFS)).
Geometric tolerances include fourteen types of tolerances that are usually categorized into
five categories; namely: form, orientation, profile, location and runout. Form tolerances
include: flatness, straightness, cylindricity and circularity (roundness). Orientation tolerances
include: parallelism, angularity and perpendicularity. Profile includes: profile of a line and
profile of a surface. Runout tolerances include: circular runout and total runout. Finally,
location tolerances include: position, symmetry and concentricity. They can be further
classified into datum-dependent and datum-independent tolerances. Table 2-1 depicts all the
geometric tolerances, their symbols and their dependencies on datum.
-
8/14/2019 Musa Rami Adnan
21/83
16
Table 2-1: Geometric Tolerances (ASME Y14.5M-1994)
Category Characteristic Symbol Datum Dependency
FlatnessStraightness
CylindricityForm
Roundness
Never
Parallelism
AngularityOrientation
Perpendicularity
Always
Profile of a line
Profile Profile of a surfaceSometimes
Position
SymmetryLocation
Concentricity
Always
Circular runoutRunout
Total runoutAlways
Process Capability: The process is considered capable if the process variability is equal or
less than the design specification (tolerance). Usually, it is represented by the Cp index which
is the ratio of design specifications (tolerance, T) to the process variability (6).
66
LSLUSLTCp
== (2.1)
The USL and LSL are the upper and lower specification limits. Referring to figure 2-1,
considering the design tolerance equals to 6 (Cp=1) implies that we are satisfied with about
2700 PPM rejects. Nevertheless, Cp index assumes that the process does not drift from the
mean (refer to figure 2-2). Six sigma quality strategy (developed by Motorola in 1980s)
-
8/14/2019 Musa Rami Adnan
22/83
-
8/14/2019 Musa Rami Adnan
23/83
18
2.2 Tolerance Stackup; Definition and Applications
In general, tolerance results from bothprocess tolerance and the tolerance stackup
[Whybrew and Britton (1997)]. The latter is the accumulation (buildup) of error (tolerance) in
a dimension between features resulting from taking operational datums that are different from
the ones indicated in the design specifications. In other words, if the datum indicated in the
design drawings is the one used for locating and clamping, then a stackup-free dimension will
result and there will be no tolerance stackup in this specific dimension. Consequently,
tolerance analysis and tolerance control will not be necessary since the tolerance will depend
solely on the process capability [Huang (1995)]. However, in practice, due to economic
reasons and resource constraints, design datums are not always used as locating and clamping
datums. Therefore, some of the blueprint dimensions will be machined indirectly. Hence, in
most cases tolerance stackup is inevitable.
The way of machining a part determines the stackup in a dimension. There are three main
approaches for machining a part:
1. Chain machining(point-to-point machining): In this approach, the current machined
surface is used as a datum to machine the next surface. This will result in thegreatest
accumulation of tolerance.
2.Base-line: This is how parts are machined in a single setup using NC machines. In this
approach, the operational datum is fixed (zeroed) by the coordinate system in the NC
machine for each machining cut. Using this approach decreases the tolerance stackup.
3. Mixed of chain machining and base-line: This happens when parts are machined in
multiple setups.
-
8/14/2019 Musa Rami Adnan
24/83
19
Tolerance allocation is a crucial step in setup planning. Figure 2-3 shows a typical approach
for designing a setup plan. It can be seen that tolerance stackup analysis and tolerance
allocation play important roles in setup planning. Thus, tolerance stackup behavior needs to
be studied carefully and analyzed accurately in order to generate cost-effective setup plans.
During the setup planning, in order to maintain the required tolerances provided in the
blueprints, proper choices of the contributing ones (increasing and decreasing tolerances)
must be made. Achieving this with simulation is possible if we think of the problem in an
opposite way. Rather than providing tolerances for the contributing tolerances to get the
concluding one, the required (concluding) tolerance is provided in order to get tolerances of
contributing ones. Simulation can be run a number of times for a range of the modeled
manufacturing error values to find what the tolerance for each case. A more general
application of this simulation is automating setup planning (tolerance allocation is part of
setup planning). Setup planning can be defined as the act of preparing instructions to machine
a part. Decisions usually taken by the setup planner are: proper datums, machined surfaces,
operations and sequence of operations. The input of the problem is: design requirements and
available resources (tools, machines and fixtures). Essentially, this is an optimization problem
that aims at decreasing: cost and tolerance stackup. Tolerance stackup is part of the cost of
material removal operation. Simulation can be used here to check the goodness of a given
setup plan by examining if the proposed plan leads to acceptable tolerances or not.
-
8/14/2019 Musa Rami Adnan
25/83
20
Setup Plan
- Setup formation
- Datum selection
- Setup sequences
ToleranceStackup Analysis
ProcessTolerance
Analysis
Tolerance
Allocation
Feasible?
Feasible
UnconstrainedPlans
Constrained
Optimization
Optimal Setup
Plan
Yes
No
Figure 2-3: Typical setup planning approach
2.3 Traditional Analytical Tolerance Stackup Analyses
The general relation of a distance in the x, y and z space can be expressed as following [Lin
and Zhang (2001)]:
),,( kji zyxfd= (2.3)
Where:
xi: (i=1,,l) the component dimensions in the X-axis.
yi: (j=1,,m) the component dimension in the Y-axis.
zk: (k=1,,n) the component dimension in the Z-axis.
-
8/14/2019 Musa Rami Adnan
26/83
21
Dimensionchain (sometimes called tolerance chain) is a closed loop of interrelated
dimensions. It consists of increasing, decreasing links and a single concluding link. In figures
2-4 and 2-5, linki is the increasing link, dis a decreasing linkand c is the concluding link.
Apparently, the concluding link c is the one whose tolerance is of interest and which is
produced indirectly. Increasing and decreasing links (both called contributing links) are the
ones that by increasing them, concluding link increases and decreases; respectively.
c
i
d
Operational datum
Machined surface
Figure 2-4: Dimension Chain of c, 2 links, 1DFigure 2-5: Dimension Chain of c, 4 links, 1D
The equation for evaluating the concluding link dimension is [Lin and Zhang (2001)]:
==
=m
k
k
l
j
j dic11
(2.4)
Where:
i: The summation of the increasing link dimensions.
d: The summation of the decreasing link dimensions.
j: increasing links index.
k: decreasing links index.
l: number of increasing links.
-
8/14/2019 Musa Rami Adnan
27/83
22
m: number of decreasing links.
For figure 2-4, c can be found as:
dic = (2.5)
As for chain in figure 2-5, c can be found as:
)()( 2121 ddiic ++= (2.6)
2.3.1 Worst-Case Analysis
In worst-case method, the concluding dimensions tolerance c can be found as following:
==
+
=
m
k
k
k
l
j
j
j
dd
ci
i
cc
11
|||| (2.7)
Referring to figure 2-5 and equations (2.6 and 2.7), the deviation of the concluding link is:
2121 ddiic +++= (2.8)
2.3.2 Statistical Analysis
In statistical method, the concluding dimensions tolerance c can be found as following:
==
+
=
m
k
k
k
l
j
j
j
dd
ci
i
cc
1
2
1
2 )()( (2.9)
Here, the tolerance is considered as the difference between two or more independentrandom
variables (links) which is calculated by adding variances up. Referring to figure 2-5 and
equations (2.5 and 2.9), the deviation of the concluding link c is given by:
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
1 )()()()( ddiic +++= (2.10)
-
8/14/2019 Musa Rami Adnan
28/83
-
8/14/2019 Musa Rami Adnan
29/83
24
of the chart) with the design requirements (blueprints). Process plan here satisfies the design
requirements as it can achieve the dimensions and tolerances sought.
Figure 2-6: Example of tolerance chart [Xue and Ji (2002)]
-
8/14/2019 Musa Rami Adnan
30/83
25
3.Simulation-Based Tolerance Stackup Analysis
3.1 Simulation Architecture
Simulation is defined by Kelton (2002) as a board collection of methods and applications to
mimic the real world behavior. We need to tackle the problem of machining tolerance
stackup by simulating the inspection process, after simulating the machining process in terms
of material removal and manufacturing errors. Since manufacturing errors have random
characteristics that can take any probability distribution function (pdf), Monte Carlo
simulation will be the natural choice to solve this problem.
The idea of this simulation is to represent the features of interest by sample points (Figure 3-1
as an example). Then enough number of parts are then virtually machined according to the
intended material removal and the manufacturing errors and inspected according to the
standard CMM (coordinate measuring machine) inspection procedures by tracking the spatial
changes of the features. For more details about the simulation methodology and its
applications, readers should refer to reference [Liu and Huang (2001)]. Simulation is a proper
choice for this problem since other different types of errors can be incorporated in the model.
Furthermore, simulation is not restricted to normal error distributions only; rather, it can take
any probability distribution function (Normal, Uniform, Weibull, Triangular, etc) depending
on the actual error distribution.
-
8/14/2019 Musa Rami Adnan
31/83
26
Figure 3-1: Part representation by sample points
Figure 3-2 is a flowchart that illustrates the general simulation system architecture we are
using in this study. The components of the flowchart are further explained as follows:
Setup Plan Sample PlanVirtual
Machining
Virtual
InspectionError Modeling
Feasibility?
End
YES
Terminate?Stopping criteria
Yes
NO
NO/setup planenhancement
Verification?
Validation?
NO
YES
NO
YES
Figure 3-2: System Architecture
-
8/14/2019 Musa Rami Adnan
32/83
27
(1) Setup plan
The flowchart starts with a proposed setup plan for machining the part. Setup plan can be
defined as the instructions for machining a part in order to meet the design requirements by
choosing proper: setup formation, datum and operations sequence. The aim of this planning is
to develop the way of machining a part with the minimum cost and the least tolerance stackup
possible.
(2) Sample plan
In order to represent our parts, we use the same concept used in the coordinate metrology by
representing features by sample points in the space. Since manufacturing processes are far
from perfect, there is no way to yield 100% accurate parts. Therefore, we need to make
representative sample points for the features by choosing proper sample size and sample
point locations. This will be discussed more in details in section 3.3.
(3) Error modeling
Since our simulation is based on simulating manufacturing errors, we need to identify the
contributing error sources that shape up the features in the space. In our model, as it will be
shown later, we adopted the following error sources: (a) cutting tool deviation that includes:
workpiece-tool interaction and cutting tool repeatability and (b) setup error that includes:
fixture unit error and raw part inaccuracies. These errors were categorized (section 3.1.3) and
some evaluation procedures were developed in chapter 5 in case they are not available.
(4) Virtual machining
-
8/14/2019 Musa Rami Adnan
33/83
28
Simulation starts from here by considering a virtual part, shaping its form and orientation in
the space by the sample points and keeping track of the changes of feature representation due
to material removals and manufacturing errors.
(5) Stopping criteria
Validity of the Monte Carlo results depends highly of the number of iterations executed.
Unfortunately, if the number of iterations (number of virtual parts here) is not big enough,
overly misleading results will show up. Therefore, there should be some metrics or criteria
that are used to determine the number of iterations (sample size of the virtual part batch) to
achieve certain accuracy. This will be discussed more in details in section 3.4.
(6) Virtual inspection
After collecting enough data (or sample points/dimensions), tolerances can be evaluated
using the standard methods. This usually includes: datum evaluation, dimensional and
geometric tolerance evaluation. This will be discussed more in details in section 3.2.
(7) Verification
It is the task of ensuring that the simulation is modeled properly. It is also known as
debuggingthe model. If a bug was found in the code, a review must be done from the start of
the code in the virtual machining part.
(8) Validation
It is the task of ensuring that the simulation model is close enough to the real world behavior.
This is mainly done by conducting real experiment that make physical machining and
inspection for the same part requirements and setup plan and then checking the closeness of
-
8/14/2019 Musa Rami Adnan
34/83
29
the simulation results with the physical ones. As usual, the closeness can be checked by
making statistical inference tests (t and F tests). If a problem was caught at this stage, a
feedback will be given to the manufacturing error model to make another experiment to
check out the manufacturing errors or to lookup at any existed thing in the database.
(9) Feasibility
Simulation checks if the proposed plan is doable using the available resources and taking into
account the constraints.
3.1.1 Monte Carlo Simulation
Monte Carlo methods are numerical methods used to solve probabilistic and deterministic
problems by taking samples from contributing populations and plugging them in the
governing function of the system. Another definition is [Kalos and Whitlock (1986)]: a
numerical stochastic process; that is, it is a sequence of random events.
Monte Carlo Simulation can be further explained as follows: given input random variables
(X1, X2 XN) with their probability distribution functions (pdfs) and the governing function
that relates them with the output random variable Y=f(X1, X2 XN), approximate behavior of
the output random variable can be found. After enough number of simulation iterations,
distribution of the output random variable can be found (Refer to figure 3-3). Apparently,
increasing number of iterations increases the accuracy of the output. Sample size and point
locations and number of iterations are important parts to be determined when working with
Monte Carlo simulation.
-
8/14/2019 Musa Rami Adnan
35/83
30
Figure 3-3: Monte Carlo Simulation (source: http://www.ymp.gov/documents/ser_b/figures/chap4_2/f04-
174.htm)
3.1.3 Manufacturing Errors
3.1.3.1 Error Categories
Researchers classified manufacturing errors according to different factors (refer to table 3-1).
These factors are:
1. Time. This classification accounts for the error variation with time. Quasi-static errors do
not change considerably (or change slowly) with time such as errors due to dead weights.
Dynamic errors change with time such as cutting tool wear error [Ramesh, Mannan and Poo
(2000)].
2. Randomness. According to this classification, error can be categorized as deterministic
and random errors. Deterministic errors do not have considerable random nature; rather, they
have deterministic dependent output on different independent input parameters such as
-
8/14/2019 Musa Rami Adnan
36/83
31
cutting tool wear. On the other hand, random errors are the ones that change according to
specific probability distribution function (pdf) such as spindle repeatability.
3. Sources of errors. Geometric error sources represent the inaccuracy of surfaces moving
relative to each others. Furthermore, it is believed that it is the biggest contributor in
manufacturing inaccuracy [Ramesh, Mannan and Poo (2000)]. Thermal error accounts for
thermal deformation in the tool because of heat provided by cutting process, machine, people,
thermal memory (from previous environments) and cooling for the coolant. The third major
contributor to inaccuracy of machined part is the cutting-force induced errors that come from
the dynamic stiffness of all components of the machine tool.
4. Errors influence on geometric positions. This classification takes into account the effect
of the error on the finished part. Locating error accounts for the variation between the ideal
datum and the one after locating and clamping. And machining error accounts for the
variation between the ideal position of the machine tool and the actual one [Lin and Zhang
(2001); Huang (1995); Lin, Wang and Zhang (1997)]. This is the classification we adopted in
our model here.
Table 3-1: Manufacturing Error Classification
Factor Categories
Time- Quasi-static
- Dynamic
Randomness - Deterministic- Random
Sources of errors- Geometric
- Thermal- Cutting force-induced
Errors influence on geometricpositions
- Machining (Machine motion
error)- Fixture (Setup error)
-
8/14/2019 Musa Rami Adnan
37/83
-
8/14/2019 Musa Rami Adnan
38/83
33
Since the final dimension is either related to one or two features, it is good enough to
consider errors existed in the features of interest. Generally, it is safe to say that
manufacturing inaccuracy can be owed only to two factors; that are: (1) cutting tool deviation
from its theoretical (ideal) path and/or (2) Setup errordue to locating, clamping and raw part
inaccuracy. In this thesis, sometimes cutting tool deviation is called machining error (3.1.3.2)
while setup error is sometimes called workpiece error. Setup error can be further divided into
locating/clamping error (3.1.3.3) and raw part error (3.1.3.4). Also, machining error can be
further divided into: cutting tool repeatability and tool-workpiece interaction (refer to figure
3-4).
Dimensional tolerance and most of the geometric tolerances are datum-related. Some of the
geometric tolerances are not datum-related as shown in table 2-1. In the case of datum-
unrelated tolerances (such as flatness, straightness, etc.), cutting tool deviation is enough to
consider whereas in the case of datum-related tolerances (such as dimensional tolerance,
angularity, etc.), cutting tool deviation and setup error must be both considered.
Error Models
Cutting Tool
Deviation
(Machining Error)
Setup Error
(Workpiece Error)
RepeatabilityTool-Workpiece
InteractionFixture Unit Error Raw Part Error
Figure 3-4: Error models used in this study
-
8/14/2019 Musa Rami Adnan
39/83
34
Figures 3-5 and 3-6 depict setup and machining errors effects on the cutting process.
Referring to figure 3-5, workpiece coordinate system (WCS) deviation from the machine
coordinate system (MCS) causes removing material we do not intend to cut and avoiding
material removal we intend to cut. The inclination in the machined surface shown in figure 3-
6 is caused by the setup error whereas machined surface irregularities represent machining
error effect.
Figure 3-5: Setup ErrorFigure 3-6: Combined effects of setup and
machining errors
3.1.3.2 Machining Error (Cutting Tool Deviation)
This error accounts for cutting tool path deviation from its idea path. It is assumed in this
study that the deviation is limited to z-coordinate deviation as the cutting tool must travel in
parallel paths. Although, this assumption is valid for prismatic and rotational parts machining,
it is not valid for free-form (sculptured) part machining. This error can be further divided into:
cutting tool repeatability and tool-workpiece interaction error. In this work, we only
considered the tool-workpiece interaction error since the repeatability error is usually
negligible compared to the tool-workpiece interaction error.
-
8/14/2019 Musa Rami Adnan
40/83
35
3.1.3.3 Locating/Clamping Deviation (Fixture Unit Error)
This error accounts for surface in the workpiece deviation from its ideal location due to
clamping and locating. It can be represented by six parameters; namely: translation in x, y
and z and rotation around x, y and z. It is one of the contributors to the setup error.
3.1.3.4 Raw Part Error
Raw part error accounts for part datum inaccuracy contribution to setup error. Part
inaccuracy is represented in our study by the flatness values of the primary, secondary and
tertiary datums. Raw part error and locating/clamping error together establish the setup error.
It can be represented by six parameters; namely: translation in x, y and z and rotation around
x, y and z.
3.1.5 Error Synthesis (Aggregation)
Although, there is a great amount in the literature about machining error modeling and its
compensation, very few researchers attacked the problem of synthesizing the error sources
for multi-operation machining in order to predict the quality of the finished part. This is
because of the complexity of the problem. Yao et al. (2002) developed a desktop virtual-
reality approach to represent the machining and measurement processes by including some
machining error sources in the model. Huang, Zhou and Shi (2002) studied the same problem
-
8/14/2019 Musa Rami Adnan
41/83
36
analytically to determine root-causes of machined part inaccuracy. We argue here about the
need of Monte Carlo simulation use to solve this problem. [Liu and Huang (2001)] presents
the use of Monte Carlo simulation for dimensional accuracy prediction.
3.2 Virtual Inspection
Standardizing and developing accurate methods for evaluation tolerances and datums are
very important. Since different interpretations for the same data can result in different results,
standardizing is so important. Choosing accurate methods for evaluation is important because
if the method is not accurate enough, some good parts can be rejected and some bad parts can
be accepted. It was mentioned previously that tolerance can be categorized into datum-
dependent and datum-independent tolerances. Datum-dependent tolerances evaluation (such
as profile, runout, parallelism, etc) must include datum evaluation. The next two sections
present standard methods to evaluate tolerances when discrete data points for the machined
surface and/or the datum are available.
3.2.1 Datum Evaluation
It is an important task to evaluate the datum in order to find the tolerances related to this
datum. Generally, there are two approaches for evaluating the datum. These approaches are
presented and summarized in [Wilhelm et al. (1996 and1998)] as the following:
-
8/14/2019 Musa Rami Adnan
42/83
37
Least squares (LS) approach: In this method, all the sampled points on a surface (datum)
found by the CMM are fitted and then the fitted plane is translated parallelly to the outmost
point from the material. This method is defined by ISO/WD 5459-3 as the following:
Location of the datum is defined for planar datums as the plane which is parallel to the least
squares plane and contains the extreme point of the extracted datum feature as measured
from the least squares associated line of the hill in the direction of the outward normal from
the material.
A procedural interpretation of this definition is as the following [Wilhelm et al. (1996, 1998)]
(refer to figure 3-7):
1. Form the 3D convex hull from the given points.2. For vertices on the convex hull which are on the surface of the datum feature, not
within the material of the workpiece, fit a least squares plane. These points are the
ones notified by rectangles in figure 3-7.
3. Translate the least squares in the direction of its surface normal away from thematerial of the workpiece until the furthest point.
Figure 3-7: Translated least-squares approach
-
8/14/2019 Musa Rami Adnan
43/83
-
8/14/2019 Musa Rami Adnan
44/83
39
Figure 3-8: Candidate datum set approach
The ASME Y14.5 standard does not give the details for applying this procedure. Wilhelm et
al. (1996, 1998) proposed methods for evaluating the planar datums and feature of size (FOS).
Wilhelms (1998) procedure is as the following:
1. Construct the 3D convex hull for the sampled points. The convex hull consists of facets.
Each facet on the hull that is about the material side of the sampled points is an external set of
support.
2. Each facet is considered as the candidate datum P to be checked. A two dimensional
projection of the candidate facet is taken (refer to figure 3-9).
-
8/14/2019 Musa Rami Adnan
45/83
-
8/14/2019 Musa Rami Adnan
46/83
41
3.2.2 Evaluation Algorithms for GD&T
In order to evaluate a tolerance that depends on a datum, both the datum and the surface must
be evaluated so and the associated tolerance is found accordingly. The allowable variation of
the tolerances in GD&T is based on the envelope principle. The entire surface shall lie
between two ideal envelope features [Zhang (1997)].
CMM data must be further interpreted to evaluate the geometric deviations mathematically.
Usually, this is done by using the least sum of distances fitting, Least Squares fitting (LS) or
the Minimum Zone fitting (MZ). All of them are optimization problems with different
objective functions.
Data fitting in metrology is defined generally by the following equation:
min
p
i
p
ip rnL
/11
=
-
8/14/2019 Musa Rami Adnan
47/83
42
The fitted feature for the data points (x, y, z) is called thesubstitute feature and the geometric
deviation is evaluated as the difference between the maximum and the minimum distances
between the data points and the substitute surface multiplied by 2.
Another widely used method is the minimum zone approach method. The objective function
of this approach (also called two-sided minimax fitting) is given by equation (1) with p .
The resulting fit is strongly affected by the data outliers. The objective function turns to be as
shown in equation (3.2).
min (max |ei|) for ni 1 (3.2)
There is another approach called one-sided minimax fitting which is a constrained
minimization form of the minimum zone. This approach is used to measure the size of the
feature rather than measuring the form deviation. It has two forms, depending if the feature is
internal or external.
For external feature, the optimization problem is:
min (max |ei|) for ni 1 (3.3)
Subject to 0ie
For internal feature, the optimization problem is:
min (max |ei|) for ni 1 (3.4)
-
8/14/2019 Musa Rami Adnan
48/83
43
Subject to 0ie
3.3 Sample Plan
Finding a proper sampling plan for the machined feature to be inspected is a crucial step in
coordinate metrology since the chosen points are considered as the only representative points
of the feature and the other points are overlooked.
In order to have an accurate strategy for sampling points to be measured in a feature, the
minimum sampling size and the best sampling point locations must be found out. In general,
the sampling of a machined feature depends on the machining capability, the part dimensions,
the surface topography, the required tolerance to be found and the accuracy level.
Unfortunately, machined features can never approach the perfect. An awkward solution for
inspecting feature will be by measuring as many points as possible to figure out the shape and
orientation in the space.
Finding the proper sample size (number of points to be inspected) is a major research topic in
the literature. Increasing the number of sample points leads to a more accurate evaluation but
increasing the sample size increases the inspection cost. There are some recommended sizes
for different feature geometries (refer to table 3-3). In table 3-3, the mathematical column
refers to the number of points needed to define the given geometry mathematically and the
recommended values are the ones recommended for measuring the features of the given
geometries. As was mentioned earlier, the more points taken, the more accurate the results
-
8/14/2019 Musa Rami Adnan
49/83
44
are. Another method that can be used to evaluate the sample size is by checking the change of
the results by changing the sample size. Some researchers are proposing using the Shannon-
Nyquist theorem that is used to sample the signals. This theorem states that in order to have a
fair approximation to a wave (in our case is the feature topography), the sampling interval
must be at least double the frequency of the wave.
Table 3-3: Recommended sample size for different geometries [Henzold (1995)]
Feature
geometry Mathematical Recommended
Straight line 2 5Plane 3 9
Circle 3 7
Sphere 4 9
Cylinder 5 15
Cone 6 15
Concerning the sample point locations, the widely used approaches are: random, uniform
(equidistant), stratified sampling (randomized block or randomized grid), refer to figure 3-11.
In random sampling, the location of each point in the space has the same chance of being
chosen as then others. Uniform sampling distributes the points in the space with fixed
distance between them. Uniform distribution is believed to be very sensitive to periodic
variations in the machined feature. In stratified sampling, the feature is divided into blocks
and a number of sample points are chosen randomly inside each of block. Stratified
distribution has a better coverage of the feature than the random distribution approach. Some
researchers recommend distributions according to low-discrepancy sequences (examples of
these sequences are: Hammersley and Halton-Zaremba sequences) [Woo et al. (1995)]. These
-
8/14/2019 Musa Rami Adnan
50/83
-
8/14/2019 Musa Rami Adnan
51/83
46
our problem here, the number of iterations represents the number of virtually machined part
to be inspected. There are two methods to find a proper amount of iterations (number of
virtually machined and inspected parts); sometimes called terminating criteria. Making
approximate statistical calculations to find the sample size is the first method. The second one
is by using empirical methods by considering a tolerance band.
Statistically, the minimum number of iterations can be calculated as follows. Suppose that
when running the simulation for no iterations, the half width (ho) of the confidence interval is
given by the following equation when sample standard deviation (so)is known:
o
ono
n
sth 2/1,1 =
(3.5)
When we want to achieve half confidence interval (h), then the number of termination
iterations can be calculated using the following equation:
2
2
2/1,12
h
stn on =
(3.6)
However, there is an apparent difficulty that the right hand side of the equation depends on a
prior knowledge of n. In order to overcome this problem, we can replace the t random
variable with standard normal critical values as shown in the following equation (this is valid
when the sample size is over 30).
2
2
2/12
h
szn
(3.7)
-
8/14/2019 Musa Rami Adnan
52/83
47
An easier but different approximation is given by the following equation [Kelton, Sadowski
and Sadowski (2002)]:
2
2
h
hnn oo (3.8)
Cvetko, Chase and Magleby (1998) developed new metrics to evaluate their simulation. One
method presented in their paper is by benchmarking the results of the simulation for a big
sample size (e.g. 1 billion). The objective of benchmarking the results at such a big number is
to evaluate the performance of the simulation at different sample sizes. When there are no
change in the fist four moments (mean, variance, skewness and kurtosis), the sample size of
the number of iterations is chosen (refer to figure 3-13). From the figure, it can be seen that at
1 million iterations, the results are roughly accurate by 95%.
Figure 3-13: Benchmarked results at 1 billion iterations [Cvetko, Chase and Magleby (1998)]
-
8/14/2019 Musa Rami Adnan
53/83
48
4.Manufacturing Error Evaluation
The objective of this chapter is to introduce the requirements and procedures of experiments
and algorithms for evaluating manufacturing error; which are the inputs of the simulation.
This will be required in case the manufacturing errors are not available. Afterwards, the error
distributions and their parameters (normal, uniform ) can be plugged in the simulation to
get the results. The discussed manufacturing errors here are machining and setup errors. As it
was previously mentioned, machining error can be further classified as: cutting tool
repeatability and cutting tool-workpiece interaction error. And setup error can be further
classified as: fixture unit and workpiece irregularities errors.
4.1 Machining Error Evaluation
If the machining error (cutting tool deviation) is not available, an experiment must be
conducted to evaluate it. The following are the requirements and the procedure of a proposed
experiment we developed to evaluate machining error for a specific CNC machine. This
experiment can be used to evaluate both the: cutting tool repeatability and cutting tool-
workpiece interaction error.
Requirements:
1. A prismatic Aluminum part.2. A fixture unit.3. CNC milling machine.4. Magnetic dial indicator.
-
8/14/2019 Musa Rami Adnan
54/83
-
8/14/2019 Musa Rami Adnan
55/83
50
Figure 4-1: Dial Indicator measuring machined surface
Table 4-2: Machining Error Data
Trial/dial
indicator
measurement-
nominal height
1 2 30
1
2
30
6. Fit the data in table 4-2using a proper distribution by finding the first four moments (mean,
variance, skewness and kurtosis.)
Dial Indicator
Cutting Tool
Prismatic
Workpiece
Fixture Unit
Machine Table
-
8/14/2019 Musa Rami Adnan
56/83
-
8/14/2019 Musa Rami Adnan
57/83
-
8/14/2019 Musa Rami Adnan
58/83
-
8/14/2019 Musa Rami Adnan
59/83
-
8/14/2019 Musa Rami Adnan
60/83
-
8/14/2019 Musa Rami Adnan
61/83
56
Figure 4-4: Coordinate measuring
machine (CMM)
Figure 4-5: Fixture unit with CMM probe
2. Evaluate primary, secondary and tertiary datum flatness values for the rough partusing CMM (input of the program).
3. Find the rotational and translational deviations for the rough part using the sameprocedure described in section 4.2.
The output of the program (simulation) was found to be consistent and close to the
experimental results. However, although the results found look fairly close and stable,
sometimes results show some very different behavior. In other words, sometimes results are
truly misleading. This can be justified by insufficient iterations of the simulation. A sample of
the program output and the experimental results are shown in tables 4-4 and 4-5. It is clear
that the simulation output and the experimental results are statistically the same since the p-
value is very high for all the cases except forx in table 4-5.
Table 4-4 data are for extremely smooth part (all flatness values are 0). And table 4-5 is for a
rough part. Therefore, the following null hypothesis cannot be rejected:
Probe
Workpiec
Fixture
Unit
-
8/14/2019 Musa Rami Adnan
62/83
57
erimentsimulation
erimentsimulation
H
H
exp22
1
exp22
0
:
:
=(4.2)
Table 4-4: Variance comparison between simulation and experiment for smooth part
Rotational
parameters
Experimental
Results
n = 30 (df=29)
Simulation Results
m = 6117 (df=6116)
Statistic
F
p-value
x 6.761e-006 4.85448499311699e-006 1.39273 0.1569
y 1.925e-006 2.15862432856938e-006 0.891772 0.5963
z 3.945e-006 2.91489690848275e-006 1.353393 0.19544
Table 4-5: Variance comparison between simulation and experiment for a rough part
Rotationalparameters
ExperimentalResults
n = 30 (df=29)
Simulation Resultsm = 6207 (df=6206)
StatisticF
p-value
x 0.001119036304 0.00260209785491036 0.430051584 0.00014
y 0.000644855236 0.000613310910554736 1.051432846 0.78038
z 0.003803312241 0.00561939444032142 0.676818878 0.09514
-
8/14/2019 Musa Rami Adnan
63/83
-
8/14/2019 Musa Rami Adnan
64/83
59
Machining error = N (=0, 2=0.038 m2) Rotational setup error =U (-0.003 m, 0.005 m) Translational setup error =U (-0.004o, 0.010o)
Figure 5-2 depicts the output of the simulation conducted for 500 virtual parts (500 iterations).
Notice that the variation of the concluding link was found to be less than the other links,
which contradicts to what were expected using traditional methods. According to traditional
methods of evaluating the tolerance stackup, tolerance of the concluding link (distance
between featuresf2 andf4) should be the summation of the two deviations of the other links in
the chain in the worst-case scenario and the square root of the sum of squares of the two
deviations in statistical analysis. Actually, getting such a lower variation in the concluding
link is justified in our point view since these two features are machined in the same setup.
There is no tolerance stackup in this case, as has been demonstrated in [Huang (1995)].
Machining error is the only error that causes the variation here. There is no contribution from
the setup error. Table 5-1 shows a comparison of the tolerance stackup evaluation using the
three methods.
-
8/14/2019 Musa Rami Adnan
65/83
60
Figure 5-2: Example 1 results
Table 5-1: Tolerance stackup evaluation comparison for example 1
02 0.057648
04 0.052874
Worst Case Statistical Simulation
24 0.1105 0.0782 0.0126
5.2. Example 2: Four Machining Operations (In Three Setups)
The example is an extension of the first one (refer to figure 5-3). It involves four machining
operations with two changes of the machining datums, a total of three setups. Changing
datums will result in a tolerance chain. The errors included in the simulation of example 2 are
the same as that in example 1.
Figure 5-4 depicts the output of the simulation for 500 virtually machined parts (iterations).
Again, the results here do not agree or even close to either the worst-case or the statistical
method. Table 5-2 summarizes the results.
-
8/14/2019 Musa Rami Adnan
66/83
-
8/14/2019 Musa Rami Adnan
67/83
62
Figure 5-5: Example 3; ABS (Antiblock System) housing, Bosch (Source: http://www.wzl.rwth-
aachen.de/WM/SIMON/deliverables/DA0/DA0_02D.htm)
Figure 5-6: ABS dimensional requirements
A simulation was conducted according to the setup plan described in figure 5-7. The plan
includes two setups. The part includes six surfaces of interest that are numbered from 1 to 6.
Milling is the process used to machine the surfaces. Hole drilling is not included in the setup
plan and simulation since it does not have an effect on the tolerance chain of concern. Figure
5-8 shows a tolerance chart of the part in order to predict tolerance stackup in the tolerance
chains. Here, we are interested in the dimension shown in line 8 in the tolerance chart as a
concluding link. The contributing links are shown in lines: 7, 4 and 1.
-
8/14/2019 Musa Rami Adnan
68/83
63
As was mentioned earlier, determining the number of iterations for the simulation is a crucial
task in Monte Carlo simulation. Here, we benchmarked the results of the simulation at
100,000 to calculate the errors in the first two moments when having less sample size.
Actually, 10,000 iterations are considered large enough by most of Monte Carlo parishioners
[Cvetko, Chase and Magleby (1998)]. The first two moments (mean and variance) at 100,000
iterations are shown in table 5-4 for dimensions in lines: 1, 4, 7 and 8.
Table 5-3: Simulation results at 100,000 iterations
Mean Variance
L1 84.9983246659704 0.000113812363943454L4 59.9943255754447 0.000114461403303197
L7 49.9926265647646 0.000118204861229129
L8 74.9965883885753 0.000118607406206314
The following were the inputs to the simulation:
Flatness of the raw part: 0.05 mm (Flatness is considered to be representative for the raw part
error.)
Machining error (Cutting Tool deviation) ~ N (0, 0.00752)
Rotational setup error ~ U (-0.002, 0.005) degrees
Translational setup error ~ U (-0.0015, 0.005) mm
-
8/14/2019 Musa Rami Adnan
69/83
64
RAW PART, MATERIAL REMOVAL: 15RAW PART, MATERIAL REMOVAL: 104 5 RAW PART, MATERIAL REMOVAL: 106
RAW PART, MATERIAL REMOVAL: 15
x
z
1,2,3
5
6y
4 x
z
RAW PART 1
x
z
y 1,2,3
x
z
4,5,6
1
RAW PART, MATERIAL REMOVAL: 15
1
5
6y
4 x
2
2
6y
2
z
45
3
3
4,5,6
y 1,2,3
x
5
4
y
z
1,2,3
x
FINAL PART
1
6
x
y
z
2
5 4
3
RAW PART, MATERIAL REMOVAL: 10
5
4
y
z
1,2,3
6
100
90
160
Figure 5-7: ABS part setup plan
A comparison between the results of simulation, worst-case and statistical methods in finding
concluding link tolerance stackup is shown in table 5-4. Again, Monte Carlo simulation
results were found to be less than both the traditional methods. The ratio of simulation
tolerance stackup to the worst case tolerance stackup was found to be 0.34 and the ratio of
simulation tolerance stackup to the statistical method tolerance stackup was found to be 0.59.
Table 5-4: Tolerance evaluation using the three approaches
Standard
DeviationTolerance=6
L1 0.010668288 0.064009727
L4 0.010698664 0.064191982
L7 0.010872206 0.065233235
L8 0.010890703 0.065344216
Worst Case 0.193434944
Statistical 0.111683618
Simulation 0.065344216
-
8/14/2019 Musa Rami Adnan
70/83
65
Figure 5-8: Tolerance Chart of ABS part
Figures 5-9 shows the dimension histograms of the concluding link (L8) and the contributing
links (L1, L4 and L7). Number of iterations required to achieve certain accuracy can be
predicted from figure 5-10. This figure shows means and standard deviations values predicted
using the simulation in terms of number of iterations (x axis). Clearly, 4000 iterations seem to
have very close results to the 100,000 iterations. Therefore, 4000 iterations can be considered
as proper choice for the sample size virtually machined parts (iterations.)
-
8/14/2019 Musa Rami Adnan
71/83
66
Figure 5-9: Dimensions histogram using simulation
Figure 5-10: Progress of results with sample size increase
Suppose that we need to maintain 0.066 mm for dimension shown in line 8 in the tolerance
chart (figure 5-8). Then, we will need to allocate proper tolerances for the concluding links
(dimensions shown in lines: 1, 4 and 7 in the same figure). According to our simulation,
assigning 0.060 mm for each contributing link will be good enough to meet what we need.
However, if we need to make the allocation using the worst case and statistical methods,
0.022 mm and 0.038 mm will be needed for each contributing link.
-
8/14/2019 Musa Rami Adnan
72/83
67
If we choose processes that are capable to achieve our simulation requirements, then we will
be satisfied with 2,700 parts per million (PPM) rejects when having the process capability
index equals to 1. However, if we use thesame process considering the traditional methods,
much more rejects per million will be expected (refer to table 5-5 and figure 5-11). This
shows the importance of having less conservative method for tolerance allocation.
Figure 5-11: Rejection areas comparison when allocating concluding links tolerance using worst case,
statistical and simulation methods
Table 5-5: Part per million (PPM) rejections comparison when allocating tolerance using worst case,
statistical and simulation methods
Worst Case Statistical Simulation
Tolerance 2.02 3.5 6
Cp 0.337 0.583 1
PPM rejects 307,728 76,727 2,700
-
8/14/2019 Musa Rami Adnan
73/83
-
8/14/2019 Musa Rami Adnan
74/83
69
6. Simulation is a proper choice for this problem because of its complexity. Furthermore,
simulation is not restricted to normal error distributions only; rather, it can take any
probability distribution function (Normal, Uniform, Weibull, Triangular, etc) depending on
the actual error distribution. It is precious to mention that even though statistical tolerances
are assumed to be normally distributed; a lot of evidences in the real world defy this
assumption [Lin, Wang and Zhang (1997)].
7. Monte Carlo simulation is believed to be a powerful tool to solve problems that include
stochastic variables. However, the main critique to this method is the need for a quite large
number of iterations to converge to accurate enough results. 10,000 iterations are considered
as large enough by most Monte Carlo practitioners [Cvetko, Chase and Magleby (1998)]. In
our work here, we benchmark the results at large iterations size (like 100,000 or 1 million)
and consider these results as absolutely accurate ones. Afterwards, we calculate the errors by
increasing the sample size. We can choose a sample size that has close results to the
benchmarked ones.
6.2 Recommendations for Future Works
1. Simulation validation and verification increase users confidence of the results accuracy.
Verification can be defined as the assessment of how close simulation results are to the
conceptual model. In other words, it is the task of ensuring that the simulation was built
accurately as the modeled indeed wanted.
-
8/14/2019 Musa Rami Adnan
75/83
70
Validation is used to ensure that the simulation model matches accurately enough with the
real world behavior. In our problem here, some experiments are recommended to be
conducted for validation. Some experiments must be done to determine simulation input in
case they are not already known. These inputs are the considered manufacturing errors
included in the simulation. Afterwards, a real machining must be done for a large enough
number of parts according to the same setup plan adopted in the simulation to evaluate the
tolerances of the dimensions. The output of the simulation experiment will match the results
of the experiment if the simulation model is valid. Typically, statistical inference tests can be
good to test the closeness between simulation results and the real world behavior.
2. Monte Carlo simulation is known as a computationally extensive tool of calculation.
Therefore, developing more efficient methods in terms of calculation time could be a
valuable future work.
-
8/14/2019 Musa Rami Adnan
76/83
71
Bibliography
[1] Ahn, K. G. and Cho, D. W., In-Process Modeling and Estimation of Thermally
Induced Errors of a Machine Tool During Cutting, International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 15, Issue: 4, April 27, 1999, pp. 299 - 304.
[2] ANSI Y14.5 M-1994, Mathematical Definition of Dimensioning and Tolerancing
Principles.
[3] Banks, J., Discrete-Event System Simulation, Prentice Hall, Third Edition, 2001.
[4] Carr, D., A Comprehensive Method for Specifying Tolerance Requirements for
Assemblies, Masters thesis, Brigham Young University, 1993.
[5] Chase, K. W. and Parkinson, A. R., A Survey of Research in the Application of
Tolerance Analysis to the Design of Mechanical Assemblies, Research in
Engineering Design, Vol. 3, 1991, pp.23-37.
[6] Chase, K.; Gao, J. and Magleby, S., General 2-D Tolerance Analysis of Mechanical
Assemblies with Small Kinematic Adjustments, Publications of the Association for
the Development of Computer-Aided Tolerancing Systems (ADCATS), Brigham
Young University, 1995.
[7] Chen, J. S. and Chiou, G., Quick testing and modeling of thermally-induced errors of
CNC machine tools, International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture, Vol.
35, Issue: 7, July, 1995, pp. 1063-1074.
[8] Chen, J. S.; Yuan, J.; Ni, J., Thermal error modeling for real-time error
compensation, Precision Engineering Vol. 20, Issue: 2, April, 1997, pp. 151.
[9] Chen, J.-S. , Fast calibration and modeling of thermally-induced machine tool errors
in real machining, International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture, Vol. 37,
Issue: 2, February, 1997, pp. 159-169.
-
8/14/2019 Musa Rami Adnan
77/83
72
[10] Chen, J.-S., A study of thermally induced machine tool errors in real cutting
conditions, International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture, Vol. 36, Issue:
12, December, 1996, pp. 1401-1411.
[11] Chen, J.-S., Computer-aided accuracy enhancement for multi-axis CNC machine
tool, International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture, Vol. 35, Issue: 4,
April, 1995, pp. 593-605.
[12] Chen, X.B.; Geddam, A. and Yuan, Z.J., Accuracy Improvement of Three-Axis CNC
Machining Centers by Quasi-Static Error Compensation, Journal of Manufacturing
Systems, Vol. 16, Issue: 5, 1997, pp. 323-336.
[13] Chiu, W.M. and Chan, K.W., Design and testing of piezoelectric actuator-controlled
boring bar for active compensation of cutting force induced errors, International
Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 51, Issue: 1-2, August 15, 1997. pp. 135-148.
[14] Craig, C., Dimensional Management versus Tolerance Assignment, Assembly
Automation, Vol. 16, No. 2, 1996, pp. 12-16.
[15] Cvetko, R.; Chase, K. W. and Magleby, S. P., New Metrics for Evaluating Monte
Carlo Tolerance Analysis of Assemblies, Proceedings of the ASME International
Mechanical Engineering Conference and Exposition, Anaheim, CA, Nov. 15-20, 1998.
[16] Davis, T. and Martin, R., Low-Discrepancy Sequences for Volume Properties in
Solid Modeling, CSG98, 1998, pp. 139-154.
[17] Drysdale, R.; Jerard, R. and Schaudt, B., Discrete Simulation of NC programming,
Algorithmica, Vol. 4, 1989, pp. 33-60.
[18] Elbestawti, M. A.; Srivastava, A. K. and Veldhuis, S. C., Modeling geometric and
thermal errors in a five-axis CNC machine tool, International Journal of Machine
Tools and Manufacture, Vol. 35, Issue: 9, September, 1995, pp. 1321-1337.
[19] Feng, S. and Hopp, T., A Review of Current Geometric Tolerancing Theories and
-
8/14/2019 Musa Rami Adnan
78/83
73
Inspection Data Algorithms, NIST, 1991.
[20] Gao, J. ; Chase, K. and Magleby, S., Generalized 3-D tolerance analysis of
mechanical assemblies with small kinematic adjustments, IIE Transactions, Vol. 30,
Issue: 4, 1998, pp. 367-377.
[21] Gao, J., Chase, K. W. and Magleby, S. P., Comparison of Assembly Tolerance
Analysis by the Direct Linearization and Modified Monte Carlo Simulation Methods,
Proceedings of the ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences, Boston, MA,
1995, pp. 353-360.
[22] Hockenberger, M. J. and De Meter, E. C., The Application of Meta Functions to the
Quasi-Static Analysis of Workpiece Displacement within a Machining Fixture,
Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering, Vol. 118, 1996, pp. 325-331.
[23] Hong, M. and Ehmann, K., Generation of engineered surfaces by the surface-shaping
system, International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture, Vol. 35, Issue: 9,
September, 1995, pp. 1269-1290.
[24] Huang, Q.; Zhou, S. and Shi. J., Diagnosis of Multi-Operational Machining Processes
by Using Virtual Machining, Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, Vol.
18, Isuues: 3-4, 2002, pp. 233-239.
[25] Huang, S. H. and Zhang, H.-C., Use of Tolerance Chart for NC Machining, Journal
of Engineering Design and Automation, Vol. 2, No. 1, 1996, pp.91-104.
[26] Huang, S., A Graph-Matrix Approach to Setup Planning in Computer-Aided Process
Planning (CAPP), PhD dissertation, Department of Industrial Engineering Texas Tech
University, 1995.
[27] Kalos and Whitlock, Monte Carlo Methods, Vol. 1, Wiley Sons, 1986.
[28] Kelton, W. D.; Sadowski, R. P. and Sadowski, D. A., Simulation with Arena,
McGraw-Hill, second edition, 2002.
-
8/14/2019 Musa Rami Adnan
79/83
-
8/14/2019 Musa Rami Adnan
80/83
75
[38] Lin E. and Zhang, H.-C., Theoretical Tolerance Stackup Analysis Based on
Tolerance Zone Analysis, The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing
Technology, Vol. 17, 2001, pp. 257-262.
[39] Lin, S.; Wang, H.-P. and Zhang, C., Statistical Tolerance Analysis Based on Beta
Distribution, Journal of Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 16, No. 2, 1997, pp. 150-158.
[40] Liu, Q. and Huang, S. H., Prediction of Component Dimensional and Geometric
Accuracy through Manufacturing Error Analysis, Transactions of the North
American Manufacturing Research Institution, SME, Vol. 29, 2001, pp. 525-532.
[41] Liu, S. C. and Hu, S. J., An Offset Finite Element Model and its Applications in
Predicting Sheet Metal Assembly, International Journal of Machine Tools
Manufacturing, Vol. 35, No. 11, 1995, pp. 1545-1557.
[42] Liu, Z.-Q., Repetitive Measurement and Compensation to Improve Workpiece
Machining Accuracy, International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology,
Vol. 15, Issue: 2, February 24, 1999, pp. 85 - 89.
[43] Mize, C. and Ziegert, J., Neural network thermal error compensation of a machining
center, Precision Engineering, Vol. 24, Issue: 4, 2000, pp. 338-346.
[44] Musa, R. A. and Huang, S. H., 3D Tolerance Stackup Analysis, Proceedings of the
Industrial Engineering Research Conference (Portland, Oregon), May, 2003.
[45] Okafor, A.C. and Ertekin, Y. M., Derivation of machine tool error models and error
compensation procedure for three axes vertical machining center using rigid body
kinematics, International Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture, Vol. 40, Issue:
8, June, 2000, pp. 1199-1213.
[46] Ramesh, R.; Mannan, M. A. and Poo, A. N., AI-Based Classification Methodologies
for Modeling Machine Tool Thermal Error, Transactions of the North American
Manufacturing Research Institution/SME, 2002, pp. 239-246.
-
8/14/2019 Musa Rami Adnan
81/83
76
[47] Ramesh, R; Mannan, M.A and Poo, A. N., Error Compensation in Machine Tools
A review, Part I: Geometric, Cutting-Force Induced and Fixture Dependent Errors,
International Journal of machine tools and manufacture, Vol. 40, 2000, pp. 1235-1256.
[48] Ramesh, R; Mannan, M.A and Poo, A. N., Error Compensation in Machine Tools
A review, Part II: Thermal Errors, International Journal of machine tools and
manufacture, Col. 40, 2000, pp. 1257-1284.
[49] Rong, Y.; Hu, W.; Kang, Y.; Zhang, Y. and Yen, D., Locating Error Analysis and
Tolerance Assignment for Computer-Aided Fixture Design, International Journal of
Production Research, Vol. 39, No. 15, 2001, pp. 3529-3545.
[50] Satyanarayana, S. and Melkote, S., Determination of Clamping Force Based on
Minimization of Workpiece Elastic Deformation, NAMRC 2002, Society of
Manufacturing Engineers (SME).
[51] Schmitz, T. and Ziegert, J., Examination of Surface Location Error Due to Phasing of
Cutter Vibration, Precision Engineering, Vol. 23, 1999, pp. 51
top related