0 Stimmen dafür0 Stimmen dagegen

49 Aufrufe18 Seitenm

May 12, 2015

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT oder online auf Scribd lesen

m

© All Rights Reserved

Als PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

49 Aufrufe

m

© All Rights Reserved

Als PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

- Hidden Figures: The American Dream and the Untold Story of the Black Women Mathematicians Who Helped Win the Space Race
- Hidden Figures Young Readers' Edition
- The Law of Explosive Growth: Lesson 20 from The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership
- The E-Myth Revisited: Why Most Small Businesses Don't Work and
- The Wright Brothers
- The Power of Discipline: 7 Ways it Can Change Your Life
- The Other Einstein: A Novel
- The Kiss Quotient: A Novel
- State of Fear
- State of Fear
- The 10X Rule: The Only Difference Between Success and Failure
- Being Wrong: Adventures in the Margin of Error
- Algorithms to Live By: The Computer Science of Human Decisions
- The Black Swan
- Prince Caspian
- The Art of Thinking Clearly
- A Mind for Numbers: How to Excel at Math and Science Even If You Flunked Algebra
- The Last Battle
- The 6th Extinction
- HBR's 10 Must Reads on Strategy (including featured article "What Is Strategy?" by Michael E. Porter)

Sie sind auf Seite 1von 18

DOI 10.1007/s00170-008-1790-0

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

of an assembly: vector loop and matrix

Massimiliano Marziale & Wilma Polini

Received: 3 June 2008 / Accepted: 2 October 2008 / Published online: 31 October 2008

# Springer-Verlag London Limited 2008

Abstract Mechanical products are usually made by assembling many parts. The dimensional and geometrical

variations of each part have to be limited by tolerances

able to ensure both a standardized production and a certain

level of quality, which is defined by satisfying functional

requirements. The appropriate allocation of tolerances

among the different parts of an assembly is the fundamental

tool to ensure assemblies that work rightly at lower costs.

Therefore, there is a strong need to develop a tolerance

analysis to satisfy the requirements of the assembly by the

tolerances imposed on the single parts. This tool has to be

based on a mathematical model able to evaluate the

cumulative effect of the single tolerances. Actually, there

are some different models used or proposed by the literature

to make the tolerance analysis of an assembly, but none of

them is completely and univocally accepted. Some authors

focus their attention on the solution of single problems

found in these models or in their practical application in

computer-aided tolerancing systems. But none of them has

done an objective and complete comparison among them,

analyzing the advantages and the weakness and furnishing

a criterion for their choice and application. This paper

briefly introduces two of the main models for tolerance

analysis, the vector loop and the matrix. In this paper, these

models are briefly described and then compared showing

their analogies and differences.

Universit degli Studi di Cassino,

via G. di Biasio 43,

03043 Cassino, Italy

e-mail: polini@unicas.it

Matrix model . Functional requirements

1 Introduction

As technology increases and performance requirements

continually tighten, the cost and required precision of

mechanical assemblies increase as well. Then, there is a

strong need for industries to produce high-precision

assemblies at lower costs. Therefore, there is a strong need

to use tolerance analysis to predict the effects of the

tolerances that have been assigned to the components of an

assembly on the functional requirements of the assembly

itself. The aim of the tolerance analysis is to study the

accumulation of dimensional and/or geometric variations

resulting from a stack of dimensions and tolerances. The

results of the analysis are meaningfully conditioned by the

adopted mathematical model. Some are the models proposed by the literature to carry out a tolerance analysis of

an assembly, but they still appear not adequate under many

aspects: the schematization of the form deviations, the

schematization of the joints with clearance between the

parts, the solution of complex stack-up functions due to

the network joints among the components, and so on.

Moreover, there does not exist in the literature a paper that

compares the different analytical methods on the basis of a

case study that underlines in a clear way all the advantages

and the weakness. In the literature, some studies compare

the models for tolerance analysis by dealing with their

general features [1, 2]. Other studies compare the main

computer-aided tolerancing softwares that implement some

of the models of the tolerance analysis [3, 4]; but these

studies focus the attention on the general features. However,

a complete comparison of the models proposed to solve the

therefore, no guidelines exist to select the method more

appropriate to the specific aims.

The purpose of this work is to analyze two of the most

significant models for tolerance analysis: the model called

vector loop and the model called matrix. The comparison

of the models starts from their application to a case study.

Dimensional and geometrical tolerances have been considered

as part of stack-up functions. The worst and the statistical

approaches have been taken into account. The application of

the envelope principle [5] and of the independence principle

[6] has been deeply investigated. Finally, the guidelines for

the development of a new and original model able to

overcome the limits of the compared models have been

underlined.

Section 2 gives an overall explanation of the vector

loop and matrix models. Section 3 gives a comprehensive

comparison of the two models by means of a case study

that is characterized by 2-D tolerance stack-up functions.

Finally, Section 4 offers some guidelines for those who

will have to make the choice.

2.1 Vector-loop-based method

Vector-loop-based model uses vectors to represent the

dimensions in an assembly [7, 8]. Each vector represents

either a component dimension or assembly dimension. The

vectors are arranged in chains or loops representing those

dimensions that stack together to determine the resultant

assembly dimensions.

Three types of variations are modeled in the vector loop

model: dimensional variations, kinematic variations, and

geometric variations. In a vector loop model, dimensions

are represented by vectors, in which the magnitude of the

dimension is the length (Li) of the vector. Dimensional

tolerances are incorporated as variation in the length of

the vector. Kinematic variations are small adjustments

among mating parts, which occur at assembly time in

response to the dimensional variations and geometric

feature variations of the component analysis. There are six

common joints in 2-D assemblies and 12 common joints in

3-D assemblies; at each kinematic joint, a local datum

reference frame (DRF) has to be defined for. These joints

are used to describe the relative motions among mating

parts. The degrees of freedom (df) that are constrained or

not by the mating part are controlled and the tolerances are

specified only for the constrained df. Geometric tolerances

are considered by adding micro-df to the joints just

described [9], i.e., a virtual transformation (a 0-length

1107

the applied tolerance) is added to the joints.

Although geometric tolerances may affect an entire

surface, they introduce a variation at the contact among

mating parts. Appropriate geometric variations may be

added to displacements at the joint. If the variation caused

by the geometric tolerancekinematic joint combination is a

rotation, the geometric variable can be represented by a

rotational matrix or a combination of rotational matrices in

the assembly kinematic constraints. If the variation caused

by the geometric tolerancekinematic joint combination is a

translation, a translation matrix may be inserted at the

appropriate node in the assembly kinematic constraints.

To better understand this method, the basic steps to build

a vector loop scheme and to carry out a tolerance analysis

are given below [1012]:

1. Create assembly graphthe first step is to create an

assembly graph. The assembly graph is a simplified

diagram of the assembly representing the parts, the

mating conditions, and the measures to perform. An

assembly graph assists in identifying the number of

vector loops required for the analysis of the assembly.

2. Locate the DRFs for each partthe next step is

locating the DRFs for each part. These DRFs are used

to locate features on each part. If there is a circular

contact surface, its center is considered as a DRF too.

3. Locate kinematic joints and create datum pathseach

contact among the parts is translated into a kinematic

joint. The kinematic joints of the assembly are located

at the points of contact and they are oriented in such a

way that the joint degrees of freedom align with the

adjustable assembly dimensions; in this way, each joint

introduces kinematic variables into the assembly which

must be included in the vector model. The datum paths

are created as chains of dimensions which locates the

point of contact with respect to the DRF of the parts.

4. Create vector loopsusing the assembly graph and the

datum paths, vector loops are created. Each vector loop

is created by connecting the datum paths of the datum

traverse by the loops. A vector loop may be called open

or closed if it is related to a measure or not.

5. Derive the equationsthe assembly constraints within

vector-loop-based models may be expressed as a

concatenation of homogeneous rigid body transformation

matrices:

R1 T1 . . . Ri Ti . . . Rn Tn Rf H

x-axis and the first vector; Ri is the rotational transformation

matrix between the vectors at node i; Ti is the translational

matrix of vector i; Rf is the final closure rotation with the xaxis; and H is the resultant matrix. For example, in the 2-D

1108

assume

3

worst-case scenario as:

1

40

0

gi

cos fi

the following shape: Ri 4 sin fi

2

3

0

sin fi

cos fi

0

0

0 5 and Ti

1

0 Li

1 0 5 where i is the angle between the vectors at

0 1

described by a closed loop of constraints, H is equal to the

identity matrix; otherwise, H is equal to the g vector

representing the resultant transformation that will lead to

the final gap or clearance and its orientation when applied to

a DRF.

6. Tolerance analysiswe consider an assembly constituted by p-parts. Each part is characterized by the xvector of the dimensions and by the -vector of the

geometrical variables that are known. When these parts

are assembled together, the resultant product is characterized by the u-vector of the assembly variables and by

the g vector of the measures required on the assembly.

It is possible to write L J P 1 closed loops,

where J is the number of the ties among the parts that

looks like:

Hx; u; a 0

looks like:

g Kx; u; a

having solved the equations system (Equation 2). Equation 2

is not linear and it is solved by means of the direct

linearization method (DLM):

dH A dx B du F da 0

du B1 A dx B1 F da

dg C dx D du G da

Dij =Ki/uj, Gij =Ki/j.

From Eqs. 4 to 6:

dg C D B1 A dx G D B1 F da

Sx dx Sa da

where Sx C D B1 A and Sa G D B1 F

are the sensitivity matrices. When the sensitivity matrices

jSxik txk j

k

X

l

jSail tal j

gi

hX

Sxik txk 2

k

Sail tal 2

l

i1=2

approximated too. When an approximated solution is

unacceptable, it is possible to use a numerical simulation

by means of a Monte Carlo technique to improve the exact

solution [1315].

2.2 Matrix model

Matrix-based model uses displacement matrices D which

describe the small displacements a feature may have one

inside the tolerance zones to represent the variability of the

parts. For each feature to which a tolerance is applied, there

is a local DRF and a displacement matrix which is defined

with respect to the local DRF. Besides, for each clearance

between two parts, there is a displacement matrix too and

the maximum value of the clearance is assumed as a

virtual tolerance. The displacement matrices are arranged

together through the principle of effects overlapping in

order to determine the resultant assembly measure. In fact,

the displacements are so small that it is possible to assume

that the total displacement is the sum of the displacements

due to the single cause (tolerances and assembly gaps)

[16, 17].

For each assembly measure, it is needed to define the

points used to model it. For example, if we have to measure

the clearance between two axes, it results by combining the

minimum and maximum distances that separate them.

Therefore, this implies the optimization of two distance

functions corresponding to the worst-case scenario [18].

To completely define the problem, the constraints due to

the displacement matrix D have to be added. These

constraints limit the features to remain inside the tolerance

zones that are applied to them. The constraints are applied

to the points characterizing the features with tolerances. For

example, if there is a location tolerance applied to a hole,

this means that its axis should remain inside a cylindrical

zone with an assigned diameter. It is enough that both the

extreme points of the axis remain inside the cylindrical

zone, once assumed that the axis maintains its nominal

shape. This involves two constraints on the displacements

of matrix D.

The matrix model is based on the positional tolerancing

and the technologically and topologically related surfaces

1109

only the worst-case solution and the features are assumed as

ideal, i.e., the form tolerances are considered as null. To

better understand this method, the basic steps are given

below for conducting a tolerance analysis:

1. Transform the tolerances applied on the drawingthe

first step is to transform the tolerances applied on a

drawing according to the positional tolerancing and the

TTRS criteria.

2. Create assembly graphthe second step is to create an

assembly graph. The assembly graph allows us to

locate the global DRF and the linkages among the

features on which the tolerances are assigned.

3. Locate the local DRF of each part featurethere is a

needed to assign a DRF to each part feature.

4. Define the measuresthere is a need to define the

points to use in order to evaluate the displacements. For

each point, there is a need to define the path connecting

the point to the global DRF up to the assembly

measure. The contributions of each point to the

assembly displacement have to be identified.

5. Define the single displacement contributions and the

constraintsit is necessary to define the contribution of

each displacement to the total displacements field and

its constraints. Each surface can be classified into one

of the seven classes of invariant surfaces and this

allows us to annul some displacements in order to

obtain a simplified displacement matrix. Therefore,

considering the generic ith feature, once indicated with

Ri the local DRF, with R the global DRF, with P1

R>Ri

the homogeneous matrix transformation from R to Ri

(this matrix depends only from the nominal geometry),

with mR the vector which components are the coordinates of the generic point M of the ith feature in the

local DRF, and with Di the displacement matrix by the

tolerances applied on the ith feature, the displacement

of point M in the global DRF is:

mRi P1

RRi Di I mR

the optimizationif more than one tolerances are

applied on the same part, their effects is calculated

through the principle of effects overlapping. For

example, if there are n tolerances applied to the same

feature that is characterized by the local DRF Ri, the

displacement of a generic point M belonging to the

feature is simply expressed as the sum of the single

contributors:

mR

n h

X

i

P1

R!Ri Di I mRi

tolerances, a typical problem of optimization under constraints is gotten. The optimization problem is solved

through standard optimization algorithms.

3 Models comparison

3.1 Case study

To compare the two models previously described, the case

study shown in Fig. 1 has been used. It is constituted by a

box containing two circles. The aim of the tolerance

analysis is the measurement of the variation of the gap g

between the second circle and the top side of the box (g)

as a function of the tolerances applied to the components.

The first analysis has considered only the dimensional

tolerances that are shown in Fig. 2. The envelope principle

has been applied, i.e., rule #1 of the American Society of

Mechanical Engineers (ASME) standards. Then, the tolerance

analysis has considered the geometrical tolerances too, as

10

feature in the global DRF that is allowed by the tolerance

zone. Further points are necessary to specify the constraints

assuring the feature remains inside the bounds of the

tolerance zone. The additional constraints are defined by

limiting the displacement of a set of points Mi belonging to

the feature inside the t tolerance range

11

12

i1

1110

g in order to compare the results of the models. The exact

geometric worst-case results are: 0.89 mm for the case

considering dimensional tolerances only and 0.91 mm for

the case considering both dimensional and geometrical

tolerances (see Table 4).

3.2 Vector loop model

3.2.1 Dimensional tolerances only

ASME Y19.4 standard) and the independent principle

(according to ISO 8015 standard) have been considered.

The case study has been solved through both the worstcase and the statistical approaches. The case study contains

all the characteristics and the critical aspects of the

problem, but at the same time it is so simple to calculate

the diameter of the two circles as x3 and x4, and the

assembly variables as u1, u2, u3, u4 (see Fig. 4), the

assembly graph of Fig. 5 has been built. It shows two joints

of cylinder slider kind between the box and the circle 1 at

point A and point B, respectively, one joint of parallel

cylinder kind between the circle 1 and the circle 2 at point

C, one joint of cylinder slider kind between the circle 2 and

the box at point D, and the measure to perform (g).

A DRF has been assigned to each part; it is centered in

the point of Fig. 6 for the box and in the centers O1 and

O2 of the two circles. All the DRFs have the x-axis

horizontal. The DRF of the box is also considered as the

global DRF of the assembly. Then, the datum paths have

been created; they are shown in Fig. 6.

The vector loops have been created and placed on the

assembly using the datum paths as a guide. There are L

J P 1 4 3 1 2 closed loops and one open

loop. The first (closed) loop joins the box and the circle 1

by the links passing from points A and B. The second

(closed) loop joins the subassembly boxcircle 1 and the

G

g

H

x2 = 80 0.50

O2

x4

D

x4

C

u4

x4

x3 = 20 0.05

x3

O1

x4 = 20 0.05

x3

x3

u2

E

A

u1

u3

x1 = 50 0.20

(and rule #1)

(dimensional tolerances only)

Fig. 5 Assembly graph of vector loop model

1111

Table 1 Elements of R and T matrices of the loops (dimensional

tolerances only)

Circle 1

L1

L2

Box

Circle 2

L3

g

third (open) loop defines the gap (g). All the loops are in

counterclockwise verse. So that, we can resume the

elements of the R and T matrices of the loops in Table 1.

Once the vector loops are defined, the relative equations

have been generated. The details are reported in the

Appendix.

The gap g depends by the following x-variables through

the sensitivity coefficients whose calculation is reported

in the Appendix:

dg dx2 dx4 du4 0:2582 dx1

dx2 2:2910 dx3 2:2910 dx4

13

as:

gWC

14

(0.89 mm) of about 12% (=(0.890.78)/0.89).

C

u4

1

2

3

4

5

0

90

7 13

90

90

u1

x3

x3

u2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

gStat

Nr.

0

90

90

7 24

0

7 26

90

90

x1

u4

x4

x4

x3

x3

u2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0

90

90

7 34

0

90

90

90

x1

u4

x4

x4

g

u3

x2

hX

Sxik txk 2

i1=2

Once the dimensions of the box are indicated as x1 and x2,

the diameter of the two circles as x3 and x4, the assembly

variables as u1, u2, u3, u4, and the gap between the top side

of the box and the second circle that is the assembly

measure as g, the case study appears as shown in Fig. 7.

The DRFs and the datum paths are the same as the previous

case (see Section 3.2.1).

The vector loops are the same as the previous case, but

they have to take into consideration the geometrical

tolerances. The geometrical tolerances have to be translated

into the following variables of the x-vector:

u3

15

u1

Loop 3

scenario (root sum of square) as:

x4

x3

Nr.

x3

u2

x3

O1

x4

x4

Loop 2

Nr.

H

O2

Loop 1

the A point perpendicular to the datum A (x-axis) that is

represented by the variable a1 T A 1 0 0:10=2

0 0:05 mm.

The perpendicularity applied to datum B involves a

translation of the point B perpendicular to the datum B

(y-axis) that is represented by the variable a2 T B2

0 0:10=2 0 0:05 mm.

The parallelism applied to the right side of the box

involves a translation of the D point perpendicular to

the right side that is represented by the variable

a3 T D3 0 0:20=2 0 0:10 mm.

The circularity applied to circle 1 involves for the point

A, B, and C a translation of the points A, B, and C

along the radius direction that is represented by the

1112

F

//

G 0.10

0.10

0.20

H

O2

0.05

x2 = 80 0.50

//

0.05

x4

D

x4

C

u4

x4

x3 = 20 0.05

x3

O1

a10 T G6 0 0:10=2 0 0:05 mm.

G

g

x4 = 20 0.05

x3

loops.

Once the vector loops are generated, the relative

equations have been defined, as described in the Appendix.

The g gap depends by the x-vector through the sensitivity

coefficients that are calculated in the Appendix:

x3

u2

E

A

u1

0.10

u3

x1 = 50 0.20

16

(dimensional and geometrical tolerances)

0:2582 da8 da9 da10

a5 T B4 0 0:05=2 0 0:025 mm, and a6

T C4 0 0:05=2 0 0:025 mm.

The circularity applied to circle 2 involves for the point

C, D, and H a translation of the points C, D, and H

along the radius direction that is represented by the

variables a7 T C5 0 0:05=2 0 0:025 mm,

a8 T D5 0 0:05=2 0 0:025 mm, a nd a9

T H5 0 0:05=2 0 0:025 mm.

The parallelism applied to the top side of the box

involves a translation of the G point perpendicular to

gWC

X

j Si j x i

X

Sj aj

1:0340 1:03 mm

17

than 13% (=(1.030.91)/0.91).

Table 2 Elements of R and T matrices of the loops (dimensional and geometrical tolerances)

Loop 1

Loop 2

Nr.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0

90

0

0

7 13

0

0

90

90

u1

a1

a4

x3

x3

a5

a2

u2

0 0:05

0 0:025

0 0:025

0 0:05

Loop 3

Nr.

Nr.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

0

90

90

0

0

7 24

0

0

0

7 26

0

0

90

90

x1

u4

a3

a8

x4

x4

a7

a6

x3

x3

a5

a2

u2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0 0:1

0 0:025

0 0:025

0 0:025

0 0:025

0 0:05

0

90

90

0

0

7 34

0

0

0

x1

u4

a3 0 0:1

a8 0 0:025

x4

x4

a9 0 0:025

G

a10 0 0:05

1113

3.3.1 Dimensional tolerances only

tolerances only)

case (root sum of square):

hX

X

2 i1=2

gStat

Sxik txk 2

Saij aj

0:5361 0:54 mm:

matrix model (dimensional

tolerances only)

18

tolerances of the case study assembly according to the

positional tolerancing and the TTRS criteria, as shown in

Fig. 8. The envelope rule (rule # 1 of ASME Y19.4

standard) may not be considered by the matrix model.

Therefore, the independence rule (according with ISO 8015

standard) has been considered. Then, the assembly graph

has been built by associating a circle to each part and a

semicircle to each feature of each part (see Fig. 9). The

arrows show the association links among the part features

to which the tolerances are associated. The features called

L1 and L4 are outlined since they have been considered as

the primary and the secondary datum. They form the global

DRF that has been called R. Moreover, the graph shows the

local DRF associated to the features, the displacements

matrices (D), and the required measure (g) between the

point E and the line L3. The two assembly matrices of the

circle 2 with the box and of the circle 2 with the assembly

boxcircle 1 are not assigned since the clearances between

the parts are zero (the features are always in contact

between them, Table 3).

A local DRF has been assigned to each feature of each

part; it is positioned in the low-left point for the box and in

the centers O1 and O2 for the two circles (see Fig. 10). The

DRF of the box is considered as global DRF of the

assembly too.

1114

second circle (circle 2) and the top of the box (line L3). It is

calculated as the difference (g) from the nominal value

(gN =1.2702 mm). The variance of the gap should be

appraised perpendicularly to line L3, but for simplicity it is

approximately measured in the vertical direction (i.e., along

y-axis of the global DRF) and with reference to the nominal

points E and F as:

g yF yE :

19

to calculate the displacement of F point, there is a need to

calculate the displacements of the L3 feature.

the local DRF R6 could not be directly determined by the

global DRF R since there is a tolerances chain between

them. Therefore, there is a need to apply the principle of

effects overlapping and the total displacement of point E

may be expressed as the sum of the three contributors due

to the DRFs R5, R2, and R6:

yE yE;R5 yE;R2 yE;R6

20

local DRF R5 of circle 1; the yE,R2 contributor is due to

the variability of the local DRF R2 of feature L2; and the

1115

significant elements

R6 of feature C2. From Eqs. 19 and 20, the required

measurement g may be calculated as:

g yF yE yF yE;R5 yE;R2 yE;R6

21

Developing its four terms (the details of the mathematical

steps are reported in Appendix), Eq. 21 gives:

g u3 5 sin g 3 v5 20 sin g 2

38:73 1 cos g 2 v6 :

22

constraints due to the required tolerances (the details of the

mathematical steps are reported in Appendix):

0:50 u3 25 sin g 3 0:50

0:50 u3 25 sin g 3 0:50

0:05 v5 0:05

0:05 u5 0:05

0:05 0:2500 u5 0:9682v5 0:05

0:20 u2 40 sin g 2 0:20

0:20 u2 40 sin g 2 0:20

0:05 u6 0:05

0:05 v6 0:05

0:05 0:25 u6 0:97 v6 0:05

study assembly according to the positional tolerancing and

the TTRS criteria, as shown in Fig. 11. Figure 11 does not

have the flatness tolerance of feature L1 and the circularity

tolerances of the circles which may not be considered by

this model since the form tolerances may not be considered

by the matrix model (i.e., the features have a nominal

shape). Moreover, the matrix model does not allow us to

apply the envelope principle in a right way since it is not

possible to distinguish between the application of the

ASME standard or of the ISO 8015 standard.

The assembly graph has been drawn in Fig. 12. Feature

L1 is outlined because it is considered the primary datum; it

forms the global DRF R. Figure 12 shows the local DRF

associated to the features, the displacements matrixes (D),

and the required measure (g) between the point E and the

line L3. The assembly matrices of the circle 2 on the box

and of the circle 2 on the assembly boxcircle 1 are not

assigned because the clearances between the parts are zero

(the features are always in contact between them).

A local DRF has been assigned to each feature of each

part; it is positioned in the low-left point for the box and in

the centers O1 and O2 for the two circles. The DRF of the

box is considered as global DRF of the assembly too.

Also, in this case, the variance of the gap is given by Eq. 21,

but now the displacement of E point must be expressed as a

23

solve this optimization problem under constraints and the

result is:

gWC 0:70 mm

24

21% (=(0.890.70)/0.89).

The statistical approach (root sum of square) is not

applicable to the matrix model.

and geometrical tolerances)

1116

matrix model (dimensional and

geometrical tolerances)

sum of the four contributors due to the DRFs R5, R2, R6, and

R4:

yE yE;R5 yE;R2 yE;R6 yE;R4

25

solve this optimization problem under constraints and the

result is:

to the local DRF R4. From Eqs. 21 and 24, the required

measurement g may be calculated as:

gWC 0:69 mm

g yF yE yF

yE;R5 yE;R2 yE;R4 yE;R6

24% (=(0.910.69)/0.91).

The statistical approach (root sum of squares) is not

applicable to the matrix model.

26

steps are reported in Appendix), Eq. 26 gives:

29

g u3 5 sin g 3 v5 20 sin g 2

38:73 1 cos g 2 v6 30 sin g 4

27

38:73 1 cos g 4

Equation 27 has to be maximized under the following

constraints due to the required tolerances (the details of the

mathematical steps are reported in Appendix):

0:50 u3 25 sin g 3 0:50

0:50 u3 25 sin g 3 0:50

0:10 50 sin g 3 0:10

0:05 v5 0:05

0:05 u5 0:05

0:05 0:25 u5 0:97 v5 0:05

0:20 u2 40 sin g 2 0:20

0:20 u2 40 sin g 2 0:20

0:20 80 sin g 2 0:20

0:05 u6 0:05

0:05 v6 0:05

0:05 0:2500 u6 0:9682 v6 0:05

0:10 80 sin g 4 0:10

28

4 Comparison

Table 4 shows the results obtained by the application of the

two considered models to the same case study. The second

column shows the values of the gap range (g) obtained by

means of the exact worst-case approach. The third and

fourth columns report the results obtained by the vector

loop and the matrix models.

The vector loop model has two advantages as regards to

the matrix model: it allows us to model form tolerances and

it may be solved by means of a statistical approach. The

vector loop model gives better results than matrix does

since the results are nearer to the exact solution than the

matrix ones.

It is possible to see that the matrix model gives always

an underestimate, while the vector loop model underestimates if only the dimensional tolerances are considered

and overestimates if both dimensional and geometrical

tolerances are taken into account. This is due to the fact that

the vector loop model sums the assigned tolerances by

1117

g [mm]

Only dim.

Dim. + geom.

Worst case

Statistical

Worst case

Statistical

Exact solution

Vector loop

Matrix

0.89

0.91

0.78 (12%)

0.52

1.03 (+13%)

0.54

0.70 (21%)

0.69 (24%)

tolerance, for example, a flatness, is applied to a feature

where there is a dimensional tolerance too, the flatness

tolerance range has to be included inside the dimensional

tolerance limits. Then, the assumption of independence

among the tolerances is not realistic. It is important to note

that in the vector loop model a dimensional tolerance is

modeled by a vector with only one parameter that can

change (its length). This simplification does not allow us to

apply the independence principle.

However, the two considered models have three

common limits. The first deals with the assembly cycle:

the two models are not able to correctly represent the

coupling with clearance between two parts. The second

deals with the representation of the tolerances applied to

the assemblys components: the two models do not give a

complete correspondence among the model variables and

the parts tolerances. Moreover, the translation of the

parts tolerances into model variables does not satisfy the

standards (ASME or ISO), such as it has just been shown

for the effect of the correlation among the applied

tolerances. The third deals with the independence principle:

the two models do not allow us to apply the independence

and/or the envelope rule to different tolerances of the same

parts.

Appendix

Case study solution by vector loop model

with dimensional tolerances only

As concerning the first loop, Eq. 1 becomes:

R1 T1 R2 T2 R3 T3 R4 T4 Rf I

30

u1 x3 cos 90 f13 u2 cos 180 f13 0

x3 x3 sin 90 f13 u2 sin 180 f13 0

f13 90 0

31

R1 T1 R2 T2 R3 T3 R4 T4

R5 T5 R6 T6 R7 T7 Rf I

32

x1 x4 x4 cos 180 f24 x3 cos 180 f24

x3 cos 180 f24 f26 0

u4 x4 sin 180 f24 x3 sin 180 f24

x3 sin 180 f24 f26 u2 0

f24 f26 0

33

5 Conclusions

As concerning the third loop:

This paper firstly makes a brief review of two state-of-theart tolerance analysis models, the vector loop and the

matrix. Then, the two models are compared, in order to

highlight the advantages and the weakness of each model,

based on the experimental results and available information

from the literature.

The application of the models on the same case study

and the experimental results show how both the vector loop

and the matrix models have their advantages and the

weakness that are investigated and explained.

Further researches includes the definition of a new and

original model able to overcome the limits highlighted in this

work.

R1 T1 R2 T2 R3 T3 R4 T4 R5

T5 R6 T6 R7 T7 Rf G

34

that gives:

g x 2 u4 x 4

35

A dx B du 0

36

that gives:

du B1 A dx Su dx

37

1118

dx2, dx3, dx4}T ={0.20,0.50,0.05,0.05}T, and

3

2

0

0

1

0

7

6

0

0

1

0

7

6

6

0:2582 0 2:2910

1:2910 7

7

Su 6

7

6

0

0

0

0

7

6

4 0:0258 0 0:0323

0:0323 5

0:0258 0 0:0323 0:0323

x1 x4 a3 a8 x3 x4 a6 a7 cos 180 f24

x3 a2 a5 cos 180 f24 f26 0

u4 x3 x4 a6 a7 sin 180 f24

x3 a2 a5 sin 180 f24 f26 u2 0

f24 f26 0

41

As concerning the third loop:

and geometrical tolerances

R1 T1 R2 T2 R3 T3 R4 T4 R5

42

T5 R6 T6 . . . R11 T11 Rf G

R1 T1 R2 T2 R3 T3 R4 T4 R5

T5 R6 T6 R7 T7 R8 T8 Rf I

that gives:

38

g x2 a10 u4 x4 a9

43

u1 x3 a2 a5 cos 90 f13

u2 cos 180 f13 0

x3 a1 a4 x3 a2 a5 sin 90 f13

u2 sin 180 f13 0

f13 90 0

39

Sud dx Sua da

R1 T1 R2 T2 R3 T3 R4 T4 R5

T5 R6 T6 . . . R13 T13 Rf I

du B1 A dx B1 C da

40

44

dx2, dx3, dx4} T = {0.20,0.50,0.05,0.05}T, d = {d 1,...,

d10}T = {0.05,0.05,0.10,0.025,0.025,0.025,0.025,0.025,

0.025,0.05}T, and

Sua

0

61

6

61

6

60

6

40

0

3

0

0

1

0

6

7

0

0

1

0

6

7

6

0:2582 0 2:2910

1:2910 7

7

Sud 6

6

7

0

0

0

0

6

7

4 0:0258 0 0:0323

0:0323 5

0:0258 0 0:0323 0:0323

1

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0:2582

0:2582 1 0:2582

1:0328

1:0328

0

0

0

0

0

0

0:0258

0:0258 0 0:0258

0:0064

0:0064

0:0258 0:0258 0 0:0258 0:0064 0:0064

with dimensional tolerances only

Equation 21 and the relative equation constraints (Eq. 22)

due to the required tolerances are obtained developing the

single terms in Eq. 20; to do this was as follows.

To calculate, the yF quantity is needed to consider that

the F point belongs to feature L3 of the box. Therefore, to

calculate the displacement of F point, there is a need to

calculate the displacements of the L3 feature. The displace-

0

0

0:2582

0

0:0258

0:0258

0

0

0

0

0

0

3

0

07

7

07

7

07

7

05

0

Table 3) by considering that the problem is 2-D and,

therefore, the rotation angle around y-axis may be annulled

(=0):

2

cg cb

6 sg cb

6

D3 4

sb

0

sg

cg

0

0

cg sb

sg sb

cb

0

3 2

cg 3

u

6

07

7 6 sg 3

05 4 0

1

0

sg 3

cg 3

0

0

3

0 u3

0 07

7

1 05

0 1

45

1119

the DRF R to the DRF R3 [PR->R3] is given by:

2

PR>R3

ca

6 sa

6

4 0

0

sa

ca

0

0

0

0

1

0

x

0

6 1

y 7

76

0 5 4 0

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

25

80 7

7

0 5

1

46

2

61

6

FF00 R P1

R>R3 D3 I FR3 6

40

2

6

6

6

4

1 cg 3

sg 3

sg 3

1 cg 3

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

80

25 7

7

7

0 5

0 0 0

1

3 2 3 2

3

0

5 1 cg 3

7

6 7 6

07

7 6 5 7 6 u3 5 sg 3 7

76 76

7

5

0 5 405 4

0

0

0

1

47

Therefore:

48

considering the point H:

HH' x D3 I H x t3 =2

49

R3

R3

that gives:

2

1 cg 3

sg 3

u3

sg 3

0

1 cg 3

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

3 2 3

1

0

6 25 7 6 0 7

6 7 6 7

6 7 6 7 u3 25 sg 3

4 0 5 405

6

6

D3 I HR3 x 6

4

2

0

0

1

0

3

u5

v5 7

7

05

1

the DRF R to the DRF R5 [PR->R5] is given by:

2

3 2

3

ca sa 0 x

1 0 0 20

6 sa ca 0 y 7 6 0 1 0 20 7

76

7

PR>R5 6

4 0

0

1 0 5 40 0 1 0 5

0

0

0 1

0 0 0 1

3

7

7

7

5

2

1 0

60 1

6

EE0 0 R P1

R>R5 D5 I ER5 6

40 0

0 0

3 2 3

2

3 2

u5

0 0 0 u5

10

6 0 0 0 v 7 6 58:73 7 6 v 7

57 6

7 6 57

6

6

76 7

76

40 0 0 0 5 4 0 5 4 0 5

0

is given by:

51

0:50 u3 25 sing 3 0:50

52

local DRF R5 of circle 1. It may be calculated by means of

the spherical matrix (see Table 3) that is simplified by

0

1

0

20

20 7

7

7

0 5

1

Therefore:

yE;R5 v5

56

considering the point A:

AA' r D5 I A r t5 =2

57

R5

R5

that gives:

2

0

60

6

D5 I AR5 r 4

0

0

50

55

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

3

3 2

3 2

0

0

u5

7

7 6

6

v5 7

7 6 20 7 6 1 7 v5

05 4 0 5 4 0 5

0

1

0

53

54

u3

yF u3 5 sing 3

w=0) since the problem is 2-D:

2

3 2

1 0 0 u

1 0

60 1 0 v 7 60 1

7 6

D5 6

40 0 1 w5 40 0

0 0 0 1

0 0

58

Substituting Eq. 58 in Eq. 57 the constraints on A point

becomes:

0:05 v5 0:05

59

are given by:

0:05 u5 0:05

60

61

1120

local DRF R2 of feature L2. It may be calculated by means

of the plane element matrix (see Table 3) that is simplified

by considering that the rotation angle around the y-axis is

null (=0) since the problem is 2-D:

2

cg cb

6 sg cb

6

D2 4

sb

0

sg

cg

0

0

cg sb

sg sb

cb

0

u

cg 2

6

07

7 6 sg 2

05 4 0

0

1

that gives:

2

1 cg 2

sg 2

6

sg 2

1 cg 2

6

D2 I HR2 x 6

4

0

0

sg 2

cg 2

0

0

0

0

0

3

u2

07

7

7

05

0

0

0

2

3 2 3

1

0

6 40 7 6 0 7

6

7 6 7

6

7 6 7 u2 40 sg 2

4 0 5 405

0 u2

0 07

7

1 05

0 1

62

67

The homogeneous transformation matrix to pass from

the DRF R to the DRF R2 [PR->R2] is given by:

2

PR>R2

ca

6 sa

6

4 0

0

sa

ca

0

0

3 2

0 x

1

6 0

0 y 7

76

1 0 5 4 0

0 1

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

1

0

3

50

40 7

7

0 5

1

63

2

3

1 0 0 50

6 0 1 0 40 7

6

7

EE0 R P1

7

R>R2 D2 I ER2 6

4 0

0 1 0 5

0

0 0 1

2

3 2

3

sg 2

0 u2

1 cg 2

20

6

6

7

sg 2

1 cg 2 0 0 7

6

7 6 38:73 7

6

76

7

4

0

0

0 05 4 0 5

0

0

0 0

1

2

3

20 1 cg 2 38:73 sg 2 u2

6 20 sg 38:73 1 cg 7

6

7

2

2

6

7

4

5

0

becomes:

0:20 u2 40 sing 2 0:20

68

0:20 u2 40 sing 2 0:20

69

local DRF R6 of feature C2. It may be calculated by means

of the spherical element matrix (see Table 3) that is

simplified by considering that the displacement along zaxis is null (w=0) since the problem is 2-D:

2

3 2

3

1 0 c0 u

1 0 0 u6

6 0 1 0 v 7 6 0 1 0 v6 7

7 6

7

D6 6

70

40 0 1 w5 40 0 1 0 5

0 0 0 1

0 0 0 1

The homogeneous transformation matrix to pass from

the DRF R to the DRF R6 [PR->R6] is given by:

2

PR>R6

ca

6 sa

6

4 0

0

3 2

0 x

1

60

0 y 7

76

1 0 5 40

0 1

0

sa

ca

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

1

0

3

30

58:73 7

7

0 5

1

71

64

2

Therefore:

yE;R2 20 sing 2 38:73 1 cosg 2

65

considering the point H:

HH' x D2 I H x t2 =2

R2

R2

66

1 0

60 1

6

D

EE0 R P1

I

E

6

6

R>R6

R6

40 0

60

6

6

40

0

0

0

0

0 0

3 2 3 2 3

u6

0

u6

6 7 6 7

v6 7

7 6 20 7 6 v6 7

76 76 7

05 4 0 5 405

0

0

1

0

30

58:73 7

7

7

0 5

1

72

1121

Therefore:

with dimensional and geometrical tolerances

yE;R6 v6

73

considering the point D:

DD0 xjjD6 I H x t6 =2

R6

R6

74

due to the required tolerances, are obtained developing the

single terms in Eq. 26; to do this was as follows.

To calculate the yF quantity is sufficient to consider

that it is the same as the previous case that considers only

dimensional tolerances, then:

yF u3 5 sing 3

that gives:

2

0

60

D6 I DR6 x 6

40

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

3 2 3 2 3

1

20

u6

6 0 7 607

v6 7

7 6 7 6 7 u6

0 5 4 0 5 405

0

1

0

82

position tolerance that imposes to the feature the same

constraints of the dimensional case study:

75

83

becomes:

84

0:05 u6 0:05

following constraints on the displacement of the two

extreme points H and I:

76

0:05 v6 0:05

77

CC' r D6 I C r t6 =2

78

R6

R6

that gives:

2

0

60

6

D6 I CR6 r 6

40

0

0

3

3 2

5

0 u6

6

7

0 v6 7

7 6 19:37 7

7

76

0 05 4 0 5

0

1

0 0 0 0

2

3

0:25

6 0:97 7

6

7

6

7 0:25 u6 0:97 v6

4 0 5

0

79

becomes:

0:05 0:25 u6 0:97 v6 0:05

80

g u3 5 sing 3 v5 20 sing 2 38:73

1 cosg 2 v6

81

subject to the constraints of Eq. 51, 52, 5961, 68, 69, 76,

77, and 80.

HH'R3 II'R3 x

D3 I HR3 IR3 x to

85

and 40), we have:

u3 25 sg 3 u3 25 sg 3 50 sg 3

86

0:10 50 sing 3 0:10:

87

yE;R5 v5

88

too:

0:05 v5 0:05

89

0:05 u5 0:05

90

91

1122

case study:

yE;R2 20 sg 2 38:73 1 cosg 2

92

position tolerance that imposes to the feature the same

constraints of the dimensional case study:

0:20 u2 40 sing 2 0:20

the DRF R to the DRF R4 PR!R4 is given by:

2

3 2

3

ca sa 0 x

1 0 0 0

6 sa ca 0 y 7 6 0 1 0 40 7

76

7

PR>R4 6

4 0

0

1 0 5 40 0 1 0 5

0

0

0 1

0 0 0 1

103

The displacements of E point are equal to:

93

94

imposes the following constraints on the displacements of

the two extreme points H and G:

HH' GG' x

R2

R2

95

D2 I HR2 GR2 x to

Remembering the results obtained before (Eqs. 93

and 94), we have:

u2 40 sg 2 u2 40 sg 2 80 sg 2

96

EE0 R P1

R>R4 D4 I ER4

2

1 cg 4

6

sg 4

6

6

4

0

1

60

6

6

40

0

sg 4

1 cg 4

0

0

0

1

0

0

0 0

1

3

3 2

30

0

6

7

07

7 6 38:73 7

7

76

05 4 0 5

0

0

0

0

0 0

2

3

30 1 cg 4 38:73 sg 4

6 30 sg 38:73 1 cg 7

6

4

4 7

6

7

4

5

0

0

104

0:20 80 sing 2 0:20

97

yE;R6 v6

98

0:05 u6 0:05

99

0:05 v6 0:05

100

Therefore:

yE;R4 30 sing 4 38:73 1 cosg 4

101

to the variability of the local DRF R4 of feature L4. It may

be calculated by means of the plane elements matrix

simplified by considering that the rotation angle around the

y-axis is null (=0):

2

cg cb

6 sg cb

D4 6

4 sb

0

sg

cg

0

0

cg sb

sg sb

cb

0

cg 4

u

6 sg 4

07

76

05 4 0

1

0

sg 4

cg 4

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

07

7

05

1

102

105

constraint on the displacements of the two extreme points O

and I:

OO' II'

R4

R4 x

D4 I OR4 IR4 x t4 =2

106

that gives:

2

3

0

40 7

7

7

0 5

6

6

D4 I OR4 IR4 x 6

4

sg 4

sg 4

1 cg 4

07

7

7

05

0

0

3 2 3

1

6 80 7 6 0 7

6

7 6 7

6

7 6 7 80 sg 4

4 0 5 405

2

1 cg 4

107

Substituting Eq. 107 in Eq. 106, the constraints on points

O and I become:

108

1123

Substituting Eqs. 82, 88, 92, 98, and 105 in Eq. 49 is:

g u3 5 sing 3 v5 20 sing 2 38:73

1 cosg 2 v6 30 sing 4 38:73

1 cosg 4

109

and 108.

References

1. Shen Z, Ameta G, Shah JJ, Davidson JK (2005) A comparative

study of tolerance analysis methods. J Comput Inf Sci Eng 5

(3):247256 doi:10.1115/1.1979509

2. Hong YS, Chang TC (2002) A comprehensive review of

tolerancing research. Int J Prod Res 40(11):24252459

doi:10.1080/00207540210128242

3. Salomons OW, van Houten FJAM, Kals HJJ (1998) Current status

of CAT systems. In: ElMaraghy HA (ed) Geometric design

tolerancing: theories, standards and applications. Chapman &

Hall, London, pp 438452

4. Prisco U, Giorleo G (2002) Overview of current CAT systems.

Integr Comput Aided Eng 9(4):373397

5. Standard ASME (1994) Dimensioning and tolerancing. ASME

Y14.5M-1994, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York

6. ISO Standard (1985) ISO 8015: fundamental tolerancing principle

7. Chase KW. Tolerance Analysis of 2-D and 3-D Assemblies

(automated method). http://adcats.et.byu.edu/home.php

8. Chase KW, Gao J, Magleby SP (1995) General 2-D tolerance

analysis of mechanical assemblies with small kinematic adjustments. J Des Manuf 5(4):263274

geometric feature variations in tolerance analysis of mechanical

assemblies. IIE Trans 28(10):795807

10. Chase KW, Magleby SP, Gao J (1996) Tolerance analysis of 2-D

and 3-D mechanical assemblies with small kinematic adjustment.

http://adcats.et.byu.edu/home.php

11. Gao J, Chase KW, Magleby SP (1998) Generalized 3-D tolerance

analysis of mechanical assemblies with small kinematic adjustments. IIE Trans 30:367377

12. Faerber PJ (1999) Tolerance analysis of assemblies using

kinematically derived sensitivities. ADCATS Report No. 99-3,

http://adcats.et.byu.edu/home.php

13. Nigam SD, Turner JU (1995) Review of statistical approaches to

tolerance analysis. Comput Aided Design 27(1):615

14. Glancy CG, Chase KW (1999) A second order method for

assembly tolerance analysis. In: Proceedings of the 1999 ASME

Design Engineering Technical Conference, September 1215,

1999, Las Vegas, Nevada, DETC99/DAC-8707

15. Gao J, Chase KW, Magleby SP (1998) Global coordinate method

for determining sensitivity in assembly tolerance analysis. http://

adcats.et.byu.edu/home.php

16. Salomons OW, Haalboom FJ, Jonge Poerink HJ, van Slooten F,

van Houten FJAM, Kals HJJ (1996) A computer aided tolerancing

tool II: tolerance analysis. Comput Ind 31:175186 doi:10.1016/

0166-3615(96)00047-4

17. Desrochers A (1999) Modeling three dimensional tolerance zones

using screw parameters. In: Proceedings DETC 25th Design

Automation Conference, September 1215, Las Vegas, DETC99/

DAC-8587

18. Desrochers A, Rivire A (1997) A matrix approach to the

representation of tolerance zones and clearances. Int J Adv Manuf

Technol 13:630636 doi:10.1007/BF01350821

19. Clment A, Rivire A, Serr P, Valade C (1998) The TTRSs: 13

constraints for dimensioning and tolerancing. In: ElMaraghy HA

(ed) Geometric design tolerancing: theories, standards and

applications. Chapman & Hall, London, pp 123131

- Chapter 2-Force VectorHochgeladen vonAnas Nazmi
- Mechanical Dimensions 3Hochgeladen vonLincs lincoln
- Answer Key 1Hochgeladen vonJessieca Guingguing
- MECH2020 Notes 7 for StudentsHochgeladen vonAudrey Cheung
- catia digital makeupHochgeladen vonLouise Mcferrin
- locndimnHochgeladen vonImtiaz N
- Kinematics With Vector AnalysisHochgeladen vonSugiAnto
- Lecture 7 JacobianHochgeladen vonpeterwalid
- Cns SlidesHochgeladen vonMusa Yazar
- 07876d01Hochgeladen vonvinoo13
- 03a - Uniformly Accelerated Motion in 1D.pptxHochgeladen vonKeith Smith
- Structural Properties and Classification of KinematicHochgeladen vonCARLOS ALBERTO GAVIRIA GOMEZ
- Elastic Type SetHochgeladen voncrennydane
- Computed Torque Control of Robot Manipulator Pdf_versionHochgeladen vonMartino Ojwok Ajangnay
- Advances+in+Automation+and+Robotics+Rese.pdfHochgeladen vonKaren12
- Dynamics SolutionsHochgeladen vonSUMEET
- Robot Trajectory Optimization for the Relaxed End-Effector PathHochgeladen vonwanglei2112221990
- Absolute OrientationHochgeladen vonapolimer1
- week4.pptx.pdfHochgeladen vonjayakumar
- robotics week 4.pdfHochgeladen vonjayakumar
- mathcad_intro.pdfHochgeladen vonMZSHB
- PR Texture Review PublishedHochgeladen vonAhmed El Sheikh
- Chap 1 Basic AlgebraHochgeladen vonShahrukh roshan
- A20_548Hochgeladen vonadan25tula
- Tent a 060112Hochgeladen vonalialavi2
- CRBiol_2012Hochgeladen vonSChouet
- Fluid KinematicsHochgeladen vonS M Zillur Rahaman
- Calibration of PositionerHochgeladen vonRachit
- Chapter4_FluidKinematicsHochgeladen vonFaiXi MEmon

- Drill Press Text BookHochgeladen vonEng_2014
- 1. IntroductionHochgeladen vonakjeevanantham79
- Mechanism of Chip FormationHochgeladen vonakjeevanantham79
- ManufacturingHochgeladen vonHari Haran
- Partial Differential Equation with MatlabHochgeladen vonJuan Manuel Olivo
- DrillingHochgeladen vonakjeevanantham79
- Experiment 15Hochgeladen vonakjeevanantham79
- How to Deal With New MaterialsHochgeladen vonakjeevanantham79
- 09-ReamerHochgeladen vonakjeevanantham79
- A Matrix Approach to the Representation of Tolerance Zones AndHochgeladen vonakjeevanantham79
- A Comprehensive Study of Three Dimensional Tolerance Analysis MethodsHochgeladen vonakjeevanantham79
- A Comparison of Tolerance Analysis Models for AssemblHochgeladen vonakjeevanantham79
- New Product Design and Development a Generic ModelHochgeladen vonhjcpinto
- Optimisation Strategies for Metal Forming ProcessesHochgeladen vonakjeevanantham79
- Straightness and Flatness Evaluation Using Data Envelopment AnalysisHochgeladen vonakjeevanantham79
- Vectorial Method of Minimum Zone Tolerance for Flatness, Straightness, And Their Uncertainty EstimationHochgeladen vonakjeevanantham79
- A Scatter Search Algorithm for the Single Row Facility Layout ProblemHochgeladen vonakjeevanantham79
- Design for Manufacturing- A Book ChapterHochgeladen vonakjeevanantham79
- Design for Manufacturing by Harry PeckHochgeladen vonakjeevanantham79
- Introduction to QFDHochgeladen vonakjeevanantham79
- On the Effect of the Orientation of Sheet Rolling Direction in Shot Peen FormingHochgeladen vonakjeevanantham79
- Difference Between Capstan Lathe and Turret LatheHochgeladen vonakjeevanantham79
- A High Efficiency Ku-Band Printed Monopulse ArrayHochgeladen vonakjeevanantham79
- A Broadband Planar Monopulse Antenna Array of C-BandHochgeladen vonakjeevanantham79
- A Practical X10 Protocol Implementation Over a Cellular Network Using SMSHochgeladen vonakjeevanantham79
- 1-s2.0-S1359835X97827066-mainHochgeladen vonacanerk

- 3-bit comparator2.pdfHochgeladen vonHappy Ds
- Berlitz Rebate FormHochgeladen vonafgan42
- Fast DormancyHochgeladen vonKarthik Jaganathan
- Wills Lifestyle PptHochgeladen vonsangram96
- 08Hochgeladen vonAnand Saraf
- etil vit C again..Hochgeladen vonvhardiana
- Air Law Examination Material (9)Hochgeladen vonAlessio Michele Strazzanti
- Wrong EnemyHochgeladen vonLiaquat Kiani
- AAC LLC Company ProfileHochgeladen vonGececo Consulting
- 21-25Hochgeladen vonRomielyn Macalinao
- KanbanHochgeladen vonMadhu
- ParkingHochgeladen vonSantiago Sarasti
- 4234r_98.pdfHochgeladen vonJM Viray
- Cs Ft400bxHochgeladen voncarlosorizaba
- CX-U HW Guide (2013-Rev7).pdfHochgeladen von2012near
- Faculty PMSHochgeladen vonAnoop Mohanty
- Eaton Internoren Watersorp Filter ElementsHochgeladen vonEaton Filtration
- Jared Barton Resume as of 1-16-18Hochgeladen vonJared Barton
- pubndrHochgeladen vonNicole Orbiso
- bit y barras de aceroHochgeladen vonElias Silva
- CASP LAB.pdfHochgeladen vonAmber Abbott
- Notice: Natural gas companies (Natural Gas Act): Fuel retention practicesHochgeladen vonJustia.com
- US Army: HumanRelHochgeladen vonUSA_DepartmentOfArmy
- Construction Sector Update Note[1]Hochgeladen vonddabholkar
- Motherboard Manual 7vt600 Rz(c) eHochgeladen vonАндрей Кульков
- 20140930061736_Topic 4 Aligning Service Design and StandardsHochgeladen vonHesanRajarani
- In re McCool, No. 2015-B-0284 (La. 6/30/2015)Hochgeladen vonNanine Nyman McCool
- Suicides in France: A Public Act? by Krystle WongHochgeladen vonKrystle Wong
- GPCDOC_X_cbe_24855_key_140002282412_1C93(Thermia B).pdfHochgeladen vonfadilah permata sari
- hrd at jswHochgeladen vonchanDRASUNILBLY

## Viel mehr als nur Dokumente.

Entdecken, was Scribd alles zu bieten hat, inklusive Bücher und Hörbücher von großen Verlagen.

Jederzeit kündbar.