Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T09:45:17.823Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A CONCEPTUAL MODEL COMBINATION FOR THE UNIFICATION OF DESIGN AND TOLERANCING IN ROBUST DESIGN

Part of: Design Support Tools

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2020

P. Grauberger ,
S. Goetz ,
B. Schleich ,
T. Gwosch ,
S. Matthiesen  and
S. Wartzack
P. Grauberger*
Affiliation:
Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Germany
S. Goetz
Affiliation:
Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Germany
B. Schleich
Affiliation:
Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Germany
T. Gwosch
Affiliation:
Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Germany
S. Matthiesen
Affiliation:
Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Germany
S. Wartzack
Affiliation:
Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Germany
*
*patric.grauberger@kit.edu

Abstract

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

In design engineering, the early consideration of tolerance chains contributes to robust design. For this, a link of design and tolerancing domains is essential. This paper presents a combination of the graph-based tolerancing approach and the Contact and Channel approach to link these domains. The combined approach is applied at a coinage machine. Here it provides detailed insights into state-dependent relations of embodiment and functions, which can improve robustness evaluation of the concept. This approach shows a possibility to bridge the gap between design and tolerancing domains.

Keywords

engineering designmodellingtolerance representation and managementrobust design
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society: DESIGN Conference , Volume 1 , May 2020 , pp. 157 - 166
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

Albers, A. and Wintergerst, E. (2014), “The Contact and Channel Approach (C&C²-A): relating a system's physical structure to its functionality”, In: Chakrabarti, A. and Blessing, L.T.M. (Eds.), An Anthology of Theories and Models of Design: Philosophy, Approaches and Empirical Explorations, Springer, pp. 151–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andreasen, M.M., Hansen, C.T. and Cash, P. (2015), Conceptual Design: Interpretations, Mindset and Models, Springer International Publishing, Cham, Switzerland.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ballu, A. et al. (2006), “A new Design Method based on Functions and Tolerance Specifications for Product Modelling”, CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 139–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ballu, A. and Mathieu, L. (1999), “Choice of functional specifications using graphs within the framework of education”, In: van Houten, F. and Kals, H. (Eds.), Global Consistency of Tolerances, Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp. 197–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baysal, M.M. and Roy, U. (2014), “Consistency of Assembly Related Product Information: Part 1—Representation”, in Volume 1B: 34th Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, Buffalo, New York, USA, American Society of Mechanical Engineers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bordegoni, M. and Rizzi, C. (2011), Innovation in Product Design, Springer London, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dantan, J.-Y., Anwer, N. and Mathieu, L. (2003), “Integrated Tolerancing Process for conceptual design”, CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 135–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, J.K. (2007), Models for Computer Aided Tolerancing in Design and Manufacturing: Selected Conference Papers from the 9th CIRP International Seminar on Computer-Aided Tolerancing, Tempe, Arizona, USA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ehrlenspiel, K. and Meerkamm, H. (2017), Integrierte Produktentwicklung: Denkabläufe, Methodeneinsatz, Zusammenarbeit, 6., vollständig überarbeitete und erweiterte Auflage, Carl Hanser Verlag GmbH & Co. KG, München, Wien.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goetz, S., Schleich, B. and Wartzack, S. (2018), “A new approach to first tolerance evaluations in the conceptual design stage based on tolerance graphs”, Procedia CIRP, Vol. 75, pp. 167–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grauberger, P. et al. (2019), “The contact and channel approach – 20 years of application experience in product engineering”, Journal of Engineering Design. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544828.2019.1699035.Google Scholar
Hu, J. and Peng, Y. (2011), “Development of a function oriented computer aided tolerancing (FOCAT) system”, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture, Vol. 225 No. 7, pp. 1189–1203.Google Scholar
Islam, M.N. (2004), “Functional dimensioning and tolerancing software for concurrent engineering applications”, Computers in Industry, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 169–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jérome, D. and Denis, T. (2008), “A tolerancing framework to support geometric specifications traceability”, The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 36 No. 9-10, pp. 894–907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jugulum, R. and Frey, D.D. (2007), “Toward a taxonomy of concept designs for improved robustness”, Journal of Engineering Design, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 139–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ledoux, Y. and Teissandier, D. (2013), “Tolerance analysis of a product coupling geometric and architectural specifications in a probabilistic approach”, Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 297–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malmiry, R.B. et al. (2016), “A product functional modelling approach based on the energy flow by using characteristics-properties modelling”, Journal of Engineering Design, Vol. 27 No. 12, pp. 817–843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthiesen, S. (2002), Ein Beitrag zur Basisdefinition des Elementmodells “Wirkflächenpaare & Leitstützstrukturen” zum Zusammenhang von Funktion und Gestalt technischer Systeme, Dissertation, Forschungsberichte des Instituts für Maschinenkonstruktionslehre und Kraftfahrzeugbau, Universität Karlsruhe (TH), Karlsruhe.Google Scholar
Matthiesen, S. (2011), “Seven Years of Product Development in Industry - Experiences and Requirements for Supporting Engineering Design with ‘Thinking Tools’”, in 18th International Conference on Engineering Design, Copenhagen, Denmark.Google Scholar
Matthiesen, S. et al. (2019a), “Product Models in Embodiment Design - An Investigation of Challenges and Opportunities”, Springer Nature Applied Sciences, No. 1, p. 1078.Google Scholar
Matthiesen, S., Grauberger, P. and Schrempp, L. (2019b), “Extended Sequence Modelling in Design Engineering – Gaining and Documenting Knowledge about Embodiment Function Relations with the C&C²-Approach”, in International Conference on Engineering Design, Delft, The Netherlands.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthiesen, S. et al. (2018), “From Reality to Simulation – Using the C&C²-Approach to Support the Modelling of a Dynamic System”, Procedia CIRP, Vol. 70, pp. 475–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pahl, G. et al. (2007), Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach, Third Edition, Springer London, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schleich, B. et al. (2018), “Geometrical Variations Management 4.0: towards next Generation Geometry Assurance”, Procedia CIRP, Vol. 75, pp. 3–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Srinivasan, R.S., Wood, K.L. and McAdams, D.A. (1996), “Functional tolerancing: A design for manufacturing methodology”, Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 99–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stachowiak, H. (1973), Allgemeine Modelltheorie, Springer, Wien, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suh, N.P. (1998), “Axiomatic Design Theory for Systems”, Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 189–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taguchi, G., Chowdhury, S. and Wu, Y. (2004), Taguchi's Quality Engineering Handbook, John Wiley & Sons, Inc, Hoboken, NJ, USA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thornton, A.C. (2004), Variation risk management: Focusing quality improvements in product development and production, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, USA.Google Scholar
Walden, D.D. et al. (Eds.). (2015), Systems engineering handbook: A guide for system life cycle processes and activities, INCOSE-TP-2003-002-04, 2015, 4. edition, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, USA.Google Scholar
Walter, M.S.J., Spruegel, T.C. and Wartzack, S. (2015), “Least Cost Tolerance Allocation for Systems with Time-variant Deviations”, Procedia CIRP, Vol. 27, pp. 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, C. (2014), “Modelling Products and Product Development Based on Characteristics and Properties”, In: Chakrabarti, A. and Blessing, L.T.M. (Eds.), An Anthology of Theories and Models of Design: Philosophy, Approaches and Empirical Explorations, Springer London, London, pp. 327–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar