Information modeling for variation management during the product and manufacturing process design

  • J. Y. Dantan
  • A. Hassan
  • A. Etienne
  • A. Siadat
  • P. Martin
Original Paper
First Online:
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:

Abstract

For car and aircraft industries, Design for Manufacturing, Robust Design and Conceptual Process Planning are a key activity to evaluate manufacturability, to improve design in the product development stage. Moreover, the inherent imperfections of manufacturing processes and resources (Manufacturing Process Key Characteristics, MPKCs) involve a degradation of functional part or product characteristics (Part / Product Key Characteristics, PKCs). The management of Key Characteristics (KCs) has become an important issue in product and process design and concurrent engineering. In order to ensure a certain level of quality, to assess the manufacturability, to select resources and to improve design, it is important to know the causality between MPKCs and PKCs. Effective reuse of enterprise knowledge about causality is a key strategic component of integrated product and processes development. The goal here is to put the management of KCs in a concurrent engineering context. There is an important question that would need to be looked upon: How to formalize and to capitalize the causality between MPKCs and PKCs? Therefore, to formalize and to capitalize this causality, we describe an information model.

Keywords

Information model Variation management Key characteristics Design for manufacturing variation 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Nederbragt, W., Kaing, S., Sriram, R., Feng, S.: Incorporating process planning into conceptual desig. In: Proceedings of the 1999 ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences, USA (1999)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Allen, R., Feng, S., Kaing, S., Sriram, R., Zhang, Y., Nederbragt, W.: The nist design/process planning integration project. In: Proceedings of AI and Manufacturing Research Planning Workshop, pp. 135–139, Albuquerque, (1998)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zhang, Y., Feng, S.: Conceptual process planning—a definition and functional decomposition. In: Proceedings of the 1999 International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition, pp. 97–106 (1999)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Taguchi G. (1993). Taguchi on Robust Technology Development: Bringing Quality Engineering Upstream. ASME Press, New York Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Thornton A.C. (1999). A mathematical framework for the key characteristics process. Res. Eng. Des. 11: 145–147 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Boeing commercial airplane group, key characteristics: The first step to advanced quality. Technical Report Report N D6-55596, Tennessee (1992)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Islam M.N. (2004). Functional dimensioning and tolerancing software for concurrent engineering applications. Comput. Ind. 54: 169–190 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Thornton, A.C, Tata, M.: Process capability database usage in industry: Myth vs. reality. In: Proceedings of the ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences, Las Vegas, September 12–15 (1999)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Srinivasan, V.: On interpreting key characteristics. In: Proceedings of the ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences (1999)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Krizan S., Ishil K. and Yu J. (1993). Computer-aided design for manufacturing process selection. J. Intell. Manuf. 4: 199–208 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Huang M.L., Li R.K. and Chen K.S. (2001). Process capability analysis for an entire product. Int. J. Product. Res. 39: 4077–4087 MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Otto K., Frey D.: The process capability matrix: A tool for manufacturing variation analysis at the system level. In: Proceedings of ASME Design Theory and Methodology Conference, CA, USA (1996)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Thornton, A.C, Kern, D.: Structured indexing of process capability data. In: Proceedings of DETC’02 ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, Montreal (2002)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Louati H. and Anselmetti B. (2005). Generation of manufacturing tolerancing with iso standards. Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf. 45: 1124–1131 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Etienne, A., Dantan, J.Y., Siadat, A., Martin, P.: Process plan selection integrating tolerance allocation by genetic algorithm and constraints satisfaction algorithm. In: Proceedings of the fifth CIRP International Seminar on Intelligent Computation in Manufacturing Engineering, pages 513–517, Ischia, Italy, 25–28 July (2006)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jain S.C., Jain P.K. and Sing P.K. (2005). Advanced optimal tolerance design of mechanical assemblies with interrelated dimension chains and process precision limits. Comput. Ind. 56: 179–194 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Legoff O., Landon Y. and Villeneuve F. (2001). Tolerancing for manufacturing: a three dimensional model. Int. J. Product. Res. 39(8): 1625–1648 MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    De Meter E. and Bhat V. (2000). An analysis of the effect of datum establishment methods on the geometric errors of machined features. Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf. 40(13): 1951–1975 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Turner J.U. and Guilford J. (1993). Advanced tolerance analysis and synthesis for geometric tolerances.. Int. Forum Dimens. Tolerancing Metrol. CRTD 27: 187–198 Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chandra M.J. and Kharoufeh J.P. (2002). Statistical tolerance analysis for non-normal or correlated normal component characteristics. Int. J. Product. Res. 40(2): 337–352 MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Johannesson H. and Soderberg R. (1999). Tolerance chain detection by geometrical constraint based coupling analysis. J. Eng. Des. 10(1): 5–24 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mejbri H., Mawussi K. and Anselmetti B. (2003). Coupling experimental design-digital simulation of junctions for the development of complex tolerance chains. Comput. Ind. 50: 277–292 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Dantan, J.Y., Thiebault, F., Ballu, A., Bourdet, P.: Functional and manufacturing specifications. Integrated Design and Manufacturing in Mechanical Engineering (ISBN 1-4020-0979-8): 53–68 (2002)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jeang A. (1999). Optimal tolerance design by response surface methodology. Int. J. Product. Res. 37(14): 3275–3288 MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Turner J.U. and Nigam S.D. (1995). Review of statistical approaches to tolerance analysis. Comput. Aided Des. 27(1): 6–15 MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Thornton A.C. (1999). Variation risk management using modeling and simulation. J. Mech. Des. 121: 297–304 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Thornton, A.C.: Variation Risk Management. ISBN 0-471-44679-3. 2004Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Whitney, D.E.: Mechanical Assemblies: Their Design, Manufacture, and Role in Product Development. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2004)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Dantan J.Y., Siadat A., D’Acunto A., Martin P. and Etienne A. (2004). Data model for capp systems to manage key characteristics variations. Mach. Eng. 4(1–2): 107–115 Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Suh N.P. (1990). The Principles of Design. Oxford University Press, New York Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Mathieu, L., Dantan, J.Y., Ballu, A.: Global view of geometrical specifications. 7th CIRP International Seminar on Computer-Aided Tolerancing, pp. 19–30 (2001)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Dantan, J.Y., Anwer, N., Mathieu, L.: Integrated tolerancing process for conceptual design. The Annals of CIRP 52, pp. 135–138 (2003)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Dufaure, J., Teissandier, D., Debarbouille, G.: Product model dedicated to collaborative design: a geometric tolerancing point of view. Proc. IDMME (2004)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Song, E., Feng, S.: Information modeling on conceptual process planning integrated with conceptual design. In: Proceedings of the 5th Design For Manufacturing Conference in the 2000, ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences, USA (2000)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Pramanik N., Sudarsan R., Sriram R.D., Lyons K.W., Roy U. (2001). Function to form mapping: model, representation and application in design synthesis. Comput. Aided Des. 33: 699–719 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Elmaraghy, H.: Evolution and future perspectives of capp. The Annals of the CIRP 42, pp. 739–751 (1993)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Etienne A., Dantan J.Y., Siadat A. and Martin P. (2006). An improved approach for automatic process plan generation of complex borings. Comput. Ind. 57: 663–675 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Weill R.D., Halevi G. (1995) Principles of Process Planning - A logical approach. Chapman and Hall Inc., London (1995)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Zhang H. (1997). Advanced Tolerancing Techniques. New York Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Jeang A. (2003). Robust computer-aided parameter and tolerance determination for an electronic circuit design. Int. J. Product. Res. 41(5): 883–895 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Pasupathy T.M.K., Whilhem R. and Zhao X. (2006). Modeling and representation of geometric tolerances information in integrated measurement processes. Comput. Ind. 57: 319–330 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Verlag France 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Y. Dantan
    • 1
  • A. Hassan
    • 1
    • 2
  • A. Etienne
    • 1
    • 3
  • A. Siadat
    • 1
  • P. Martin
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratoire de Génie Industriel et de Production Mécanique E.N.S.A.M. de MetzMETZ CedexFrance
  2. 2.Mechatronic Engineering DepartmentHigher Institute of Applied Sciences and Technology (HIAST)Barza, DamascusSyria
  3. 3.Laboratoire des Systèmes Mécaniques et d’Ingénierie SimultanéeUniversité de Technologie de Troyes (UTT)TroyesFrance

Personalised recommendations