Key Characteristics identification by global sensitivity analysis

  • Dana IdrissEmail author
  • Pierre Beaurepaire
  • Lazhar Homri
  • Nicolas Gayton
Original Paper


During the design stage of product manufacturing, the designers try to specify only the necessary critical dimensions or what is called “Key Characteristics”. Knowing that dealing with Key Characteristics is time consuming and costly, it is preferable to reduce their number and exclude the non-contributing parameters. Different strategies that are based on qualitative or quantitative approaches for the identification of these dimensions are followed by the companies. The common way is to define the critical functional requirements which are expressed in terms of dimensions. When the functional requirements are set as critical, all the involved dimensions are labelled as Key Characteristics. However they do not have the same importance and need to be classified between contributing and non-contributing parameters. There is not a quantitative method that serves for the identification of Key Characteristics in the critical functional requirements. This paper suggests a numerical methodology which can be a step forward to a better ranking of the Key Characteristics. It is based on the global sensitivity analysis and more precisely on Sobol’ approach. The sensitivity of the Non Conformity Rate corresponding to the production of the product is measured with respect to the variable parameters characterizing the dimensions. The method is applied, first on a simple two-part example, then on a system having a linearised functional requirement and finally on a system with two non-linear functional requirements. The results show the main effects of the dimensions in addition to their interactions. Consequently it is possible to prioritize some and neglect the effect of the others and classify them respectively as Key Characteristics or not.


Key Characteristics Tolerance Analysis Global Sensitivity Analysis Sobol’ indices 



The authors would like to acknowledge the Fonds Unique Interministriel for funding this work and the partners of AHTOLAnd project for their helpful comments and support. They are also grateful to Jean Yves Dantan, from ENSAM Metz, Laurent Gauvrit, from RADIALL, Sebastien Jallet, Lionel Cros and Pascal Vacher, from Valeo WS, Pierre-Alain Rance, from Mecamaster, for their helpful discussions and comments.


  1. 1.
    Khodaygan, S.: An interactive method for computer-aided optimal process tolerance design based on automated decision making. Int. J. Interact. Des. Manuf. 13(1), 349–364 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fischer, Xavier, Daidie, Alain, Eynard, Benoit, Paredes, Manuel (eds.): Research in Interactive Design: Mechanics, Design Engineering and Advanced Manufacturing, vol. 4. Springer, New York (2012)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ibrahim, Ilham H., Chassapis, Constantin: An interactive variation risk management environment to assess the risk of manufacturing variations. Int. J. Interact. Des. Manuf. 11(3), 597–608 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Thornton, Anna C.: Variation Risk Management. Wiley, Hoboken (2004)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Boeing Commercial Airplane Group. D-9000-1-Advanced Quality System Tools. The Boing Company, Seattle, WA, USA (1998)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Reliability Analysis Center: Failure mode, effects, and criticality analysis. Microelectron. Reliab. 7(3), 268 (1968)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Van Hoecke, A.: Hierarchization of characteristics applied to the component approval strategy. Procedia CIRP 10, 238–250 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Thornton, Anna C.: Mathematical framework for the key characteristic process. Res. Eng. Des. Theory Appl. Concurr. Eng. 11(3), 145–157 (1999)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dantan, J.Y., Hassan, A., Etienne, A., Siadat, A., Martin, P.: Information modeling for variation management during the product and manufacturing process design. Int. J. Interact. Des. Manuf. (IJIDeM) 2(2), 107–118 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Han, Xin, Li, Rong, Wang, Jian, Qin, Shengfeng, Ding, Guofu: Identification of key design characteristics for complex product adaptive design. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 95(1–4), 1215–1231 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Stuppy, J., Meerkamm, H.: Tolerance analysis of a crank mechanism by taking into account different kinds of deviation. In: Giordano M., Villeneuve F., Mathieu L., (eds.) Proceedings of the 11th CIRP International Conference on Computer Aided Tolerancing, Annecy (2009)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ledoux, Yann, Teissandier, Denis: Tolerance analysis of a product coupling geometric and architectural specifications in a probabilistic approach. Res. Eng. Des. 24(3), 297–311 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Eifler, T., Mathias, J., Roland, E., Hermann, K., Herbert, B., Bohn, A.: Evaluation of solution variants in conceptual design by means of adequate sensitivity indices. Dispositions in Teacher Education: A Global Perspective, (August), pp. 199–209 (2011)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ziegler, Philipp, Wartzack, Sandro: A statistical method to identify main contributing tolerances in assemblability studies based on convex hull techniques. J. Zhejiang Univ. Sci. A 16(5), 361–370 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Beaucaire, P., Gayton, N., Duc, E., Dantan, J.Y.: Statistical tolerance analysis of a mechanism with gaps based on system reliability methods. Procedia CIRP 10(12), 2–8 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dantan, J.-Y., Gayton, N., Etienne, A., Qureshi, A.J.: Mathematical issues in mechanical tolerance analysis To cite this version : HAL Id : hal-00756539. (2012)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Montgomery, D.C.: Introduction to Statistical Quality Control. Wiley, Hoboken (2009)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Srinivasan, V.: ISO Deliberates Statistical Tolerancing, pp. 77–87. Springer, Boston (1998)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Saltelli, Andrea, Ratto, Marco, Tarantola, Stefano, Campolongo, Francesca: Sensitivity analysis practices: strategies for model-based inference. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 91(10–11), 1109–1125 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Borgonovo, Emanuele, Plischke, Elmar: Sensitivity analysis: a review of recent advances. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 248(3), 869–887 (2016)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Iooss, B., Lemaître, P., Iooss, B., Lemaître, P.: A review on global sensitivity analysis methods. In: Meloni, C., Dellino, G. (eds.) Uncertainty Management in Simulation- Optimization of Complex Systems: Algorithms and Applications. Springer, New York (2015)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Saltelli, Andrea, Annoni, Paola, Azzini, Ivano, Campolongo, Francesca, Ratto, Marco, Tarantola, Stefano: Variance based sensitivity analysis of model output. Design and estimator for the total sensitivity index. Comput. Phys. Commun. 181(2), 259–270 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Borgonovo, Emanuele, Castaings, William, Tarantola, Stefano: Moment independent importance measures: new results and analytical test cases. Risk Anal. 31(3), 404–428 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pianosi, Francesca, Wagener, Thorsten: A simple and efficient method for global sensitivity analysis based on cumulative distribution functions. Environ. Model. Softw. 67, 1–11 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sobol, I.M.: Global sensitivity indices for nonlinear mathematical models and their Monte Carlo estimates. Math. Comput. Simul. 55(1), 271–280 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kucherenko, S., Song, S.: Different numerical estimators for main effect global sensitivity indices. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 165(February), 222–238 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pillet, Maurice: Inertial tolerancing. TQM Mag. 16(3), 202–209 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mansoor, E.M.: The application of probability to tolerances used in engineering designs. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. 178.1(1), 28–51 (1963)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Cukier, R.I., Fortuin, C.M., Shuler, K.E., Petschek, A.G., Schaibly, J.H.: Study of the sensitivity of coupled reaction systems to uncertainties in rate coefficients. I Theory. J. Chem. Phys. 59(8), 3873–3878 (1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sobol, I.M.: Sensitivity analysis for nonlinear mathematical models. Math. Model. Comput. Exp 1(4), 407–414 (1993)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Efron, B., Stein, C.: The Jackknife estimate of variance. Ann. Stat. 9(3), 586–596 (1981)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Homma, T., Saltelli, Andrea: Importance measures in global sensitivity analysis of nonlinear models. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 52, 1–17 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Göhler, Simon Moritz, Eifler, Tobias, Howard, Thomas J.: Robustness metrics: consolidating the multiple approaches to quantify robustness. J. Mech. Des. 138(11), 111407 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag France SAS, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dana Idriss
    • 1
    Email author
  • Pierre Beaurepaire
    • 1
  • Lazhar Homri
    • 2
  • Nicolas Gayton
    • 1
  1. 1.CNRS, SIGMA Clermont, Institut PascalUniversité Clermont AuvergneClermontFerrandFrance
  2. 2.LCFC, Arts et Mtiers ParisTech, ENSAMUniversité de LorraineMetz Cedex 3France

Personalised recommendations