Advertisement

Robust Tolerance Design in Structural Dynamics

  • Chaoping Zang
  • Jun Yang
  • M. I. Friswell
Conference paper
Part of the Conference Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Mechanics Series book series (CPSEMS)

Abstract

Tolerance is a major source of uncertainty and contributes significantly to the variation of dynamic responses, worsening the repeatability of assembled products. A systematic tolerance design strategy is required to control this kind of variation, and an approach for tolerance design based on robust design theory is proposed in this paper with a focus on the optimization of the dynamic response. The approach is based on Taguchi’s method, and performed by the following steps: (1) define the input and output parameters for the problem; (2) determine the effects of the control factors on the dynamic responses of interest; (3) identify factors to be adjusted and transform the problem into a multi-objective optimization. A benchmark tolerance design of a joint assembly of aero engine casings is used to verify the feasibility of the approach.

Keywords

Dynamics Robust design Tolerance design Taguchi’s method Multi-objective optimization 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The financial support of the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Project No. 51175244), Research Fund for the Doctoral Program of Higher Education of China (Project No. 20093218110008) and the Priority Academic Program Development of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions (PAPD) are gratefully acknowledged. J. Yang also acknowledges the support of Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities of China and Funds of the Graduate Innovation Center in NUAA (Project No. kfjj120104).

References

  1. 1.
    Rout BK, Mittal RK (2006) Tolerance design of robot parameters using Taguchi method. Mech Syst Signal Process 20:1832–1852CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fowlkes WY, Creveling CM (1995) Engineering methods for robust product design: using Taguchi methods in technology and product development. Addision-Wesley, ReadingGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zang C, Friswell MI, Mottershead JE (2005) A review of robust optimal design and its application in dynamics. Comput Struct 83:315–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Marano GC, Greco R (2010) A comparison between different robust optimum design approaches: application to tuned mass dampers. Probab Eng Mech 25:108–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Marano GC, Sgobba S (2008) Robust optimum design of tuned mass dampers devices in random vibrations mitigation. J Sound Vib 313:472–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Marano GC, Quaranta G (2010) Fuzzy-entropy based robust optimization criteria for tuned mass dampers. Earthq Eng Eng Vib 9:285–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Daneshvar N, Khataee AR (2007) Biodegradation of dye solution containing Malachite Green: optimization of effective parameters using Taguchi method. J Hazard Mater 143:214–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ghani JA, Choudhury IA (2004) Application of Taguchi method in the optimization of end milling parameters. J Mater Process Technol 145:84–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fusayasu H, Yokota Y (1998) Optimization of a magnetic actuator with Taguchi method and multivariate analysis method. IEEE Trans Magn 34(4):2138–2140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chang HH (2008) A data mining approach to dynamic multiple responses in Taguchi experimental design. Expert Syst Appl 35:1095–1103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mace BR, Vandepitte D, Lardeur P (2011) Editorial: uncertainty in structural dynamics. Finite Elem Anal Des 47:1–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Creveling CM (1996) Tolerance design – a handbook for developing optimal specifications. Addison Wesley Longman, ReadingGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Das I, Dennis JE (1997) A closer look at drawbacks of minimizing weighted sums of objectives for Pareto set generation in multicriteria optimization problems. Struct Optim 14:63–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Goldberg R (2005) Evolutionary multiobjective optimization. Springer, LondonMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zitzler E, Thiele L (1999) Multiobjective evolutionary algorithms: a comparative case study and the strength Pareto approach. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 3(4):257–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Srinivas N, Deb K (1994) Multi-objective optimization using non-dominated sorting in genetic algorithms. J Evol Comput 2(3):221–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society for Experimental Mechanics, Inc. 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Energy and Power EngineeringNanjing University of Aeronautics and AstronauticsNanjingChina
  2. 2.College of EngineeringSwansea UniversitySwanseaUK

Personalised recommendations