Calculation of virtual and resultant parts for variational assembly analysis
Abstract
Usually, the design of mechanisms and assemblies uses the perfect model of the part. This type of model can be used within a software application to simulate and to verify the kinematics and dynamic behavior of such mechanisms. However, the analysis of the manufacturing uncertainties is also necessary to control the sensitivity and robustness of the mechanism assembly. To take into account these uncertainties, the designer deals with a class of interchangeable and functionally equivalent parts. When specifying tolerances, he essentially defines the authorized variations of the envelope of the parts and a number of classes can represent the various domains of acceptance of the parts. Since we need to take into account the infinite number of parts allowed by the variational class, the analysis of variational assembly is a hard task. In this paper, an extension of our previous work to calculate the virtual and resultant parts is proposed. The proposed method takes into account the datum chaining in the toleranced part. A kinematics model and robotic parameterisation is used to simulate the possible “motion” of the tolerance zone, allowed by MMC and LMC modifiers. Thus, the analysis of the infinite number of parts is reduced to analyse only two parts for each variational class. The analysis of the Jacobian matrix of the mechanism effectively generates the intersection and the union of all the boundaries of the features of the part. The paper presents also a significant application of this approach.
Keywords
Assembly analysis maximum material part virtual part tolerance analysis.Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
- [Bennis et al., 1999]Bennis F., Pino L. and Fortin C., “Analysis of positional tolerance based on the assembly virtual state”. Proceeding of the 6th CIRP Seminar on Computer-Aided Tolerancing, University of Twente, The Netherlands, pp. 415–424, 1999.Google Scholar
- [Pairel 1995]Pairel E., “Métrologie fonctionnelle par calibre virtuel sur machine à mesurer tridimensionnelle”. Thesis of the Université de Savoie. December 1995.Google Scholar
- [Parratt, 1994]Parratt S. W., “A theory of one-dimensional tolerancing for assembly”. PhD Thesis of Cornell University. May 1994.Google Scholar
- Pino 2000] Pino L., “Modélisation et analyse cinématique des tolérances géométriques pourGoogle Scholar
- l’assemblage de système mécaniques”. Thesis of the Université de Nantes. January 2000.Google Scholar
- Requicha, 1992]Requicha A. A. G. and Whalen T. W., “Representation for assemblies”.Google Scholar
- Institute for robotics and intelligent systems. Report n°267, 1992.Google Scholar
- [Rivest, 1994]Rivest L., “Modélisation et analyse tridimensionnelle des tolérances dimensionnelles et géométriques”. Thèse de l’Université de Montréal, Ecole Polytechnique. 1994.Google Scholar
- [Robinson, 1997]Robinson D. M., “Geometric tolerancing for assembly with Maximum Material Parts”. Proceeding of the 5th CIRP Seminar on Computer Aided Tolerancing, Toronto, Canada. 1997.Google Scholar
- [Robinson, 1998]Robinson D. M., “Geometric tolerancing for assembly”. PhD Thesis of Cornell University. May 1998.Google Scholar
- [Srinivasan et al., 1989]Srinivasan V. et Jayaraman R., “Geometric tolerancing: II. Conditional tolerance”. IBM Journal of Research an Development, 33 (2) pp. 105–124, 1989.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Srinivasan 1993]Srinivasan V., “The Role of Sweeps in Tolerancing Semantics”. Manufacturing Review, 6(4) pp. 275–281, 1993.Google Scholar