CIRP Encyclopedia of Production Engineering

2014 Edition
| Editors: The International Academy for Production Engineering, Luc Laperrière, Gunther Reinhart

Tolerancing

  • Jean-Yves Dantan
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-20617-7_16688

Definition

This word has a double meaning:
  • Geometric dimensioning and tolerancing (GD&T) is a symbolic language used to specify the size, shape, orientation, and location of part features. GD&T is a concept widely used for specifying dimensions and tolerances of parts and subassemblies of a product according to their functional requirements.

  • Tolerancing is the set of activities which manage the tolerances during the product development.

Theory and Application

Why Tolerancing?

Where Do Tolerances Come from?

Due to the variations associated with manufacturing process, it is not possible to attain the theoretical dimensions in a repetitive manner; it is accepted that there will be a certain amount of variation in terms of manufacturing geometry and dimensions. It causes a degradation of characteristics of the product. In order to ensure the interchangeability(interchangeability of manufactured parts is a critical element of present-day production – mass production, mass customization,...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgement

Contributions from: Dr Alex BALLU, Dr. Alain ETIENNE, Dr. Nicolas GAYTON, Prof. Luc MATHIEU and Dr. Ahmed Jawad QURESHI. Several references originate from members of the French Group of Research on Tolerancing (GRT) representing different research laboratories. Support of ANR “AHTOLA” project (ANR-11- MONU-013).

References

  1. Ameta G, Davidson JK, Shah JJ (2007) Using tolerance-maps to generate frequency distributions of clearance and allocate tolerances for pin-hole assemblies. J Comput Inf Sci Eng 7(4):347–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anselmetti B, Chavanne R, Yang J-X, Anwer N (2010) Quick GPS: a new CAT system for single-part tolerancing. Comput Aided Des 42(9):768–780CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ballu A, Mathieu L (1999) Choice of functional specifications using graphs within the framework of education. In: van Houten F, Kals H (eds) Global consistency of tolerances. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 197–206, Proceedings of the 6th CIRP international seminar on computer-aided tolerancing, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands, 22–24 Mar 1999CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beaucaire P, Gayton N, Duc E, Lemaire M, Dantan J-Y (2012) Statistical tolerance analysis of a hyperstatic mechanism, using system reliability methods. Comput Ind Eng 63(4):1118–1127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bjorke O (1989) Computer-aided tolerancing, 2nd edn. ASME Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Bourdet P, Ballot É (1995) Geometric behavior laws for computer-aided tolerancing. In: Kimura F (ed) Computer-aided tolerancing. In: Proceedings of the 4th CIRP design seminar, The University of Tokyo, 56 Apr 1995, Tokyo, Japan, Part 3: modelling geometrical error, pp 119–131Google Scholar
  7. Chase KW, Parkinson AR (1991) A survey of research in the application of tolerance analysis to the design of mechanical assemblies. Res Eng Des 3(1):23–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clement A, Valade C, Rivière A (1996) The TTRSs: 13 oriented constraints for dimensioning, tolerancing and inspection. In: Proceedings of the advanced mathematical tools in metrology III conference, 25–28 Sept 1996, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  9. Desrochers A (2007) Geometrical variations management in a multi-disciplinary environment with the Jacobian-Torsor model. In: Davidson JK (ed) Models for computer aided tolerancing in design and manufacturing. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 75–84, Selected papers from the 9th CIRP international seminar on computer aided tolerancing, Tempe, Arizona, USA, 10–12 April 2005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Drake PJ (1999) Dimensioning and tolerancing handbook. McGraw Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Etienne A, Dantan J-Y, Siadat A, Martin P (2009) Activity-based tolerance allocation (ABTA) – driving tolerance synthesis by evaluating its global cost. Int J Prod Res 47(18):4971–4989CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Giordano M, Kataya B, Pairel E (2003) Tolerance analysis and synthesis by means of clearance and deviation spaces. In: Bourdet P, Mathieu L (eds) Geometric product specification an verification: integration of functionality. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 145–154, Selected conference papers of the 7th CIRP international seminar on computer-aided tolerancing, held at the EcoleNormaleSupérieure de Cachan, France, 24–25 April 2001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hong YS, Chang TC (2002) A comprehensive review of tolerancing research. Int J Prod Res 40(11):2425–2459CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. Humienny Z (2009) State of art in standardization in GPS area. CIRP J Manuf Sci Technol 2(1):1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. ISO/TS 17450-1 (2011). Geometrical product specifications (GPS) – general concepts – part 1: model for geometrical specification and verification. International Organization for Standardization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  16. Kimura F, Suzuki H, Sata T (1986) Variational product design by constraint propagation and satisfaction in product modelling. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol 35(1):75–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Laperrière L, Lafond P (1999) Modeling tolerances and dispersions of mechanical assemblies using virtual joints. In: Proceedings of the DETC99/DAC [Design engineering technical conferences/Design automation conference], Las Vegas, Nevada, 12–15 Sept 1999Google Scholar
  18. Lee J, Johnson GE (1993) Optimal tolerance allotment using a genetic algorithm and truncated Monte Carlo simulation. Comput Aided Des 25(9):601–611CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. Linares JM, Anthierens C, Sprauel JM (2002) Synthesis of tolerancing by functional group. J Manuf Syst 21(4):260–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lööf J, Hermansson T, Söderberg R (2005) An efficient solution to the discrete least-cost tolerance allocation problem with general loss functions. In: Davidson JK (ed) Models for computer aided tolerancing in design and manufacturing. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 115–124, Selected papers from the 9th CIRP international seminar on computer aided tolerancing, Tempe, Arizona, USA, 10–12 April 2005Google Scholar
  21. Loose J-P, Zhou S, Ceglarek D (2007) Kinematic analysis of dimensional variation propagation for multistage machining processes with general fixture layouts. IEEE Trans Autom Sci Eng 4(2):141–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mathieu L, Ballu A (2003) GEOSPELLING: a common language for specification and verification to express method uncertainty. In: Proceedings of 8th CIRP seminar on computer aided tolerancing, 28–29 Apr 2003, NCGoogle Scholar
  23. Morse EP, You X (2009) GapSpace multi-dimensional assembly analysis. In: Giordano M, Mathieu L, Villeneuve F (eds) Product lifecycle management: geometric variations. Wiley-ISTE, London, pp 273–298, From a CIRP seminar on computer aided tolerancing, Annecy, France, 2009Google Scholar
  24. Nassef AO, ElMaraghy HA (1997) Allocation of geometric tolerances: new criterion and methodology. CIRP Ann Manuf Technol 46(1):101–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nigam SD, Turner JU (1995) Review of statistical approaches to tolerance analysis. Comput Aided Des 27(1):6–15CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. Qureshi AJ, Dantan J-Y, Sabri V, Beaucaire P, Gayton N (2012) A statistical tolerance analysis approach for over-constrained mechanism based on optimization and Monte Carlo simulation. Comput Aided Des 44(2):132–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Roy U, Li B (1999) Representation and interpretation of geometrical tolerances for polyhedral objects. Part II: size, orientation and position tolerances. Comput Aided Des 31(4):273–285CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. Roy U, Pramanik N, Sudarsan R, Sriram RD, Lyons KW (2001) Function-to-form mapping: model, representation and application in design synthesis. Comput Aided Des 33(10):699–719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Salomons OW, JongePoerink HJ, van Slooten F, van Houten FJAM, Kals HJJ (1995) A tolerancing tool based on kinematic analogies. In: Proceedings of the 4th CIRP design seminar, The University of Tokyo, April 5–6, 1995, Tokyo, Japan, Part 1: functional tolerancing, pp. 47–70Google Scholar
  30. Salomons O, van Houten FJAM, Kals HJJ (1998) Current status of CAT systems. In: ElMaraghy HA (ed) Geometric design tolerancing: theories, standards and applications. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 438–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Samper S, Formosa F (2007) Form defects tolerancing by natural modes analysis. J Comput Inf Sci Eng 7(1):44–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Schmitt R, Behrens C (2007) A statistical method for analyses of cost- and risk optimal tolerance allocations based on assured input data.In: Weckenmann A (ed) Book of abstracts – 10th CIRP conference on computer aided tolerancing, specification and verification for assemblies: March 21st – 23rd, 2007 in Erlangen, Germany. Shaker, AachenGoogle Scholar
  33. Sellakh R, Rivière A, Chevassus N, Marguet B (2001) An assisted method for specifying ISO tolerances applied to structural assemblies. In: Bourdet P, Mathieu L (eds) Geometric product specification an verification: integration of functionality. Kluwer, Dordrecht, Selected conference papers of the 7th CIRP international seminar on computer-aided tolerancing, held at the EcoleNormaleSupérieure de Cachan, France, 24–25 Apr 2001Google Scholar
  34. Serré P, M’Henni F, Clément A (2010) A parametric approach to determine minimum clearance in overconstrained mechanisms. In: Giordano M, Mathieu L, Villeneuve F (eds) Product lifecycle management – geometric variations. Wiley-ISTE, London, pp 21–38Google Scholar
  35. Shen Z, Ameta G, Shah JJ, Davidson JK (2005) A comparative study of tolerance analysis methods. J Comput Inf Sci Eng 5(3):247–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Soderberg R, Johannesson H (1999) Tolerance chain detection by geometrical constraint based coupling analysis. J Eng Des 10(1):5–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Spotts MF (1995) Allocation of tolerances to minimize cost of assembly. J Eng Ind 95(3):762–764CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Srinivasan RS, Wood KL, McAdams DA (1996) Functional tolerancing: a design for manufacturing methodology. Res Eng Des 2:99–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Teissandier D, Delos V (2011) Algorithm to calculate the Minkowski sums of 3-polytopes based on normal fans. Comput Aided Des 43(12):1567–1576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tsai JC, Cheng KC (2005) Cost-effective tolerance allocation for machining processes, From the 9th CIRP international seminar on computer aided tolerancing, 10–12 Apr 2005, TempeGoogle Scholar
  41. Vignat F, Villeneuve F, KamaliNejad M (2010) Analysis of the deviations of a casting and machining process using a model of manufactured parts. CIRP J Manuf Sci Technol 2(3):198–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Villeneuve F, Mathieu L (eds) (2010) Geometric tolerancing of products. Wiley-ISTE, LondonGoogle Scholar
  43. Wang H, Roy U (2005) A graph-based method for mechanical product family modeling and functional tolerancing (Paper No.: DETC2005 – 85546) In: ASME 2005 international design engineering technical conferences and computers and information in engineering conference, vol 2: 31st design automation conference, parts A and B, Long Beach, 24–28 Sept 2005, pp 141–154Google Scholar
  44. Weill R, Clément A, Hocken R, Farmer LE, Gladman CA, Wirtz A, Bourdet P, Freckleton JE, Kunzmann H, Ham I, Trumpold H, Matthias E (1988) Tolerancing for function. CIRP Ann – Manuf Technol 37(2):603–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© CIRP 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ENSAMMetzFrance