Advertisement

A multiple objective framework for optimal asymmetric tolerance synthesis of mechanical assemblies with degrading components

  • S. KhodayganEmail author
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
  • 61 Downloads

Abstract

In order to produce the mechanical assemblies with the high quality, the finest functionality, and the low cost, the optimal tolerance synthesis can be a useful tool in the design stage. The degradation of components due to some operational or environmental factors (such as the thermal cycling, the mechanical deformation, and the wear) can lead to dimensional variations in components and fall-off of the functionality of the product. In addition, different manners of the degradation on the internal and external dimensions can cause asymmetric deviations in the dimensions. On the other hand, the effect of degradation on the product quality has not been considered in most researches. In this paper, a new multi-objective framework is proposed for optimal asymmetric tolerance synthesis of mechanical assemblies with degrading components. In this method, the optimal tolerances are allocated based on ensuring the fulfillment of the product’s functional requirements, maximizing the product quality, and minimizing the total cost over the lifetime of the product. To incorporate the degradation effect into the loss function concept, the present worth of the expected quality loss (PWL) is formulated in terms of asymmetric tolerances. Accordingly, the functional process capability and manufacturing cost are developed based on asymmetric tolerances and the degradation effects. In order to extract Pareto fronts of optimal solutions, the elitist Non-dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm II as an evolutionary generating methodology is utilized. In solving multi-criteria tolerance synthesis problem by a generating method, selecting the best tolerances from the obtained optimal Pareto solutions is a significant challenge. In this paper, to find the best asymmetric tolerances from Pareto solutions, a combined Shannon’s entropy-based TOPSIS algorithm is used. Finally, a bi-directional non-back drivable roller clutch assembly as an industrial case study is considered to illustrate the efficiency of the proposed method, and the obtained results are compared and discussed for verification.

Keywords

Asymmetric tolerance synthesis Multi-objective optimization Degradation effect Shannon’s entropy-based TOPSIS 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Huang MF, Zhong YR, Xu ZG (2005) Concurrent process tolerance design based on minimum product manufacturing cost and quality loss. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 25(7):714–722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chase KW, Greenwood WH, Loosli BG, Hauglund LF (1990) Least cost tolerance allocation for mechanical assemblies with automated process selection. Manuf Rev 3(1):49–59Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chase KW (1999) Minimum cost tolerance allocation. Department of Mech. Engg., Bringham Young University, ADCATS Report, (99–5)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hsieh KL (2006) The study of cost-tolerance model by incorporating process capability index into product lifecycle cost. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 28(5–6):638–642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sanz-Lobera A, Sebastián MA, Pérez JM (2010) New cost–tolerance model for mechanical part design. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 51(5–8):421–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Choi HGR, Park MH, Salisbury E (2000) Optimal tolerance allocation with loss functions. J Manuf Sci Eng 122(3):529–535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chou CY, Chang CL (2001) Minimum-loss assembly tolerance allocation by considering product degradation and time value of money. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 17(2):139–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Moskowitz H, Plante R, Duffy J (2001) Multivariate tolerance design using quality loss. IIE Trans 33(6):437–448Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chou CY, Chen CH (2001) On the present worth of multivariate quality loss. Int J Prod Econ 70(3):279–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Prabhaharan G, Asokan P, Rajendran S (2005) Sensitivity-based conceptual design and tolerance allocation using the continuous ants colony algorithm (CACO). Int J Adv Manuf Technol 25(5–6):516–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wang Y, Zhai WJ, Yang LP, Wu WG, Ji SP, Ma YL (2007) Study on the tolerance allocation optimization by fuzzy-set weight-center evaluation method. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 33(3–4):317–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Movahhedy MR, Khodaygan S (2007) Tolerance analysis of mechanical assemblies with asymmetric tolerances (No. 2007-01-0407). SAE Technical PaperGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mao Huang Y, Shiau CS (2009) An optimal tolerance allocation model for assemblies with consideration of manufacturing cost, quality loss and reliability index. Assem Autom 29(3):220–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Janakiraman V, Saravanan R (2010) Concurrent optimization of machining process parameters and tolerance allocation. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 51(1–4):357–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Khodaygan S, Movahhedy MR (2011) Tolerance analysis of assemblies with asymmetric tolerances by unified uncertainty–accumulation model based on fuzzy logic. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 53(5–8):777–788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Khodaygan S, Movahhedy MR, Fomani MS (2010) Tolerance analysis of mechanical assemblies based on modal interval and small degrees of freedom (MI-SDOF) concepts. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 50(9–12):1041–1061CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Khodaygan S, Movahhedy MR, Foumani MS (2011) Fuzzy-small degrees of freedom representation of linear and angular variations in mechanical assemblies for tolerance analysis and allocation. Mech Mach Theory 46(4):558–573CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Peng H (2012) Concurrent tolerancing for design and manufacturing based on the present worth of quality loss. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 59(9–12):929–937CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Walter M, Wartzack S (2013) Statistical tolerance-cost-optimization of systems in motion taking into account different kinds of deviations. In: Smart Product Engineering. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 705–714Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Khodaygan S, Movahhedy MR (2012) Fuzzy-based analysis of process capability for assembly quality assessment in mechanical assemblies. Int J Prod Res 50(12):3395–3415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Khodaygan S, Movahhedy MR (2014) Functional process capability analysis in mechanical systems. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 73(5–8):899–912CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Khodaygan, S., & Movahhedy, M. R. (2014). Robust tolerance design of mechanical assemblies using a multi-objective optimization formulation (No. 2014-01-0378). SAE Technical PaperGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Khodaygan S, Movahhedy MR (2016) A comprehensive fuzzy feature-based method for worst case and statistical tolerance analysis. Int J Comput Integr Manuf 29(1):42–63Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Walter MSJ, Spruegel TC, Wartzack S (2015) Least cost tolerance allocation for systems with time-variant deviations. Procedia Cirp 27:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wu Z, Liu T, Gao Z, Cao Y, Yang J (2016) Tolerance design with multiple resource suppliers on cloud-manufacturing platform. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 84(1–4):335–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Liu S, Jin Q, Dong Y, Wang Y (2017) A closed-form method for statistical tolerance allocation considering quality loss and different kinds of manufacturing cost functions. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 93(5–8):2801–2811CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Natarajan J, Sivasankaran R, Kanagaraj G (2018) Bi-objective optimization for tolerance allocation in an interchangeable assembly under diverse manufacturing environment. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 95(5–8):1571–1595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Khodaygan S (2018) An interactive method for computer-aided optimal process tolerance design based on automated decision making. Int J Interact Des Manuf.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12008-018-0462-z
  29. 29.
    Teran A, Pratt DB, Case KE (1996) Present worth of external quality losses for symmetric nominal-is-better quality characteristics. Eng Econ 42(1):39–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Pearn WL, Kotz S (2006). Encyclopedia and handbook of process capability indices: a comprehensive exposition of quality control measures, series in quality, reliability & engineering statistic, vol 12. World Scientific, USAGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Greenwood WH, Chase KW (1990) Root sum squares tolerance analysis with nonlinear problems. J Eng Ind 112(4):382–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Deb K, Pratap A, Agarwal S, Meyarivan TAMT (2002) A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 6(2):182–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Yoon KP, Hwang CL (1995) Multiple attribute decision making: an introduction (Vol. 104). Sage publications, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Shannon CE (2001) A mathematical theory of communication. ACM SIGMOBILE Mob Commun Communic Rev 5(1):3–55MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Deng H, Yeh CH, Willis RJ (2000) Inter-company comparison using modified TOPSIS with objective weights. Comput Oper Res 27(10):963–973CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Controzzi M, Luciani LB, Montagnani F (2017) Unified approach to bi-directional non-back drivable roller clutch design. Mech Mach Theory 116:433–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringSharif University of TechnologyTehranIran

Personalised recommendations